martin wrote:DLeethal “yawns” are getting behind and supporting someone who is a rapist and has a ****ing boatload of classified pics of sloppily stored notational secrets in his bathroom all the while getting indicted substantially for lots and lots of crimes.

I cannot respect you as a person. At all.

Biden was accused of rape and willfully stored "boatloads" of national secrets in his garage while his drug addicted son paraded in and out whilst doing business with Ukraine and China. Where exactly is your line drawn?

Sometimes it helps us knick fans to see people in a different light.

“Consciousness Stupidity and Sincere Ignorance”

How about JB choking on is last 3 shots in the 3 pt contest? All he needed was to hit 1.

How about Dame Time almost doing the same thing and luckily hit his last 3. Guess that’s the true definition of Dame Time.

What about Halliburton hitting the 3 to reach 200 points for the first time in nba history.

That all star game was a joke. They could’ve had a layup line which would’ve been more entertaining. Something needs to change. Not sure what.

DLeethal wrote:

martin wrote:

DLeethal wrote:

martin wrote:

DLeethal wrote:

martin wrote:

DLeethal wrote:The reason Trump's support strengthens with every indictment is because the majority of Americans see exactly what is happening here. They trying to put him in prison for the rest of his life not because his egregious crimes but because they don't want him to be president again. The man has been in the public spotlight for 5 decades and never faced a charge, then all of a sudden gets a tsunami of charges once he declares he's running again. Every single one of these cases has been some never-used fringe political theory (the Stormy case or the RICO case for challenging an election) or something that everyone in Trump's shoes does but never gets charged for (the classified docs and embellishing your net worth for preferable loans). The majority of the country does not find any of these charges to be warranted or credible. The left will laugh it off as a bunch of bible thumping rednecks but they are just showing they have never left their metropolitan bubbles, Trump's support has only widened and is getting stronger across the board. That's no different than the right saying all the remaining Biden/Harris supporters are blue haired antifa hippies or entitled college kids still living in their parents basement. Classic denialism and hubris by an out of touch media establishment and their dwindling consumer base.

Those clamoring "save democracy" while pushing to remove the leading candidate from the ballots and have him die in prison just look like out of touch buffoons at this point.

In addition, everyone knows the CIA spied on him during the 2016 election ("conspiracy theory" turned fact) completely made up the Russiagate narrative out of thin air (conspiracy theory turned fact) then pounded everyone over the head with it for 2 years to try and get him removed from office, banded together to discredit the censor the Hunter Biden laptop 2 weeks before the election when they knew it was legitimate (conspiracy theory turned fact). I don't think people realize how dumb they are after crying "election interference" over the Russia nonsense while turning a blind eye to all the election interference that has taken place to try and get this guy removed.

This is why no one takes the indictments seriously and his popularity gets stronger each time, the people trying to get Trump out for 7 years have lost all credibility at this point.

Why are you speaking for anyone else besides yourself? Cause you can **** off with that level of uninformed gibberish; no need to splash any of that ignorance any further.

I find your lack of having an iota of a clue kinda revealing. We shall blame it on our poor educational system.

Lay off the Fox News stuff, it’ll be healthier for you.

I'm speaking based on facts - the fact is with every indictment his poll numbers went up, thus more and more people were not finding them warranted or credible. Not rocket science.

What poll? Link to it.

And who was asked and what did they ask?

Polls are everywhere. Why do you find the ones you read substantial?

Are you seriously going to try and muddy up the fact that Trump's poll numbers have gone up over the course of the past 6 months+? This is not something that would be refuted by any news outlet.

You need to substantiate your statements, not me.

You are making an assertion. Back it up and then explain to us why those polls are relevant.

Make your opinion and assertions work cause so far you are dancing around air. You got nothing but you own opinion.

Zero relevant fact based information.

