Day After Every Revelation About the Biden Crime Family Trump’s Been Indicted. Every. Single. Time.

[SweetSue92]

I`m okay with splitting but don`t think that you`re getting your slaves back. Sorry.

OH! And farmers.

But hey, you get all the bureaucrats. So there's that.

 

[August West]

You get all the white liberal middle aged harpies who don't do much. And we get almost all the working class: by that I mean plumbers, electricians, construction workers, builders, other tradesmen.

Oh, and the military.

I love our odds. LOVE them.

We get prestigious universities and leave you with football colleges. Do you think that West Point will relocate to one of our old traitor slave states?

 

[SweetSue92]

We get prestigious universities and leave you with football colleges. Do you think that West Point will relocate to one of our old traitor slave states?

Mostly your "prestigious universities" are turning out people who can't DO anything. Can't fix things. Can't build things. Can't grow things, or hunt or fish.

But you know. They know all 5,684 pronouns.

Oh man. Best wishes.

 

[Godboy]

What do you want? You got a bunch of NothingBurger faux scandals on Biden.
On the other hand, the evidence against Trump seems pretty solid.

So, there's that.

What evidence is solid against Trump? Name the crime and your evidence to prove it.

 

[JackOfNoTrades]

What evidence is solid against Trump? Name the crime and your evidence to prove it.

Read the indictment, son. It's explained in terms the layman can understand.

https://int.nyt.com/data/documenttools/trump-jan-6-indictment-2020-election/1f1c76972b25c802/full.pdf

And you'll hear the evidence in court. And 12 jurors will decide Trump's fate.
Remember, the grand jury chose to indict Trump. They could have looked at Smith's arguments and evidence and said no. But they didn't.

 

[Godboy]

Read the indictment, son. It's explained in terms the layman can understand.

https://int.nyt.com/data/documenttools/trump-jan-6-indictment-2020-election/1f1c76972b25c802/full.pdf

And you'll hear the evidence in court. And 12 jurors will decide Trump's fate.
Remember, the grand jury chose to indict Trump. They could have looked at Smith's arguments and evidence and said no. But they didn't.

Ohhh, your argument is a 45 page document that i have to read? Why are you copping out like that? YOU claimed that he is fucked, now prove it. Explain the case that you think you are most likely to win and tell me what your evidence is against him. Just give me a few sentences if thats easier for you. Lay out your case in basic terms.

 

[JackOfNoTrades]

Ohhh, your argument is a 45 page document that i have to read? Why are you copping out like that? YOU claimed that he is fucked, now prove it. Explain the case that you think you are most likely to win and tell me what your evidence is against him. Just give me a few sentences if thats easier for you. Lay out your case in basic terms.

So you HAVEN'T read it, have you?
Yeah, I kinda figured that. You are just running with the alt-right line that this is a political witch hunt.
Well, turns out....they caught themselves a genuine witch.

The indictments are there for you to read. I especially think Counts #1 and #2 have him dead to rights.

 

[Godboy]

So you HAVEN'T read it, have you?
Yeah, I kinda figured that. You are just running with the alt-right line that this is a political witch hunt.
Well, turns out....they caught themselves a genuine witch.

The indictments are there for you to read. I especially think Counts #1 and #2 have him dead to rights.

YOU havent read it. We know you havent and you just expose yourself as a liar when you pretend that you did. If you HAD read it, you could give me a break down of the most serious charge and your evidence against him. You wont do that because, you have no fucking idea what the charges are.

 

[JackOfNoTrades]

YOU havent read it. We know you havent and you just expose yourself as a liar when you pretend that you did. If you HAD read it, you could give me a break down of the most serious charge and your evidence against him. You wont do that because, you have no fucking idea what the charges are.

Stop re-directing and deflecting. I just gave you the two charges I like the best.
Defend your client. But you haven't read the indictments. So I suggest you do.

 

[Godboy]

Stop re-directing and deflecting. I just gave you the two charges I like the best.
Defend your client. But you haven't read the indictments. So I suggest you do.

What charges are you referring to? Im not reading a 45 page legal document written by someone who is NOT you. YOU tell me what the charges are that you think are most likely to stick.

