Democrat Prosecutor: Trump Should Not Be Allowed to Defend Himself

Blaming another party for a crime is a common tactic for a defendant. The idea, obviously, is to hopefully instill reasonable doubt. Sometimes the claim is even true, most times it isn't. It's up to the prosecutor to convince a jury otherwise. I'm not a lawyer, but I can think of no reason why a judge would deny this defense tactic. And this is coming from a guy who does not like the defendant.

Now, as far as irrelevant statements about drooling Joe, I can understand the desire to prevent campaigning from the courtroom.

It's irrelevant. Trump was not afforded due process. There is no rational discussion, it was the definition of denial of due process. If you know what that means, you cannot disagree, it's not in question. Trump was given no chance to defend himself against a panel of seven Democrats and it was still 4-3, MAGA man
 
It's irrelevant. Trump was not afforded due process. There is no rational discussion, it was the definition of denial of due process. If you know what that means, you cannot disagree, it's not in question. Trump was given no chance to defend himself against a panel of seven Democrats and it was still 4-3, MAGA man
This is false. There was a trial. Trump was represented by his lawyers. He was allowed to present evidence, call witnesses and cross examine.

He had lawyers defending him at every step.
 
  • Thanks
Reactions: kaz
Democrats just say things, it doesn't mean anything, just like when Pedo Joe says it
You guys should be supporting democracy instead of trying to destroy it.

Lord knows it's the only way such a low IQ group of people could ever have any say in anything.
 
Actually, at that time Pence was not required to certify the election (I assume that's what you meant), if he did not believe the results were valid.

That's an interesting point.

I'm not entirely sure it's true.

The Constitution is written in a vague way, on this particular point.

Personally, I'd tend to agree with you. What's the point of having a certification if it's just a rubber stamp?

But leftards and leftard judges claim the role is ceremonial, and it's hard to be specific with the language as written

There certainly was no criminal statute he would have violated if he had done what Trump asked. So . . . no crime that Trump was supposedly telling him to commit.

Agreed. No crime. A bit shady, but no crime. Alternate electors are as old as the sun.
 
That's an interesting point.

I'm not entirely sure it's true.

The Constitution is written in a vague way, on this particular point.

Personally, I'd tend to agree with you. What's the point of having a certification if it's just a rubber stamp?

But leftards and leftard judges claim the role is ceremonial, and it's hard to be specific with the language as written



Agreed. No crime. A bit shady, but no crime. Alternate electors are as old as the sun.
Great rationalizing on the topic on hand scruffy.. Trump in my opinion needs the rational minded citizens of this country to come forward in his defense big time now, because most if not all rational people see and know what's going on in all of this bull shite, and they see the Democrat's as being the same people as these "school board members" for whom just sit there in denial as the parent's read from the "pornographic material" in hand, that shows what has been going on in the school systems in recent year's.... The member's remain in denial, even though FACTS are being blasted right in front of them. They do this just as the courts did to Trump, because they are yoked be a force that has caused them to ignore the parent's or the evidence brought by the Trump administration over the 2020 election for a more sinister, and I mean sinister, leftist agenda to be protected at all cost with these people who are living in denial.
 
Hey, everyone, remember when the GOP used to be the party of "Law and Order"?
Figures you would chime in, but of course, now go back to your leftist master's and come back with some more con-foolery.
 
You don't seem to get it. Granted, you're a cultist moron who doesn't want to get it, but the result remains the same.

Donald isn't accused of murder, where the deed is easily established but a responsible party must be shown. Donald is accused of engaging in insurrection.

The question will be whether his easily established actions amount to the legal threshold. The prosecution will present evidence of what Donald himself did. Whether Barbara Jane or Jimmy Bob did this or that has no relevance to whether Donald's actions amount to insurrection. The questions for the jury will be whether they believe the prosecution's evidence, and whether the actions amount to insurrection.
So why then should Trump engage a defense team at all? Why should any defendant accused of a crime? According to you, the judge only pays attention to the prosecution.
 
It's irrelevant. Trump was not afforded due process. There is no rational discussion, it was the definition of denial of due process. If you know what that means, you cannot disagree, it's not in question. Trump was given no chance to defend himself against a panel of seven Democrats and it was still 4-3, MAGA man
Apparently you are unaware the CO SC ruling was based on extensive evidence presented by both sides leading up to the lower court ruling. Expert testimony was given and Trump's attorneys were afforded every opportunity to present whatever evidence they chose to present.
 
BS. If someone wants to claim zombies did it that’s their right.

You fascists are pathetic traitors.
That’s absurd.

They can present RELEVANT facts

And the court adjudicates what is and isn’t relevant.

“Zombies did it” is not a relevant defense outside of an insane asylum
 

Forum List

Back
Top