Look at the polls yourself. It's quite obvious to anyone with a working brain, that Trump's numbers have gotten much stronger over the course of the past 6 months. You can try to muddy that up all you want, but it's a fact jack.

https://www.realclearpolling.com/polls/president/general/2024/trump-vs-biden-vs-kennedy-vs-west-vs-stein

Onus is on you to try and disprove this one, since it's widely known and a prevalent talking point on EVERY news outlet, not just right wing media.

Same source that denied Bidens win.
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/11/17/us/politics/real-clear-politics.html

Court would be the perfect opportunity for him to prove the election was indeed stolen. This would justify the Jan 6th insurrection. Clearing him and punishing Biden and the Dems all in one swoop. He should have pushed for his trial if it was indeed stolen and he had the proof he has claimed he and to prove it.

But he knows he's lying and has been lying. And that he's guilty as hell. So instead his play is to attempt to delay the trial hoping is Prez and pardons himself.

Lying at the level they Trump has while still generating the support he has to be the top nominee. As the youngins say today. NASTY WORK

martin wrote:

DLeethal wrote:Yawn.

I'd like a President who doesn't refuse to acknowledge his granddaughter's existence until guilted into by the media.

or a President who doesn't use his crackhead son as his bagman.

or a President who doesn't try to throw his opponent in prison during a election.

or a President who is not deemed too old and mentally feeble to even stand trial for a crime.

We can all play that stupid game.

Biden's son is a flawed human being. Drug addict. Loves his hookers and coke and video tapes himself doing naked slip and slide with champagne splashing everywhere. I'm a bit jealous. It's awesome that Marjorie Taylor Greene feels the need to stoop to holding up his dick pics in a congressional setting, shows you the true colors of a particular person and perspective that is pervasive amongst the Republican party and generally with douchebags who need to stoop to that level cause they don't have an ounce of intelligence to do any better.

And yet the entirety of the Trump administration and DOJ and Rudy were not able to track down this coke addicts crimes after 4+ years of digging? The best they could come up with is Rudy and the laptop?

Trump and his agents and allies were that dumb. Or the coke/hookers naked guy was that smart to avoid getting caught. He was smart enough to not keep his secrets on display in his bathroom?

How embarrassing is it that Biden's son is this smart to not get caught doing "bagman" stuff? Whatever that may be? The dude is just weiner posting and snorting coke with hookers and that's the best Trump adn Barr could come up with? Dick pics?

You know I love the dick pics as much as the cheerleader pics but that's kinda embarrassing as a bagman. But also kudos for the slip and slide action.

That's because Biden is an evil genius who is also senile at the same time.

CanItGetAnyWorse wrote:

gradyandrew wrote:

martin wrote:

gradyandrew wrote:

martin wrote:

gradyandrew wrote:First, the caveats:

1. Forgot where we landed on 'political talk,' if I'm overstepping the boundaries just shut it down.

2. Trump is a fraudster. Trump University was a hoax.

3. No doubt that Trump inflated the value of his properties.

BUT, my big issue is the government bringing the case in the first place. I really don't like the idea of prosecutors having the right to enter a civil contract without either of the parties to the contract bringing suit. It just seems to open the bag to way too much government interference in private life. Any legal eagles know if this is already something government does regularly or has done before?

You are against something you literally have zero background or firm understanding of what you are talking about.

Thats the basis for your (uninformed? misguided?) opinion?

I wouldn't say zero background. It was a civil, not criminally trial. That's why Hofstra's first two analogies didn't sit right with me- prostitution and speeding are criminal offenses. My question was if the state has the right to file in a civil suit. I respect your knowledge and that of others in this forum. And yes, I'm probably less informed than a lot of people here and maybe misguided. That's why I ask.

So I don’t get your take. Why come to an opinion on something before you even have much of a background on a subject?

Seems like an odd sequence of things.

I get asking questions on it, but that’s a different path.

Honestly man, I'm hoping you will explain it to me. I know you are deep in this **** and my initial take is that this is more about sinking Trump's run than the actual charges, which to me is a dangerous slope- when politicians are facing prison or dictatorship, they usually choose the latter.