 

[August West]

You're showing your ignorance again, duck. Trump ORG is not Trump, moron. You know jack shit about the American legal system, so STFU and quit embarassing yourself. Trumps businesses or his associates are NOT TRUMP. A civil case award IS NOT a criminal conviction. Now that you've been schooled again, you're dismissed.

Trump not only knows jack shit, he also knows who Jack, THE SWAMP DRAINER SMITH is.

 

[toobfreak]

Trump has a cult. Here`s a guy at a rally who was seeing Trump for the 68th (sixty-eight) time! Do you think there is something wrong with these people?

Yes. Anyone who feels the need to drive six hours to see a guy 68 times definitely has a cultish problem which tells me government has failed this man.

But far worse than that, I ask myself, which is the bigger problem, a guy with nothing better to do but drive all over the Atlantic seaboard to see a political candidate who inspires him with hope, or the government which has failed him so greatly to GIVE him the need for such hope?

 

[candycorn]

The nation we continue to share with these people is not the USA.

The nation you want to live in is more like an Eastern European ghetto; you're just to ignorant to know it.

That's why we need to split and just let them have their own totalitarian state. Look here, it's what corny wants.

You can leave whenever you want. You're a drag on society. Cope and seethe.

 

[August West]

From the files of ‘They aren’t even trying to hide it’

3/17 - Hunter admits laptop
3/18 - Trump indictment news

6/8 - FBI doc alleges Biden bribe
6/9 - Trump indicted

7/26 - Hunter plea deal collapses
7/27 - Trump indicted

7/31 - Devon Archer testifies
8/1 - Trump indicted

Mere koinkydink.

Fortunately most Americans see thru the Banana Republic tactics of the Democrats. This too will backfire bigly and like in 16 catapult Trump into the White House.

View attachment 810901

I`m still waiting for the FIRST revelation about Joe Biden`s crimes. Unlike Trump`s criminal family, Biden`s kids aren`t on the government payroll. If you want to impeach Hunter Biden, I won`t stand in the way although my wife also owns a laptop.

 

[toobfreak]

Stop re-directing and deflecting. I just gave you the two charges I like the best. Defend your client.

So, let's see, let's look at your two charges VERBATIM:

1. Shortly after election day, the Defendant also pursued unlawful means of discounting legitimate votes. (42 pages long out of 45 pages)
2. TRUMP did knowingly combine, conspire, confederate, and agree with co-conspirators, known and unknown to the Grand Jury, to corruptly obstruct and impede an official proceeding.

So, lessee, Jack. As a retired former forensic document examiner, I note that:

• Those two counts you "like best" pretty much comprise the entire case against Trump as worded in summary above. In fact, it took Smith 42 pages just to lay out count one!
• Smith fails to lay out which "unlawful means" much less the evidence that Trump did them.
• Fails to define much less prove his claim they were "legitimate" votes as it can clearly be demonstrated in a state by state review that many states allowed millions of ILLEGITIMATE, ILLEGAL votes (such as PA radically changing their election laws via their (democrat-controlled) supreme court which has no such authority to do so, election law being a function of their LEGISLATURE.
• Count two assumes to determine what Trump KNOWINGLY did within his own mind.
• Count two cannot even describe the involved co-conspirators!
• Count two makes a qualitative assumption of corruption without proof.

This passes muster with a brilliant constitutional scholar such as you, Jack? The charges are BULLSHIT. They are subjective. They are arbitrary. These charges completely fail to pass the HIGH STANDARD necessary to justify for a president (Biden) to bring (by his DOJ) felony charges against his prime election candidate in an election year and just further reinforces the completely POLITICAL nature of the charges to merely interfere in the commission of a free and fair election for the office of POTUS with the express intent of tampering with the election to effect Trump's loss.

These charges are nowhere, Jack. They are bullshit. They are a joke. I could apply them to Biden, Obumma, Clinton and fifty other people. They are so broad, vague, nebulous and undefined that they could be brought against anyone for simply not voting for Biden, against anyone simply for trying to win an election, or put more simply, will go nowhere and will be immediately appealed to and dismissed by the Supreme Court as total BULLSHIT.

