- Joined
- Apr 9, 2014
- Messages
- 20,714
- Reaction score
- 22,691
- Points
- 113
Entertainment I suppose. Boredom?
The New York Kangaroo Court Case Against Trump
- Thread starter Steeltime
- Start date
Entertainment I suppose. Boredom?
I stopped a long time ago when I saw what I was up against, no point in wasting my time.
Democrats good, Republicans bad.
Dementia Man good, Orange Man especially bad.
Bend facts to fit.
Dr. Flogstain von Booster: "Bolton and Pompeo did not refute the bogus fictional ridiculous inane anonymous yet believable story that Trump said soldiers who died are losers."
I post two linked articles where Bolton and Pompeo refuted the claim 100%.
Dr. Flogstain von Booster: "yEaH, WhUt AbOuT aLL tHe OtHeR ThiNgS TrUmP SaiD? YoU'Re NoTstomping my *** like the 1976 Steelers vs. Sisters of the Poor humiliating me showing me to be beyond stupid posting information with a link showing my body fat level and excess boosters have caused brain damage to my already defective coconut A LaWyErZ."
I post two linked articles where Bolton and Pompeo refuted the claim 100%.
Dr. Flogstain von Booster: "yEaH, WhUt AbOuT aLL tHe OtHeR ThiNgS TrUmP SaiD? YoU'Re NoT
- Joined
- Sep 12, 2014
- Messages
- 14,532
- Reaction score
- 5,605
- Points
- 113
Uh, watched it live. Never came close to thinking he might be on to something.
Restore this country, the UNITED States to what? Seems he spent his first four years transforming the country into a divided one.
- Joined
- Sep 12, 2014
- Messages
- 14,532
- Reaction score
- 5,605
- Points
- 113
Saying that you never heard someone say something someone else said they heard that person say is not refuting it.
Never the less, has it dawned on you that 3 of the 4 former Trump appointees being discussed have turned on him, along with about 20 other allies and aides?
- Joined
- Apr 8, 2014
- Messages
- 9,190
- Reaction score
- 12,005
- Points
- 113
Here is video evidence of President Trump calling our troops "stupid ********":
Wait ...
Wait ...
probably something closer to the opposite of the crumbling, decaying country we have now that is fractured by identity politics.
which, i'm 100% positive you have no idea what that statement means and will thus argue something even more asinine like how tall you should let your grass grow before cutting it. Not that you'd have any input in that since its readily apparent that your fat donut eating *** hasn't cut a yard zeself since sometime in the late 80s, fuccking molasses bleeding pompous michelin tire man dead dog dragging looking ***.
- Joined
- Apr 9, 2014
- Messages
- 20,714
- Reaction score
- 22,691
- Points
- 113
In case you're still wondering how corrupt our government is. Bunch of gangsters. The stuff they're doing to Trump is next level.
- Joined
- Sep 12, 2014
- Messages
- 14,532
- Reaction score
- 5,605
- Points
- 113
So using sexual orientation or gender based insults is the opposite of identity politics?
*****, please!
thank you for proving my point, again, DingDong breathSo using sexual orientation or gender based insults is the opposite of identity politics?
You've got the wrong man.
You may have been too young to remember so in case you missed it, divisiveness began with Obama.
Divisiveness under Trump was manufactured by the left, the media, and democrat politicians. By design there would never be any attempt by democrats to cooperate with Trump. Their plan from the time he took the oath of office was illegitimize his presidency, to be obstructionists, and to impeach.
The audacity of this guy becoming president.
Yes restore the country. Without having to lay it all out for you, simply put, make it more like DeSantis Florida, which is thriving...not the liberal shyt hole that is California. That's you peoples' vision for America.
Btw have you ever conceded to the fact that this has been a political witch-hunt against Trump?
I don't believe that you did.
Wow. He really doesn't know what identity politics means! lol
no - he cannot concede a single point. even when presented with screencapped evidence.
Very interesting approach and commentary. @Steeltime, thoughts?
