trump may have violated terms of release with the glock

[Crepitus]

This only matters if you have proof that he purchased the gun.

Did he?

Nobody read the OP.

 

[petro]

Hasn't it already been determined that former president Trump didn't buy a freaking Glock? How long are lefties going to try to make an issue out of this thing?

Yup.
It was debunked about six threads ago.
But doesn't stop the liars from telling lies.

 

[ColonelAngus]

Find the man, the Dems will find the crime!

 

[berg80]

View attachment 836090

https://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/24000428/trumpreply.pdf

Between this and the death threats when will it be enough?

Because Don is a megalomaniac, and stupid, he does not understand he no longer has the same rights as an average citizen by virtue of the indictments.

 

[SassyIrishLass]

Trump is a criminal and has nothing but contempt for the law.

He also has dreadful taste in firearms.

As you cling to your Red Ryder BB gun

 

[MisterBeale]

Nobody read the OP.

I read it.

I just have a hard time caring. I've heard that is what happened to sane people that lived in E. Germany and the Soviet Union.

I hear the folks in Russia and China just laugh at the idiocy of their governments too.

The Trump Cases

Trump fights Jack Smith request for narrow gag order in Jan. 6 case​

Prosecutors asked a judge to bar the former president’s ‘inflammatory’ attacks on case participants, citing a threat of violence and intimidation of jurors and others​

Trump fights Jack Smith request for narrow gag order in Jan. 6 case

Prosecutors asked a judge to bar the former president’s ‘inflammatory’ attacks on case participants, citing a threat of violence and intimidation of jurors and others.

web.archive.org

". . . But Trump’s defense rejected claims that he was intimidating D.C. citizens, or creating a “substantial likelihood of material prejudice” that would prevent a fair trial by an impartial jury, as barred under court rules. Days after prosecutors sought the “limited” restrictions on Trump, his attorneys asked for Chutkan to recuse herself from his case, arguing that her own statements about Jan. 6 made her appear biased against him.

Trump himself has gone further, calling Chutkan “a biased Trump Hating judge” and “a fraud dressed up as a judge in Washington, D.C. who is a radical Obama hack.”

Trump’s federal election obstruction case is the first in which prosecutors have sought to restrict Trump’s public statements. While such orders are not unusual in criminal cases, the selection of Washington, D.C., as the forum for the first request indicates prosecutors are hoping to make it a testing ground of the core constitutional questions in play.. . . "

<snip>

". . . But the question of whether Trump is best held accountable at the ballot box or by fellow citizens in a jury box is not limited to his criminal cases, as courts grapple with Trump’s fight to turn the focus from his conduct to that of his legal and political adversaries.

On Friday, a state judge in Denver issued a protective order limiting statements by Trump and other parties in the case in a lawsuit that seeks to block him from the presidential ballot next year on the grounds that he is ineligible for office under the U.S. Constitution’s 14th amendment. . . "

<snip>

". . .Advocacy groups and individual voters in at least a dozen states have filed or explored filing lawsuits to block Trump from state ballots next year on the grounds that he participated in rebellion with his role in the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the U.S. Capitol. Lawyers on both sides have predicted that the dispute may ultimately be resolved by the Supreme Court. Wallace, the Colorado judge, also set a trial date of Oct. 30 in the case."


IMO? Whether Trump is guilty or not? That is one thing. Whether his political foes are going to be allowed to have the legal rules around this whole thing, be used to prevent him from being able to represent the will of voters?

In the end, that will probably have to be settled at the SCOTUS, is that what you want to hear? That your side is using nasty tricks because you don't think you can beat him at the ballot box?

Do you really NEED someone to tell you what you already know? That he is garbage, and you are garbage, and you all are destroying the nation? That none of you have any damn integrity left, is that what you need to hear?

 

[Care4all]

I read it.

I just have a hard time caring. I've heard that is what happened to sane people that lived in E. Germany and the Soviet Union.

I hear the folks in Russia and China just laugh at the idiocy of their governments too.