So, a useful nudge in the right direction would be appreciated. Or not.

I think you are on to something.

3/17 - Hunter admits laptop
3/18 - Trump indictment news

6/8 - FBI doc alleges Biden bribe
6/9 - INDICTMENT

7/26 - Hunter plea deal collapses
7/27 - INDICTMENT

7/31 - Devon Archer testifies
8/1 - INDICTMENT

8/11 - DOJ (illegally) designates special counsel
8/14 - FBI Whistleblower transcript released
8/14 - INDICTMENT

12/13 - House authorizes Biden impeachment inquiry
12/19 - Biden family whistleblower testifies
12/19 - Colorado ballot removal

2/14 - Damning evidence proving 'Russiagate' was a hoax
2/15 - Fans Willis hearing
2/16 - Tony Bobulinski transcript on Biden family corruption released
2/16 - $354 million fine & banned from business in NY

Just remembered to touch on this.

A series of events have to happen before someone can be indicted. Has to be a thorough investigation with overwhelming evidence to support indicting someone. It doesn't just happen at the drop of a hat. They can't just indict Trump as a deflection to news against Biden. There was a process of Jack Smith for example getting Trump's own stooges to flip on Trump giving up the details solidifying the evidence to call for indictment. And Trump's own GOP members and employees will be the one testifying against him in court as they are the ones that gave up the details and will have to explain that to the jury.

Odds are waay higher ppl were aware ahead of time when the indictments were likely to hit. And manipulated the news around that. Than Biden and the Dems being able to manipulate court to drop indictments on Trump in order to deflect.

newyorknewyork wrote:

CanItGetAnyWorse wrote:

gradyandrew wrote:

martin wrote:

gradyandrew wrote:

martin wrote:

gradyandrew wrote:First, the caveats:

1. Forgot where we landed on 'political talk,' if I'm overstepping the boundaries just shut it down.

2. Trump is a fraudster. Trump University was a hoax.

3. No doubt that Trump inflated the value of his properties.

BUT, my big issue is the government bringing the case in the first place. I really don't like the idea of prosecutors having the right to enter a civil contract without either of the parties to the contract bringing suit. It just seems to open the bag to way too much government interference in private life. Any legal eagles know if this is already something government does regularly or has done before?

You are against something you literally have zero background or firm understanding of what you are talking about.

Thats the basis for your (uninformed? misguided?) opinion?

I wouldn't say zero background. It was a civil, not criminally trial. That's why Hofstra's first two analogies didn't sit right with me- prostitution and speeding are criminal offenses. My question was if the state has the right to file in a civil suit. I respect your knowledge and that of others in this forum. And yes, I'm probably less informed than a lot of people here and maybe misguided. That's why I ask.

So I don’t get your take. Why come to an opinion on something before you even have much of a background on a subject?

Seems like an odd sequence of things.

I get asking questions on it, but that’s a different path.

Honestly man, I'm hoping you will explain it to me. I know you are deep in this **** and my initial take is that this is more about sinking Trump's run than the actual charges, which to me is a dangerous slope- when politicians are facing prison or dictatorship, they usually choose the latter.

So, a useful nudge in the right direction would be appreciated. Or not.

I think you are on to something.

3/17 - Hunter admits laptop
3/18 - Trump indictment news

6/8 - FBI doc alleges Biden bribe
6/9 - INDICTMENT

7/26 - Hunter plea deal collapses
7/27 - INDICTMENT

7/31 - Devon Archer testifies
8/1 - INDICTMENT

8/11 - DOJ (illegally) designates special counsel
8/14 - FBI Whistleblower transcript released
8/14 - INDICTMENT

12/13 - House authorizes Biden impeachment inquiry
12/19 - Biden family whistleblower testifies
12/19 - Colorado ballot removal

2/14 - Damning evidence proving 'Russiagate' was a hoax
2/15 - Fans Willis hearing
2/16 - Tony Bobulinski transcript on Biden family corruption released
2/16 - $354 million fine & banned from business in NY

Just remembered to touch on this.

