To all you calling BS on the Trump indictment…

[bigrebnc1775]

What crime is that?

Why is trump being indicted?
I can play 20 questions just like you.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Reading is fundamental.
Try it sometime.

Student Dictionary for Kids​

View attachment 772241
Merriam-Webster
https://www.merriam-webster.com › kids

Search an online dictionary written specifically for young students. Kid-friendly meanings from the reference experts at Merriam-Webster help students build ...
‎Words That Start With A · ‎Words That Start With D · ‎Words That Start With O

I see that you can't control the narrative so you run like a little bitch.

 

[Blues Man]

It’s held secreted, deliberately to avoid the very open and assorted public cunteries that “Individual1” is known for and may otherwise contaminate the process with.

So as to remain clean and meaningful.

Bullshit.

It's secret because the prosecutor has more control over it that way.

Why does a prosecutor need the opinion of people who know nothing of the laws of evidence to decide if charges can be filed?

 

[Blues Man]

The process protects the evidence from those who might seek to destroy or distort it such as yourself.

There is no need to protect evidence as it will all have to be turned over to the defense for the trial anyway.

The GJ basically guarantees an indictment because there are no rules of evidence for the prosecutor

And how is anyone going to "destroy evidence" if it is in the hands of the police under lock and key?

And tell me where you came up with the moronic conclusion that I want to destroy evidence

 

[bigrebnc1775]

What a fucked up troll thread. Slade3200 asked for poster’s opinions, then spends forty pages bleating “You can’t have that opinion because you don’t know what the charges are”..


Seriously, fuck off, Troll.

Yes Slade3200 doing what it does best troll. It can't answer a direct question but demands you play by it rules.

 

[Mac1958]

Hahahaha. Can’t write this stuff!

Y'know, it's tough to be facetious or ironic with these people. You can tease with the goofiest of comments and they'll agree with the comment.

Kind of stops you in your tracks. There's no response to that.

It's funny until you realize the implications, and how widespread it is.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Y'know, it's tough to be facetious or ironic with these people. You can tease with the goofiest of comments and they'll agree with the comment.

Kind of stops you in your tracks. There's no response to that.

It's funny until you realize the implications, and how widespread it is.

I suppose you're suggesting that leftists are idiot fucking leftists like you are suicidal if you don't get what you want.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

How do you know it’s bs?!

He's being indicted on for something the feds didn't charge him for. And the statute of limitation two years expired.

 

[Mac1958]

I suppose you're suggesting that leftists are idiot fucking leftists like you are suicidal if you don't get what you want.

Well, if that's your perception of what I said, there's nothing I can do about it.

 

[Nuthin' Fancy]

Bullshit.

It's secret because the prosecutor has more control over it that way.

That's right.
The Fifth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States reads, "No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury ..."

Why does a prosecutor need the opinion of people who know nothing of the laws of evidence to decide if charges can be filed?

Then why even have a trial?
The jurors aren't experts sitting on them, either.

 

[Blues Man]

That's right.
The Fifth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States reads, "No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury ..."

Then why even have a trial?
The jurors aren't experts sitting on them, either.

This neither a capital nor an infamous crime.

In an actual trial not a kangaroo court the defense has the opportunity to provide rebuttal evidence and the rules of evidence are much stricter. Why does a prosecutor get to present evidence that will never see the light of day to a GJ ?

Anyone can win a one sided argument

 

[Nuthin' Fancy]

This neither a capital nor an infamous crime.

In an actual trial not a kangaroo court the defense has the opportunity to provide rebuttal evidence and the rules of evidence are much stricter. Why does a prosecutor get to present evidence that will never see the light of day to a GJ ?

Anyone can win a one sided argument

Then the person can argue their case, in a jury trial.

 

[Westender]

How do you know it’s bs?!

I dont, I just figure its bs like all the other times hes been attacked.

 

[Blues Man]

Then the person can argue their case, in a jury trial.

So wasting the time and money of people on these rigged GJ trials is something you want.

There is no good reason to give an agent of the government the power to present one sided argument and the freedom to use illegal evidence against any citizen

 

[The Original Tree]

How do you know it’s bs?!

Because you lying Russian-Chicom SOBs are for it. You have been lying since you were born.
Get Trump Attempt # 10,374.

 

[Couchpotato]

Reading is fundamental.
Try it sometime.

Student Dictionary for Kids​

View attachment 772241
Merriam-Webster
https://www.merriam-webster.com › kids

Search an online dictionary written specifically for young students. Kid-friendly meanings from the reference experts at Merriam-Webster help students build ...
‎Words That Start With A · ‎Words That Start With D · ‎Words That Start With O

Try stringing the word together in a coherent sentence and get back to me

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Well, if that's your perception of what I said, there's nothing I can do about it.

Leftists are idiots period

 

[jknowgood]

wait, you honestly don’t think trump was trying to hurt Biden by asking Ukraine to get dirt on him?!?! Seriously??

No, Ukraine launders money for the democrat party and a few Republicans. Your tax dollars at work.

 

[Couchpotato]

There have been plenty of additional witnesses.

Link?

What could they possibly have added to what I listed as the facts of the case?

The problem is you have to prove that Trump wouldn’t have made the payment outside him running for office.

Stormy Daniels has already done an interview in the past talking the affair.

And John Edwards had already been charged in the past for using campaign fund to do this type of thing.

It’s not illegal to pay someone to sign an NDA. It’s done all the time. It can’t be illegal to do so with campaign funds as well as with not campaign funds.

 

[Lesh]

There is no need to protect evidence as it will all have to be turned over to the defense for the trial anyway.

The GJ basically guarantees an indictment because there are no rules of evidence for the prosecutor

And how is anyone going to "destroy evidence" if it is in the hands of the police under lock and key?

And tell me where you came up with the moronic conclusion that I want to destroy evidence

Because they don't want the case to be tried in the press tainting the jury pool