"Weird" is the new SFB talking point.

[Rightguide]

I wonder why Squire @HisArpy never responded to this urgent plea for clarification? It's been two days and he's made a few posts in this thread since this request.

This is a tad unusual, given his frequent braggadocio about his extensive legal career

Perhaps because he's "semi-retired" and hasn't set foot in a court of law in over five years, he might be a tad rusty in explaining the law to us mere mortals.

...or he could just be chickenshit.

Maybe both.

I wonder why Squire @HisArpy never responded to this urgent plea for clarification? It's been two days and he's made a few posts in this thread since this request.

This is a tad unusual, given his frequent braggadocio about his extensive legal career

Perhaps because he's "semi-retired" and hasn't set foot in a court of law in over five years, he might be a tad rusty in explaining the law to us mere mortals.

...or he could just be chickenshit.

Maybe both.

If a trial is a sham show trial, without legal merit, conducted by a corrupt judge, and corrupt prosecutors who knew they didn't have a viable legal argument without inventing novel untested legal theories, and together conspired to deprive the defendant of his right to due process of law, then provide the jury with unlawful jury instructions in order to affect a guilty verdict that otherwise could not be gained, and the resulting guilty verdict was found in all inflated charges, one could say he was a convicted felon, but it wouldn't be the truth. Would it Rob?

 

[RobDownSouth]

If a trial is a sham show trial, without legal merit, conducted by a corrupt judge, and corrupt prosecutors who knew they didn't have a viable legal argument without inventing novel untested legal theories, and together conspired to deprive the defendant of his right to due process of law, then provide the jury with unlawful jury instructions in order to affect a guilty verdict that otherwise could not be gained, and the resulting guilty verdict was found in all inflated charges, one could say he was a convicted felon, but it wouldn't be the truth. Would it Rob?

He was found guilty of 34 felonies in a state court of law. Your rationalizations and deflections fall on deaf ears, old son.

 

[Lazaran]

Drug or alcohol or both? She can't be sober.

So much meth.

 

[SmokingFap]

Sorry you don't interest me.

Really? You comment on virtually every post I make.

 

[Chobham]

If a trial is a sham show trial, without legal merit, conducted by a corrupt judge, and corrupt prosecutors who knew they didn't have a viable legal argument without inventing novel untested legal theories, and together conspired to deprive the defendant of his right to due process of law, then provide the jury with unlawful jury instructions in order to affect a guilty verdict that otherwise could not be gained, and the resulting guilty verdict was found in all inflated charges, one could say he was a convicted felon, but it wouldn't be the truth. Would it Rob?

Far too much information, their tiny minds can only digest one fact at a time.

 

[icanhelp1]

If a trial is a sham show trial, without legal merit, conducted by a corrupt judge, and corrupt prosecutors who knew they didn't have a viable legal argument without inventing novel untested legal theories, and together conspired to deprive the defendant of his right to due process of law, then provide the jury with unlawful jury instructions in order to affect a guilty verdict that otherwise could not be gained, and the resulting guilty verdict was found in all inflated charges, one could say he was a convicted felon, but it wouldn't be the truth. Would it Rob?

And then there’s the issue of postponing the sentencing phase, I find that quite interesting.

 

[YDB95]

Gee, I just don't understand why anyone borrows tens of thousands of dollars and wastes three years of their life on law school, when they could just ask Reichguide and Icanthelpmyself!

 

[HisArpy]

And then there’s the issue of postponing the sentencing phase, I find that quite interesting.

I keep trying to figure out what an appropriate sentence might be.

It's based on a conspiracy to defraud the elections commission/voters by cooking the books. So the penalty should be...

A fine?
< 1 year in jail?
20 years in prison?

But think about it in base terms; it's an election ploy to avoid revealing the payoff to Daniels. He didn't steal anything, he PAID someone.

Compare that to murder. Or drug dealing. Or embezzlement. Or organized crime.

He's also a very high profile figure and most people understand that this prosecution/conviction is political rather than criminal at its core. He's entitled to USSS protection too and that's going to throw a monkey wrench into any jail time.

So, what's the appropriate sentence?

