There's enough compelling evidence for an in depth investigation by the DOJ which has already been initiated by IRS whistleblowers but swept under the carpet by a corrupt DOJ running a protection racket for the Biden crime family.. But when levers of justice are controlled by a corrupt entity you get what we have here. Trump get's indicted and Biden walks.
Whew, that’s a boatload of denial there. Unlike the N.Y. trial, they’ve had months upon months to do their own investigation and have come up with nada.
The prosecution can have as many weeks as they like, and the defence can have as many weeks as they like to defend.
Sort of, if the above is found true, then Trump is guilty, but if he falsified records to protect his family, then there was no criminal intent and he will at the most be fined. More likely it will just be a warning.
Got it. Doesn't cut it here. Democratic judges follow rules just like Republican judges. All of those have 'intepretations and judicial latitudes. Right?
This is your personal conviction. But none of this is true, nor does any of this have a legitimate foundation in this trial.
Stormy Daniel’s testimony is irrelevant to the case. The judge allowing salacious testimony is damaging and biased, that’s the goal, damage Trump before the election, that is election interference. The judge didn’t follow the rules of evidence. He let his court get out of control.
Maybe some day you’ll evaluate these proceedings based on law and not through the prism of hatred towards Trump. What’s on trial here is our judicial system. Criminal prosecutions are supposed to be clear statutory violations based on clear evidence, hard evidence or compelling circumstantial evidence. These prosecutors have yet to established the crime or statutory violation. Conspiracy to commit a future crime.. what criminal statute would that be? Using salacious biased irrelevant testimony to sway a jury is typical activist judicial behavior. The gag order for one and yet not applicable to other witnesses is abuse of power.
Hatred towards Trump is not justice and should never be used as a substitute for juris prudence. Applying the law fairly and judiciously is a tenet of our democracy, without it we are nothing more than a third world nation.
You addressed nothing I posted. I’m agreeing with your sentiments. Now try again to pay attention, to listen, and focus if you intend to engage with a reply. There’s no TDS in the judge jailing the defendant for violations and/or contempt. The judge should take more control of his chamber.
Always about emotions....what say's "cult member" more?
What part of applying the law fairly and equally don’t you understand. The gag order only applies to Trump all the while Daniel’s and Cohen were talking out of school. Stop trying to be clever it makes you look stupid.
Daniels and Cohen aren't on trial....pretty simple if you can detach the emotions and look objectively.
Deflection. Daniels nor Cohen are mumbling in court or have a history of, oh, never mind. I think it’s clear between the two of us who has no problem playing the fool and who is the liar.
They’re witnesses for the prosecution you dumb fuck.
Take it up with someone else, you’re being purposely ignorant.
Please stop. You’re embarrassing yourself.
Ok. Ya got me. Guilty. I suffer from TDS. As such, I believe he won’t be president. Please make me out to be the stupid idiot you believe me to be by taking me up on my election challenge and being the hero to RW’s here by banning my ignorant ass a whole year. Yes?!
So? They are not on trial, nor under the thumb of the court. They, like you are free to express whatever they chose. Trump on the other hand is on trial and influencing or intimidating witnesses is illegal. Sucks for Trump, but hey, actions have consequences....who knew?
You don’t understand our laws or our constitution so why don’t you just STFU. Hating Trump is not our legal system.
No, it seems you're the one with the problem of understanding your own legal system. Cohen and Daniels are free to say what they wish. Trump had had a gag order placed upon him. That's how things work, who knew actions have consequences?
He knows. He’s treading water BS’in.
They shouldn't be, they're witnesses for the prosecution.
Excuse me, but in between all this nonsense and mishegoss, you might have missed the challenge I issued to you.
Gag orders are typically imposed to prevent prejudicial publicity that could influence potential jurors or otherwise affect the fairness of a trial. While witnesses who are not accused of crimes are not typically subject to the same legal restrictions as the parties directly involved in the case, a judge may still choose to impose a gag order on witnesses if their public statements are deemed likely to interfere with the administration of justice.