***video in the link*** - SN not displaying the post I don't think.
https://x.com/kylenabecker/status/1798859839395013095
Yale Law Professor Has Brilliant Plan for Trump Legal Team to Overturn 'Guilty' Verdict Before the Election
"Could Trump actually be put in jail? You bet he could."
"Each count of this 34 count indictment has a maximum penalty attached to it of four years. Well, that's four times 34. That's a maximum sentence, prison sentence of 136 years."
"Will he do that? Of course not. He won't. But could he sentence him to some incarceration? Yes, he could. Will he? Nobody knows."
Yale Law Professor Jeb Rubenfield, who teaches Advanced Constitutional Law, counseled the Trump legal team on a course of action that could potentially see his 'guilty' verdict overturned before the 2024 election.
"Now, when is sentencing scheduled for? Well, Judge Merchan has set it for July 11th."
"Will something happen between then and now? Yes. Trump's team will ask for a judgment notwithstanding the verdict."
"They'll ask for Judge Merchan to throw out the jury's verdict and find Trump innocent despite the verdict, and Judge Merchan will turn that down."
"Then there will be arguments about what the sentence should be briefing on both sides, possibly even a hearing. Then on July 11th, sentencing will be announced. And at that point, that triggers the Trump team's right to appeal."
"To what court would they appeal? Well, they would appeal to New York's appellate level court... And after the appellate court rules, then the case could go up to New York's highest court, which is actually called the Court of Appeals... And after that, the case could go up to the Supreme Court."
"And ultimately it might well go to the Supreme Court where finally we will have a definitive, conclusive ruling on whether the conviction was constitutional or not."
Professor Rubenfield identified a massive, glaring problem with this legal appeals process.
"Of course that would take years, and that's a problem here. Why is it a problem? It's a problem because the election will have taken place and if this conviction is unlawful and unconstitutional, it could have an effect on that election."
"There are surveys, many polls in which a substantial number of American voters say they will not vote for Trump if he is convicted of a felony. Many independents say that, many Republicans even say that. If that's true, an unlawful conviction in this case could interfere with and in fact decide the outcome of the next election of the next President of the United States"
"Even if the conviction were reversed on appeal years later, that effect could not be undone in legal terms. That's called IRREPARABLE HARM. The irreparable harm, once again, is that a 'convicted felon' could affect the election, could decide the election."
"And if so, then District Attorney Bragg and Judge Merchan will have UNLAWFULLY INTERFERED with the election and decided the outcome of the next election through unconstitutional means. And no years long appeal could have any effect on that."
This is the critical point that Professor Rubenfield makes: There is another way.
"Well, is that where we are? So are we stuck with that possibility? Well, believe it or not, there is one other avenue that the Trump lawyers could pursue. They could sue in federal court and ask for an emergency temporary restraining order."
"Restraining order of what? Well, let me tell you something that you might not know. You've probably been reading in the press if you've been reading about this case. The Trump is already a "convicted felon." The jury has convicted him. He's a "convicted felon."
"Well, guess what? THAT'S NOT TRUE."
"You're not a convicted felon because of a jury verdict. You're not convicted unless the judge enters a judgment of guilt against you. The judge still has the power, as I told you before, to throw out that verdict and enter a judgment of acquittal. You are not convicted until the judge enters that judgment of guilt."
"Now in New York, it's very likely that Judge Merchan will enter that judgment of guilt against Trump on the same day that he issued sentencing. That'd be July 11th."
"So what would this federal case be about in this federal action? Trump would sue District Attorney Bragg and other state actors and ask the judge, the federal judge, for an emergency temporary restraining order halting Judge Merchan from entering that judgment of guilt until the federal courts have had an opportunity to review and rule on the serious constitutional arguments that exist here."
"Let me tell you why I think that might be a very important thing to happen. Because going after, criminally, a former president of the United States and somebody who is running for president now, that's a VERY BAD LOOK for this country."
"It's an especially bad look when the folks bring in the case and the judge deciding it are members of the opposing political party. And it's an even worse look when the crime is so unclear that the state is hiding the ball about what the actual charges are right up through the trial and indeed into the trial."