A series of events have to happen before someone can be indicted. Has to be a thorough investigation with overwhelming evidence to support indicting someone. It doesn't just happen at the drop of a hat. They can't just indict Trump as a deflection to news against Biden. There was a process of Jack Smith for example getting Trump's own stooges to flip on Trump giving up the details solidifying the evidence to call for indictment. And Trump's own GOP members and employees will be the one testifying against him in court as they are the ones that gave up the details and will have to explain that to the jury.

Odds are waay higher ppl were aware ahead of time when the indictments were likely to hit. And manipulated the news around that. Than Biden and the Dems being able to manipulate court to drop indictments on Trump in order to deflect.

I see that you don’t belong to the Tin Foil Hat wearing committee

Tweet was deleted or there was problem with the URL:

https://www.twitter.com/thereidout/status/1759739237811798185

newyorknewyork wrote:

martin wrote:

newyorknewyork wrote:

CanItGetAnyWorse wrote:

gradyandrew wrote:

martin wrote:

gradyandrew wrote:

martin wrote:

gradyandrew wrote:First, the caveats:

1. Forgot where we landed on 'political talk,' if I'm overstepping the boundaries just shut it down.

2. Trump is a fraudster. Trump University was a hoax.

3. No doubt that Trump inflated the value of his properties.

BUT, my big issue is the government bringing the case in the first place. I really don't like the idea of prosecutors having the right to enter a civil contract without either of the parties to the contract bringing suit. It just seems to open the bag to way too much government interference in private life. Any legal eagles know if this is already something government does regularly or has done before?

You are against something you literally have zero background or firm understanding of what you are talking about.

Thats the basis for your (uninformed? misguided?) opinion?

I wouldn't say zero background. It was a civil, not criminally trial. That's why Hofstra's first two analogies didn't sit right with me- prostitution and speeding are criminal offenses. My question was if the state has the right to file in a civil suit. I respect your knowledge and that of others in this forum. And yes, I'm probably less informed than a lot of people here and maybe misguided. That's why I ask.

So I don’t get your take. Why come to an opinion on something before you even have much of a background on a subject?

Seems like an odd sequence of things.

I get asking questions on it, but that’s a different path.

Honestly man, I'm hoping you will explain it to me. I know you are deep in this **** and my initial take is that this is more about sinking Trump's run than the actual charges, which to me is a dangerous slope- when politicians are facing prison or dictatorship, they usually choose the latter.

So, a useful nudge in the right direction would be appreciated. Or not.

I think you are on to something.

3/17 - Hunter admits laptop
3/18 - Trump indictment news

6/8 - FBI doc alleges Biden bribe
6/9 - INDICTMENT

7/26 - Hunter plea deal collapses
7/27 - INDICTMENT

7/31 - Devon Archer testifies
8/1 - INDICTMENT

8/11 - DOJ (illegally) designates special counsel
8/14 - FBI Whistleblower transcript released
8/14 - INDICTMENT

12/13 - House authorizes Biden impeachment inquiry
12/19 - Biden family whistleblower testifies
12/19 - Colorado ballot removal

2/14 - Damning evidence proving 'Russiagate' was a hoax
2/15 - Fans Willis hearing
2/16 - Tony Bobulinski transcript on Biden family corruption released
2/16 - $354 million fine & banned from business in NY

Just remembered to touch on this.

A series of events have to happen before someone can be indicted. Has to be a thorough investigation with overwhelming evidence to support indicting someone. It doesn't just happen at the drop of a hat. They can't just indict Trump as a deflection to news against Biden. There was a process of Jack Smith for example getting Trump's own stooges to flip on Trump giving up the details solidifying the evidence to call for indictment. And Trump's own GOP members and employees will be the one testifying against him in court as they are the ones that gave up the details and will have to explain that to the jury.