Worse, they are both damaging to all future candidates in a deliberate attempt to suppress all future political appeal of scurrilous election proceedings which one party may feel against the other, but are damaging to the nation and the election process itself.

They may succeed in hurting Trump's reelection but in the long run, Trump will prevail. Worse, though, they actually open up prosecution of Biden and others for their own actions.

Thank you for being the perennial dickwad that you are.

 

[JackOfNoTrades]

So, let's see, let's look at your two charges VERBATIM:

1. Shortly after election day, the Defendant also pursued unlawful means of discounting legitimate votes. (42 pages long out of 45 pages)
2. TRUMP did knowingly combine, conspire, confederate, and agree with co-conspirators, known and unknown to the Grand Jury, to corruptly obstruct and impede an official proceeding.

So, lessee, Jack. As a retired former forensic document examiner, I note that:

• Those two counts you "like best" pretty much comprise the entire case against Trump as worded in summary above. In fact, it took Smith 42 pages just to lay out count one!
• Smith fails to lay out which "unlawful means" much less the evidence that Trump did them.
• Fails to define much less prove his claim they were "legitimate" votes as it can clearly be demonstrated in a state by state review that many states allowed millions of ILLEGITIMATE, ILLEGAL votes (such as PA radically changing their election laws via their (democrat-controlled) supreme court which has no such authority to do so, election law being a function of their LEGISLATURE.
• Count two assumes to determine what Trump KNOWINGLY did within his own mind.
• Count two cannot even describe the involved co-conspirators!
• Count two makes a qualitative assumption of corruption without proof.

This passes muster with a brilliant constitutional scholar such as you, Jack? The charges are BULLSHIT. They are subjective. They are arbitrary. These charges completely fail to pass the HIGH STANDARD necessary to justify for a president (Biden) to bring (by his DOJ) felony charges against his prime election candidate in an election year and just further reinforces the completely POLITICAL nature of the charges to merely interfere in the commission of a free and fair election for the office of POTUS with the express intent of tampering with the election to effect Trump's loss.

These charges are nowhere, Jack. They are bullshit. They are a joke. I could apply them to Biden, Obumma, Clinton and fifty other people. They are so broad, vague, nebulous and undefined that they could be brought against anyone for simply not voting for Biden, against anyone simply for trying to win an election, or put more simply, will go nowhere and will be immediately appealed to and dismissed by the Supreme Court as total BULLSHIT.

Worse, they are both damaging to all future candidates in a deliberate attempt to suppress all future political appeal of scurrilous election proceedings which one party may feel against the other, but are damaging to the nation and the election process itself.

They may succeed in hurting Trump's reelection but in the long run, Trump will prevail. Worse, though, they actually open up prosecution of Biden and others for their own actions.

Thank you for being the perennial dickwad that you are.

Well, at least your trying to make a game of it whereas Godboy is content to keep with his re-direction.
First off, let's dispense with the whataboutisms. I don't see any of the other people you've named being indicted. Just Trump.

That being said Freaky, it doesn't matter a lick what Trump THOUGHT or BELIEVED. It only matters what he can PROVE. There is nothing subjective about these charges. They are laid out clearly. And they are NOT political.
What does the Constitution have to do with the indictments against Trump? He's been read his rights, will get his chance to prove his innocence, and receive a fair trial. And appeal the decision if it doesn't break his way.
And this isn't one of his silly assed, fast tracked charges of voter fraud. Doubtful the SC would even deign to get involved in it.

Never fear, it won't prevent your savior from running and getting his ass handed to him (again) in 2024.
So stop crying. Get out your popcorn and get ready for the fireworks.

 

[toobfreak]

it doesn't matter a lick what Trump THOUGHT or BELIEVED.

Smith's whole case is BUILT upon trying to suppose he can assume what Trump thought and believed!

It only matters what he can PROVE.

Trump needs to prove nothing, Jacky. The burden of proof is upon Smith. And Smith can only allege his case circumstantially to his prize-picked democrat jury who will lose on appeal. It totally fails to meet the very high standard necessary to bring felony charges by the State against the prime candidate (a former president!) in an election year! Smells of banana republic to me.

There is nothing subjective about these charges. They are laid out clearly. And they are NOT political.