The Trump Cases

Trump fights Jack Smith request for narrow gag order in Jan. 6 case​

Prosecutors asked a judge to bar the former president’s ‘inflammatory’ attacks on case participants, citing a threat of violence and intimidation of jurors and others​

Trump fights Jack Smith request for narrow gag order in Jan. 6 case

Prosecutors asked a judge to bar the former president’s ‘inflammatory’ attacks on case participants, citing a threat of violence and intimidation of jurors and others.

web.archive.org

". . . But Trump’s defense rejected claims that he was intimidating D.C. citizens, or creating a “substantial likelihood of material prejudice” that would prevent a fair trial by an impartial jury, as barred under court rules. Days after prosecutors sought the “limited” restrictions on Trump, his attorneys asked for Chutkan to recuse herself from his case, arguing that her own statements about Jan. 6 made her appear biased against him.

Trump himself has gone further, calling Chutkan “a biased Trump Hating judge” and “a fraud dressed up as a judge in Washington, D.C. who is a radical Obama hack.”

Trump’s federal election obstruction case is the first in which prosecutors have sought to restrict Trump’s public statements. While such orders are not unusual in criminal cases, the selection of Washington, D.C., as the forum for the first request indicates prosecutors are hoping to make it a testing ground of the core constitutional questions in play.. . . "

<snip>

". . . But the question of whether Trump is best held accountable at the ballot box or by fellow citizens in a jury box is not limited to his criminal cases, as courts grapple with Trump’s fight to turn the focus from his conduct to that of his legal and political adversaries.

On Friday, a state judge in Denver issued a protective order limiting statements by Trump and other parties in the case in a lawsuit that seeks to block him from the presidential ballot next year on the grounds that he is ineligible for office under the U.S. Constitution’s 14th amendment. . . "

<snip>

". . .Advocacy groups and individual voters in at least a dozen states have filed or explored filing lawsuits to block Trump from state ballots next year on the grounds that he participated in rebellion with his role in the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the U.S. Capitol. Lawyers on both sides have predicted that the dispute may ultimately be resolved by the Supreme Court. Wallace, the Colorado judge, also set a trial date of Oct. 30 in the case."


IMO? Whether Trump is guilty or not? That is one thing. Whether his political foes are going to be allowed to have the legal rules around this whole thing, be used to prevent him from being able to represent the will of voters?

In the end, that will probably have to be settled at the SCOTUS, is that what you want to hear? That your side is using nasty tricks because you don't think you can beat him at the ballot box?

Do you really NEED someone to tell you what you already know? That he is garbage, and you are garbage, and you all are destroying the nation? That none of you have any damn integrity left, is that what you need to hear?

Nasty tricks because we don't think we will win at the ballot box, eh?

You mean like sending your campaign lawyer to the Ukraine to CREATE dirt on Biden with Ukrainian Russian sympathizers?

Or threatening the newly elected Ukraine President to announce a fake investigation in to Hunter and Joe Biden on CNN International, for the military aid congress had passed for him or to get an invite to the whitehouse?

Or claiming the election was stolen from him, beginning 6 months prior to the election to prepare his flock on ' his loss was stolen' from him when he actually lost.

Or how about at the absolute last minute take Hunter Biden's lap top and dump it exclusively in the right wing news as an October SURPRISE, without any way for the public to verify the content or story the Rag developed before the election?

Those kind of dirty tricks? Those kind of things because Trump knew he was going to lose at the ballot box?

 

[progressive hunter]

I agree, get Gym on it at once!

we already have you,,

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Somebody didn't read the OP

If wouldn’t make any difference if they did.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

As you cling to your Red Ryder BB gun

It comes as no surprise that Trump would like an ugly foreign plastic pistol.

Give me a Smith N Frame revolver – a real gun made in America.

And Trump is a criminal with nothing but contempt for the law.

 

[Crepitus]

I read it.

I just have a hard time caring. I've heard that is what happened to sane people that lived in E. Germany and the Soviet Union.

I hear the folks in Russia and China just laugh at the idiocy of their governments too.

