Judge sets absurd trial date for Trump case

[Jim H - VA USA]

 

[BackAgain]

You're such a retarded douche.

No. That’s you winkydinky.

You tend to repeat things I have said as your own novel idea.

Another ^ of many false winky dinky claims.

Your own quote says...."Depends on what he is convicted of."

Yes, I know. I was there when I typed that.

Now you backtrack to None. "others claim otherwise."

Nope. That’s just me acknowledging that there are other views. You scumbag idiot.

 

[Zincwarrior]

Graham: Trump’s fate ‘should be decided at the ballot box’

Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) said Monday that former President Trump’s fate should be left up to voters instead of “liberal jurisdictions trying to put the man in jail.” Graham said on Fox News’s “…

thehill.com

Graham is a tv camera lounge lizard.

 

[Shawnee_b]

Fanny won't make it to that date. Georgie is looking into her impeachment right now.
Alvin the chipmunk was taken away by US Marshals the day after he had Trump in his court.
Jack Schitt is in a world of shit. Some of his staff met with Biden admin just before he had his try.

Keep trying libards. Evidently election fraud and a witch hunt. There is no one who does not know this but many who deny it. I heard Trump removed a mattress tag, gave it to Mike Lindel (Russians were involved to) and that's how My Pillow started. You're next inditment?

 

[candycorn]

My noticing that you keep talking about my dick is ME being obsessed with my dick.

Democrats, can't fix stupid

You brought up teenaged boys and whacking off. I’m sure there is a connection somewhere.

 

[Oldestyle]

You know what I find interesting. To you prosecuting a former president is a threat to Democracy. But making a guy president who literally told his vice-president when he held the position previously that he has the right to IGNORE the actual election results and pressured him arguably by violence to do so isn't.

How do you thread that needle even if you ignore the arguable part?

I have ZERO problem with prosecuting a former President, Fork! You don't seem to grasp my point that what is extremely dangerous is when a President in power uses the DOJ against his political opposition! We've NEVER done something like that and for good reason! You're letting your hatred of Donald Trump blind you to the Pandora's Box that you on the left are in the process of opening!

 

[forkup]

I have ZERO problem with prosecuting a former President, Fork! You don't seem to grasp my point that what is extremely dangerous is when a President in power uses the DOJ against his political opposition! We've NEVER done something like that and for good reason! You're letting your hatred of Donald Trump blind you to the Pandora's Box that you on the left are in the process of opening!

Not really answering the premise. I'll try again.

How do you get to stating that you care for Democracy. The system where the people choose their own leaders. By supporting a person who is on the record stating that a government official has the right to unilaterally decide to ignore that choice?


As for your premise. I do get the risks. In fact, I've stated that I don't like taking it. Although it isn't the president using the DOJ. It's the DOJ by virtue of a special counsel who works independent of it, deciding to do something. The president didn't ask. It's a purely optical problem. As opposed to Trump who's already stating that if he gets elected he WILL ask.

My point is that not taking the risk, brings with it in my view worse but different risks. Hence my question.

Trump has proven he's perfectly willing to circumvent the Democratic process if it fits him. In fact that's one of the things he's being charged for. You are suggesting that we let that slide awarding him the opportunity to do so again, because he's made himself a candidate again.

 

[Oldestyle]

Not really answering the premise. I'll try again.

How do you get to stating that you care for Democracy. The system where the people choose their own leaders. By supporting a person who is on the record stating that a government official has the right to unilaterally decide to ignore that choice?


As for your premise. I do get the risks. In fact, I've stated that I don't like taking it. Although it isn't the president using the DOJ. It's the DOJ by virtue of a special counsel who works independent of it, deciding to do something. The president didn't ask. It's a purely optical problem. As opposed to Trump who's already stating that if he gets elected he WILL ask.

My point is that not taking the risk, brings with it in my view worse but different risks. Hence my question.

Trump has proven he's perfectly willing to circumvent the Democratic process if it fits him. In fact that's one of the things he's being charged for. You are suggesting that we let that slide awarding him the opportunity to do so again, because he's made himself a candidate again.

If you believe that Joe Biden isn't using the DOJ against Trump you're so naive it's laughable, Fork. Jack Smith is an attack dog. Garland knew exactly what he was getting when he appointed him. Now it's coming out that the 3 prosecutors were in contact with White House staff and each other before filing their indictments.

Trump disputed an election. Many have done it before! Why was it that none of those people were ever indicted for doing so? Because a protest at the Capital turned into a riot when the Democrats in charge of security utterly failed at doing their jobs? That's your excuse to endanger our democratic process? You know damn well that this is a coordinated effort to keep Trump from beating Biden in 2024. Is that what we're now going to become? A country where the sitting President can use the DOJ against his political opponents? Think long and hard about that, Fork!

 

[Faun]

If you believe that Joe Biden isn't using the DOJ against Trump you're so naive it's laughable, Fork. Jack Smith is an attack dog. Garland knew exactly what he was getting when he appointed him. Now it's coming out that the 3 prosecutors were in contact with White House staff and each other before filing their indictments.