"And even now, we don't know exactly what the jury found Trump guilty of. If you're going to go after a former president and somebody who's running for president now the poll leading candidate, if you're a member of the other party and you're going to do that, YOU BETTER HAVE THE GOODS. You better not be pursuing some novel legal theory where you have to hide the ball. It's not even clear what the charges are."
"That could be a very dangerous precedent for this country. A very bad and dangerous precedent."
"That's why it's so important for a federal court to review the constitutionality of this prosecution and decide, was it constitutional, was it not?"
"The only way to achieve that before the election takes place is for the Trump team to file an action in federal court and ask the federal court to temporarily hold off the entry of the judgment of guilt until the federal courts and maybe the Supreme Court itself can on an emergency basis adjudicate the likelihood of success of these constitutional arguments."
"If that doesn't happen, then that IRREPARABLE HARM danger that I mentioned before, well that's where we are."
"But if it does happen, the nation could get a ruling from the federal courts, even the Supreme Court of the United States, before the election takes place."
"Maybe that's what the nation needs and maybe that's what the law requires here. So if I were Trump's lawyer, that's probably what I would do."
***video in the link*** - SN not displaying the post I don't think.
https://x.com/kylenabecker/status/1798859839395013095
Yale Law Professor Has Brilliant Plan for Trump Legal Team to Overturn 'Guilty' Verdict Before the Election
"Could Trump actually be put in jail? You bet he could."
"Each count of this 34 count indictment has a maximum penalty attached to it of four years. Well, that's four times 34. That's a maximum sentence, prison sentence of 136 years."
"Will he do that? Of course not. He won't. But could he sentence him to some incarceration? Yes, he could. Will he? Nobody knows."
Yale Law Professor Jeb Rubenfield, who teaches Advanced Constitutional Law, counseled the Trump legal team on a course of action that could potentially see his 'guilty' verdict overturned before the 2024 election.
"Now, when is sentencing scheduled for? Well, Judge Merchan has set it for July 11th."
"Will something happen between then and now? Yes. Trump's team will ask for a judgment notwithstanding the verdict."
"They'll ask for Judge Merchan to throw out the jury's verdict and find Trump innocent despite the verdict, and Judge Merchan will turn that down."
"Then there will be arguments about what the sentence should be briefing on both sides, possibly even a hearing. Then on July 11th, sentencing will be announced. And at that point, that triggers the Trump team's right to appeal."
"To what court would they appeal? Well, they would appeal to New York's appellate level court... And after the appellate court rules, then the case could go up to New York's highest court, which is actually called the Court of Appeals... And after that, the case could go up to the Supreme Court."
"And ultimately it might well go to the Supreme Court where finally we will have a definitive, conclusive ruling on whether the conviction was constitutional or not."
Professor Rubenfield identified a massive, glaring problem with this legal appeals process.
"Of course that would take years, and that's a problem here. Why is it a problem? It's a problem because the election will have taken place and if this conviction is unlawful and unconstitutional, it could have an effect on that election."
"There are surveys, many polls in which a substantial number of American voters say they will not vote for Trump if he is convicted of a felony. Many independents say that, many Republicans even say that. If that's true, an unlawful conviction in this case could interfere with and in fact decide the outcome of the next election of the next President of the United States"
"Even if the conviction were reversed on appeal years later, that effect could not be undone in legal terms. That's called IRREPARABLE HARM. The irreparable harm, once again, is that a 'convicted felon' could affect the election, could decide the election."
"And if so, then District Attorney Bragg and Judge Merchan will have UNLAWFULLY INTERFERED with the election and decided the outcome of the next election through unconstitutional means. And no years long appeal could have any effect on that."
This is the critical point that Professor Rubenfield makes: There is another way.
"Well, is that where we are? So are we stuck with that possibility? Well, believe it or not, there is one other avenue that the Trump lawyers could pursue. They could sue in federal court and ask for an emergency temporary restraining order."