I think he's going to get a small sentence, suspended, a big fine (because D's love to take his money while also saying he's broke), 2-3 years probation, and stayed pending appeal.

And then all of that will be overturned on appeal.

 

[icanhelp1]

I keep trying to figure out what an appropriate sentence might be.

It's based on a conspiracy to defraud the elections commission/voters by cooking the books. So the penalty should be...

A fine?
< 1 year in jail?
20 years in prison?

But think about it in base terms; it's an election ploy to avoid revealing the payoff to Daniels. He didn't steal anything, he PAID someone.

Compare that to murder. Or drug dealing. Or embezzlement. Or organized crime.

He's also a very high profile figure and most people understand that this prosecution/conviction is political rather than criminal at its core. He's entitled to USSS protection too and that's going to throw a monkey wrench into any jail time.

So, what's the appropriate sentence?

I think he's going to get a small sentence, suspended, a big fine (because D's love to take his money while also saying he's broke), 2-3 years probation, and stayed pending appeal.

And then all of that will be overturned on appeal.

So much for a speedy trial?

 

[BrightShinyGirl]

I keep trying to figure out what an appropriate sentence might be.

It's based on a conspiracy to defraud the elections commission/voters by cooking the books. So the penalty should be...

A fine?
< 1 year in jail?
20 years in prison?

But think about it in base terms; it's an election ploy to avoid revealing the payoff to Daniels. He didn't steal anything, he PAID someone.

Compare that to murder. Or drug dealing. Or embezzlement. Or organized crime.

He's also a very high profile figure and most people understand that this prosecution/conviction is political rather than criminal at its core. He's entitled to USSS protection too and that's going to throw a monkey wrench into any jail time.

So, what's the appropriate sentence?

I think he's going to get a small sentence, suspended, a big fine (because D's love to take his money while also saying he's broke), 2-3 years probation, and stayed pending appeal.

And then all of that will be overturned on appeal.

Putting Donald Trump in jail makes it easier and cheaper for the Secret Service to protect him. Just pay an agent to sit outside his cell and accompany him to meals. Simple.

 

[Rightguide]

Gee, I just don't understand why anyone borrows tens of thousands of dollars and wastes three years of their life on law school, when they could just ask Reichguide and Icanthelpmyself!

The trouble with your heroes on the left is they've allowed their Marxist indoctrination to control how they employ their legal training. They infect and undermine the American legal environment.

 

[DeluxAuto]

The trouble with your heroes on the left is they've allowed their Marxist indoctrination to control how they employ their legal training. They infect and undermine the American legal environment.

Shut up, weird person.

 

[Bray123]

The trouble with your heroes on the left is they've allowed their Marxist indoctrination to control how they employ their legal training. They infect and undermine the American legal environment.

Was the Rittenhouse trial undermined?

 

[Rightguide]

He was found guilty of 34 felonies in a state court of law. Your rationalizations and deflections fall on deaf ears, old son.

Enjoy it while you can. Reason always falls on deaf ears when addressing the left.

 

[schism666]

Enjoy it while you can. Reason always falls on deaf ears when addressing the left.

you deny elections and convictions then try to tell smart people that the left can't reason.

you're weird as fuck, vetteman.

 

[RobDownSouth]

Enjoy it while you can. Reason always falls on deaf ears when addressing the left.

You don't like the verdict, because you hate the American legal system.

 

[Rightguide]

You don't like the verdict, because you hate the American legal system.

What happened in that case bears no relation to the American legal process, only to the ignorant.

 

[schism666]

You don't like the verdict, because you hate the American legal system.

don't forget that he also hates us citizens since they convicted the fraud.

 

[DeluxAuto]

I had no idea that Derpy has face tatts.

 

[YDB95]

The trouble with your heroes on the left is they've allowed their Marxist indoctrination to control how they employ their legal training. They infect and undermine the American legal environment.

According to someone who has probably never opened a law book, anyway...

 

[jaF0]

Was the Rittenhouse trial undermined?

Yes.

 

[HisArpy]

According to someone who has probably never opened a law book, anyway...

As contrasted against you never opening a law book either?

 

[John_von_Neumann]

As contrasted against you never opening a law book either?

Why do you insist on owning yourself like this?