The Trump Cases

Trump fights Jack Smith request for narrow gag order in Jan. 6 case​

Prosecutors asked a judge to bar the former president’s ‘inflammatory’ attacks on case participants, citing a threat of violence and intimidation of jurors and others​

Trump fights Jack Smith request for narrow gag order in Jan. 6 case

Prosecutors asked a judge to bar the former president’s ‘inflammatory’ attacks on case participants, citing a threat of violence and intimidation of jurors and others.

web.archive.org

". . . But Trump’s defense rejected claims that he was intimidating D.C. citizens, or creating a “substantial likelihood of material prejudice” that would prevent a fair trial by an impartial jury, as barred under court rules. Days after prosecutors sought the “limited” restrictions on Trump, his attorneys asked for Chutkan to recuse herself from his case, arguing that her own statements about Jan. 6 made her appear biased against him.

Trump himself has gone further, calling Chutkan “a biased Trump Hating judge” and “a fraud dressed up as a judge in Washington, D.C. who is a radical Obama hack.”

Trump’s federal election obstruction case is the first in which prosecutors have sought to restrict Trump’s public statements. While such orders are not unusual in criminal cases, the selection of Washington, D.C., as the forum for the first request indicates prosecutors are hoping to make it a testing ground of the core constitutional questions in play.. . . "

<snip>

". . . But the question of whether Trump is best held accountable at the ballot box or by fellow citizens in a jury box is not limited to his criminal cases, as courts grapple with Trump’s fight to turn the focus from his conduct to that of his legal and political adversaries.

On Friday, a state judge in Denver issued a protective order limiting statements by Trump and other parties in the case in a lawsuit that seeks to block him from the presidential ballot next year on the grounds that he is ineligible for office under the U.S. Constitution’s 14th amendment. . . "

<snip>

". . .Advocacy groups and individual voters in at least a dozen states have filed or explored filing lawsuits to block Trump from state ballots next year on the grounds that he participated in rebellion with his role in the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the U.S. Capitol. Lawyers on both sides have predicted that the dispute may ultimately be resolved by the Supreme Court. Wallace, the Colorado judge, also set a trial date of Oct. 30 in the case."


IMO? Whether Trump is guilty or not? That is one thing. Whether his political foes are going to be allowed to have the legal rules around this whole thing, be used to prevent him from being able to represent the will of voters?

In the end, that will probably have to be settled at the SCOTUS, is that what you want to hear? That your side is using nasty tricks because you don't think you can beat him at the ballot box?

Do you really NEED someone to tell you what you already know? That he is garbage, and you are garbage, and you all are destroying the nation? That none of you have any damn integrity left, is that what you need to hear?

Yes, the criminals often claim they didn't commit a crime.

So?

 

[Crepitus]

we already have you,,

Where do you have me?

 

[progressive hunter]

Where do you have me?

you dont know??

 

[airplanemechanic]

I trust juries.

OJ says he does too!

 

[The Duke]

Don't ruin their fantasies.

It's about all they have.

Just look who they ran for president.

Next up....Kammy Harris.......

Nah, Big Mike or Newsom.

 

[OKTexas]

Why trust a Florida jury?

A good mix politically.

.

 

[OKTexas]

Nasty tricks because we don't think we will win at the ballot box, eh?

You mean like sending your campaign lawyer to the Ukraine to CREATE dirt on Biden with Ukrainian Russian sympathizers?

Or threatening the newly elected Ukraine President to announce a fake investigation in to Hunter and Joe Biden on CNN International, for the military aid congress had passed for him or to get an invite to the whitehouse?

Or claiming the election was stolen from him, beginning 6 months prior to the election to prepare his flock on ' his loss was stolen' from him when he actually lost.

Or how about at the absolute last minute take Hunter Biden's lap top and dump it exclusively in the right wing news as an October SURPRISE, without any way for the public to verify the content or story the Rag developed before the election?

Those kind of dirty tricks? Those kind of things because Trump knew he was going to lose at the ballot box?

So what was in the "rag"s report that was inaccurate?

.

 

[White 6]

You might be able to trust a FL jury, NY and DC, not so much. It will be up to appeals courts there.

.

Oh, yes! At this level of play, it will be appealed to death, probably until death.

 

[White 6]

Ya gotta read the text in the OP.

I did.

 

[OKTexas]

Oh, yes! At this level of play, it will be appealed to death, probably until death.

The Durham prosecution proved the bias of DC juries. What can you expect, the District is 96% commiecrat.

.