"Restraining order of what? Well, let me tell you something that you might not know. You've probably been reading in the press if you've been reading about this case. The Trump is already a "convicted felon." The jury has convicted him. He's a "convicted felon."
"Well, guess what? THAT'S NOT TRUE."
"You're not a convicted felon because of a jury verdict. You're not convicted unless the judge enters a judgment of guilt against you. The judge still has the power, as I told you before, to throw out that verdict and enter a judgment of acquittal. You are not convicted until the judge enters that judgment of guilt."
"Now in New York, it's very likely that Judge Merchan will enter that judgment of guilt against Trump on the same day that he issued sentencing. That'd be July 11th."
"So what would this federal case be about in this federal action? Trump would sue District Attorney Bragg and other state actors and ask the judge, the federal judge, for an emergency temporary restraining order halting Judge Merchan from entering that judgment of guilt until the federal courts have had an opportunity to review and rule on the serious constitutional arguments that exist here."
"Let me tell you why I think that might be a very important thing to happen. Because going after, criminally, a former president of the United States and somebody who is running for president now, that's a VERY BAD LOOK for this country."
"It's an especially bad look when the folks bring in the case and the judge deciding it are members of the opposing political party. And it's an even worse look when the crime is so unclear that the state is hiding the ball about what the actual charges are right up through the trial and indeed into the trial."
"And even now, we don't know exactly what the jury found Trump guilty of. If you're going to go after a former president and somebody who's running for president now the poll leading candidate, if you're a member of the other party and you're going to do that, YOU BETTER HAVE THE GOODS. You better not be pursuing some novel legal theory where you have to hide the ball. It's not even clear what the charges are."
"That could be a very dangerous precedent for this country. A very bad and dangerous precedent."
"That's why it's so important for a federal court to review the constitutionality of this prosecution and decide, was it constitutional, was it not?"
"The only way to achieve that before the election takes place is for the Trump team to file an action in federal court and ask the federal court to temporarily hold off the entry of the judgment of guilt until the federal courts and maybe the Supreme Court itself can on an emergency basis adjudicate the likelihood of success of these constitutional arguments."
"If that doesn't happen, then that IRREPARABLE HARM danger that I mentioned before, well that's where we are."
"But if it does happen, the nation could get a ruling from the federal courts, even the Supreme Court of the United States, before the election takes place."
"Maybe that's what the nation needs and maybe that's what the law requires here. So if I were Trump's lawyer, that's probably what I would do."
Trog is obviously a dedicated, well trained, and totally engrained liberal...
Never conceded.....always double -down!
You have to admire his consistency.
this was a State jury.
its been awhile since I was in a Civics class, but can a Federal judge issue a restraining order as such in a State case?
its been awhile since I was in a Civics class, but can a Federal judge issue a restraining order as such in a State case?
you goddamned ************. be respectful of ze's gender fluidity and refer as ze/zer/zey/zem. jackass
- Joined
- Sep 12, 2014
- Messages
- 14,532
- Reaction score
- 5,605
- Points
- 113
What was the bi-partisan bill that the democrats blocked during Trumps presidency like the bi-partisan immigration bill the republicans blocked?
Blocking a right to contraception bill? WTF, youre turning into radicals.
Florida? I thought inflation was a huge problem? Or is that just “thriving”?
Political at the state level maybe, the Feds passed. Have you ever conceded that the Raffensperger call is smoking gun evidence of Trump trying to overturn an election?
Last edited:
Everything is so difficult these days.....
thanks, again, Flogtard, Champion ded dog dragger, Little Debbie scarfing, Pangolin-chef, World Class *** on Everything non-related to anything, for proving that when you are asked about something, you dodge, deflect and pivot to something else.
Please point out in Stewey's response where he specifically used the word "contraception" OR where it was inferred, and how you came to this summation. I have screen capped your response to him below.
- Joined
- Sep 12, 2014
- Messages
- 14,532
- Reaction score
- 5,605
- Points
- 113
What don’t you understand about the meaning of the word “obstructionist”, Supertard?
another fine, prime example of you flipping, flopping and pivoting in the circle jerk.
Similar threads