Odds are waay higher ppl were aware ahead of time when the indictments were likely to hit. And manipulated the news around that. Than Biden and the Dems being able to manipulate court to drop indictments on Trump in order to deflect.

I see that you don’t belong to the Tin Foil Hat wearing committee

Former FBI informant charged with lying about Biden business
https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/2024/02/15/hunter-biden-informant-indicted-fbi-burisma/

This about sums it up

Tweet was deleted or there was problem with the URL:

https://www.twitter.com/toddzwillich/status/1760062087890383253

martin wrote:

gradyandrew wrote:

martin wrote:

gradyandrew wrote:

martin wrote:

gradyandrew wrote:First, the caveats:

1. Forgot where we landed on 'political talk,' if I'm overstepping the boundaries just shut it down.

2. Trump is a fraudster. Trump University was a hoax.

3. No doubt that Trump inflated the value of his properties.

BUT, my big issue is the government bringing the case in the first place. I really don't like the idea of prosecutors having the right to enter a civil contract without either of the parties to the contract bringing suit. It just seems to open the bag to way too much government interference in private life. Any legal eagles know if this is already something government does regularly or has done before?

You are against something you literally have zero background or firm understanding of what you are talking about.

Thats the basis for your (uninformed? misguided?) opinion?

I wouldn't say zero background. It was a civil, not criminally trial. That's why Hofstra's first two analogies didn't sit right with me- prostitution and speeding are criminal offenses. My question was if the state has the right to file in a civil suit. I respect your knowledge and that of others in this forum. And yes, I'm probably less informed than a lot of people here and maybe misguided. That's why I ask.

So I don’t get your take. Why come to an opinion on something before you even have much of a background on a subject?

Seems like an odd sequence of things.

I get asking questions on it, but that’s a different path.

Honestly man, I'm hoping you will explain it to me. I know you are deep in this **** and my initial take is that this is more about sinking Trump's run than the actual charges, which to me is a dangerous slope- when politicians are facing prison or dictatorship, they usually choose the latter.

So, a useful nudge in the right direction would be appreciated. Or not.

State and Federal govt bring both civil and criminal charges against people and entities all the time. This is not a new thing, like at all. Since the beginning of time.

Leona Helmsley is a good parallel that we all should have at least heard the name. She got big fines and jail time for pretty much the same things Trump is getting fined for. There are lots of instances of this all over the place.

You will maybe find this hard to believe but DA’s often run on platforms of prosecuting criminals any which way they can. They often run by actually naming their scumbag targets. As with mob bosses like Al Capone and ****bags like Trump and pretty much his entire family. Much like the full Republican Party is running around on platforms of trying to murder and prosecute the most helpless and poorest people in parts of central and South America who are mostly just trying to flee from terror in their own home countries by way of coming to the country of the home of the free and brave. Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free, the wretched refuse of your teeming shore. Send these, the homeless, tempest-tossed to me, I lift my lamp beside the golden door!

Or maybe not so much?

Helmsley was convicted for not paying her taxes.

I've looked up a lot of cases where states' attorneys have bought civil cases. All the examples I could find have been them joining class action suits already filed by private attorneys, examples including tobacco, securities fraud, pollution, and pharmaceutical companies. I haven't found one example of the state bringing a civil charge for monetary damages without an initial filing by an aggrieved party.

I really didn't want this thread to get into all of Trump's other offenses and actions. He was president for four years as has Biden, so it should be a pretty simple argument of comparing their records.

DeeLethal's takes are exactly the reason why I get real quesy about what's happening. It's hard for me to see how any of the indictments have hurt Trump. The idea that states attorneys are trying to keep him off the ballot seems way more problematic.

I have thoughts about the civil trial for pain and suffering (not a criminal conviction of sexual assault) and also Jan. 6 as it pertains to the 14the Amendment (which very specifically leaves President off the list) but I will leave those at the door.

Can anyone post a non-google docs or sribd link to Engoron's decision? Both of those are blocked in China.

And yes, I'd much rather have a beer with Hunter than Trump or Joe.