That itself is a wholly subjective, unproven claim. Everything about the charges is based on ASSUMPTION and INNUENDO, taking the general and from that drawing a specific, despite countless specifics being POSSIBLE.

and receive a fair trial.

PLEASE, Jack, don't insult my intelligence by suggesting that there is anything "fair" about these charges. We both know that Biden, Obumma and Hillary (among many others) have committed FAR WORSE yet were and never will be charged with ANYTHING. The actors involved here made a career of "getting Trump" years before any of the events in these charges even happened.

Never fear, it won't prevent your savior

I have a savior? If I do Jack, I assure you, it won't be an ex-real estate developer from Manhattan.

from running and getting his ass handed to him (again) in 2024.

But that is the whole point Jack. All of this is just a continuation of SEVEN LONG YEARS of threats, promises and efforts to GET TRUMP, long before any of the alleged "crimes" occured. Pure politics in the Banana Republic of America, so the deep state can keep or install their next feckless hand-puppet BOOB.

 

[JackOfNoTrades]

Smith's whole case is BUILT upon trying to suppose he can assume what Trump thought and believed!


Trump needs to prove nothing, Jacky. The burden of proof is upon Smith. And Smith can only allege his case circumstantially to his prize-picked democrat jury who will lose on appeal. It totally fails to meet the very high standard necessary to bring felony charges by the State against the prime candidate (a former president!) in an election year! Smells of banana republic to me.


That itself is a wholly subjective, unproven claim. Everything about the charges is based on ASSUMPTION and INNUENDO, taking the general and from that drawing a specific, despite countless specifics being POSSIBLE.


PLEASE, Jack, don't insult my intelligence by suggesting that there is anything "fair" about these charges. We both know that Biden, Obumma and Hillary (among many others) have committed FAR WORSE yet were and never will be charged with ANYTHING. The actors involved here made a career of "getting Trump" years before any of the events in these charges even happened.


I have a savior? If I do Jack, I assure you, it won't be an ex-real estate developer from Manhattan.


But that is the whole point Jack. All of this is just a continuation of SEVEN LONG YEARS of threats, promises and efforts to GET TRUMP, long before any of the alleged "crimes" occured. Pure politics in the Banana Republic of America, so the deep state can keep or install their next feckless hand-puppet BOOB.

No. It isn't. It's built around what Trump DID. And yes, Trump will need to prove there was election fraud in order to slither out from the charge that he BELIEVED there was election fraud....when he didn't really believe it.
Yes, the burden of proof is on Jack Smith...and I have no doubt that he's going to deliver. If Trump's lawyer tries to re-litigate 2020, he's cooked. The charges and the reasoning behind them are laid out clearly. No whataboutism's
are going to save him this time.

You just can't give this guy up for some reason. And he will be like a boat anchor around your party, its ideology, its belief system, and its political future.
This trial, will make sure he's not a boat anchor around the neck of the country, and the Constitution it was built on.

I would deal with it and start lining up some other Republican you can throw your support behind.
It's only gonna get worse for Trump. And sooner or later, enough of his "supporters"..will abandon him.

 

[toobfreak]

No. It isn't. It's built around what Trump DID.

BS. Most of what they allege that Trump "did" is itself mere conjecture and assumption drawing specific conclusions from general actions. But in fact, the more one looks at what Trump actually DID, the more it WEAKENS the case!

And yes, Trump will need to prove there was election fraud

Bullshit. No one needs to prove their beliefs. Many people know and believe many TRUE things despite being unable to PROVE them. No one's innocence is CONTINGENT on PROVING their well-founded and reasonable beliefs. But won't it be funny if the case actually opens the door for Trump to reexamine the cases that the courts refused to hear?!

Yes, the burden of proof is on Jack Smith...and I have no doubt that he's going to deliver.

And he will be overruled on appeal. His case is a bag full of tissues.

 

[SweetSue92]

The nation you want to live in is more like an Eastern European ghetto; you're just to ignorant to know it.

You can leave whenever you want. You're a drag on society. Cope and seethe.

It's funny you think your hobby of attempting to drum up charges on political opponents is NOT eastern European/communist tactics.

Say, aren't you a traveling nurse of some type? Compassionate.