Trump disputed an election. Many have done it before! Why was it that none of those people were ever indicted for doing so? Because a protest at the Capital turned into a riot when the Democrats in charge of security utterly failed at doing their jobs? That's your excuse to endanger our democratic process? You know damn well that this is a coordinated effort to keep Trump from beating Biden in 2024. Is that what we're now going to become? A country where the sitting President can use the DOJ against his political opponents? Think long and hard about that, Fork!

Trump didn't just dispute an election. Using illegal means, he tried to steal the election he lost. That's a crime.

 

[kaz]

You brought up teenaged boys and whacking off. I’m sure there is a connection somewhere.

Yes, teenage boys are obsessed with dicks, you're obsessed with dicks, it's actually a straight line from A to B

 

[Billo_Really]

You've been defending one

The only coup was tried on Jan 6th and come March 4th you fuckers are going to pay for it!

 

[Billo_Really]

As they should be. But of course, there was no coup or attempted coup. So your little meaningless factoid is irrelevant.

If that was true, then why are 3 of you fuckers being sentenced to 30 years in prison this week?

 

[kaz]

The only coup was tried on Jan 6th and come March 4th you fuckers are going to pay for it!

Fortunately they shot an unarmed woman and ended the uprising. Phew ....

 

[Zincwarrior]

I have ZERO problem with prosecuting a former President, Fork! You don't seem to grasp my point that what is extremely dangerous is when a President in power uses the DOJ against his political opposition! We've NEVER done something like that and for good reason! You're letting your hatred of Donald Trump blind you to the Pandora's Box that you on the left are in the process of opening!

Never had a President steal boxes of top secret docs, try to illegally overturn and election, or stage a coup.

 

[kaz]

If that was true, then why are 3 of you fuckers being sentenced to 30 years in prison this week?

Democrats are obstructing elections. We know that because it's what you're accusing us of

 

[Skylar]

False. I don’t avoid what simply does not exist. Your false claims that evidence does exist is based on your ignorance, your dishonesty and on your stupidity.


There not. You simply repeat that lie. Sucks to be you.

Zzzz. Nonsense. Quote. Link. Not that you’re a ducking liar or anything. But you are.

Zzz. Tells you all you’d need to know about his credibility if you had a brain. Which you don’t.

He did? That’s amazing news. Maybe what he did INSTEAD was recant initially truthful grand jury testimony based on fear of what our outrageously corrupt “special” persecutor was threatening.

DEMONSTRATIVE ^ of your lack of comprehension and your gullibility.

Oh. Well. That settles it. Imagine that. The charges haven’t been dismissed. Therefore they must all be proper charges.

You schmuck.

I wouldn’t know. I leave that crap to imbeciles like you.

By the way, buy a new line. All of yours are stale and pointless.

And after all of that.....you still refuse to discuss the evidence. You ignore it entirely.

We have testimony of Trump's own lawyer that Trump tried to convince him to lie to authorities and withhold documents.

We have recordings of Trump admitting that the secret documents that he was showing had never been declassified. Twice.

We have Trump's IT flipping, recanting his testimony that Trump had not told him to destroy evidence.

We have an exhaustive list of classified docs found in Trump's possession after he'd lied and said he returned them all. Many in a box in his office.

And so, so much more.

Your willful ignorance doesn't change a single thing about the cases against Trump. Your denial doesn't eliminate a single recording, change a single document, nullify a single piece of testimony.

Every single time you ignore the evidence and deny it exists.......you lose.

 

[BackAgain]

If that was true, then why are 3 of you fuckers being sentenced to 30 years in prison this week?

None of my folks are being sentenced for anything. And nobody is being sentenced for insurrection.

 

[Skylar]

Democrats are obstructing elections. We know that because it's what you're accusing us of

The evidence says otherwise.

• Recordings of Trump admitting that the docs he was showing off had never been declassified.
• Trump's IT guy recanting his testimony defending Trump. Many in a box by his desk.
• Classified docs galore being found in Trump's residence.
• Trump's lawyer testifying that Trump tried to convince him to lie to authorities and withhold evidence.
• Testimony that Trump's campaign orchestrated the forged election document scheme.
• Eastman admitting in Emails that he knew that their scheme to delay the January 6th counting of votes as a legal violation.
• And Trump personally trying to pressure Pence to commit that legal violation to halt an official election proceeding....no less than 6 times.
• And so, so much more.

You know the evidence utterly justifies the charges. Which is why you refuse to discuss it. Where the evidence justifies the charges isn't election interference.

Its due process. Y'all demand that your ilk be immune from any law.

Smiling.......no.

 

[kaz]

Smiling.......no.

I'm sure, right before you cum you have an intense face, not a relaxed one

 

[MagicMike]

But the judge’s very biased agenda is crystal clear.

And what agenda would that be?