(10-11-2023 04:56 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(10-11-2023 03:46 PM)Redbanksdog Wrote:  I hear no one forgot to check a box for a jury trial. Didn't someone tell us they forgot to check that box for a jury trial?

Quote:"The AG checked off non-jury, and there was no motion for a jury," Engoron said about the process in Trump's case -- but he added that if a motion for a jury trial had been filed, he would have rejected it because the attorney general asked for "equitable" relief, which does not entitle participants to a jury trial.

Kind of exactly what I posted -- she could have checked the box, she could have argued for the jury.

But somehow her client thought there would be a jury, which is the first problem.

"This charge has a jury option. Aleena Habba ****** up and didnt 'check the box' for a jury trial".

James sought "equitable relief," the return of profits illegally obtained, that, under New York's constitution, precludes a jury trial.

After Engoron clarified why Trump was not entitled to a jury, Habba said, "I would like to say thank you, your honor."

(10-11-2023 07:46 AM)AdoptedMonarch Wrote:  

(10-10-2023 11:09 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  Message to the board. Tanq is basically a good guy.

I don't understand his position on these issues, but we have hashed that out pretty thoroughly. We are both libertarians but with somewhat different slants. I'm putting words in Tanq's mouth here, but I think they fit, that he is a law-and-order guy and believes that the DOJ/FBI/CIA/DHS bureaucracy, and related state and local law enforcement bureaucracies, are honest brokers enforcing the laws in an honest and non-partisan way. I believe the rank and file of law enforcement and national security are decent, honest people, but I believe that the career bureaucrats at the top are corrupt and power-hungry individuals who believe that their preferences should overrule the will of the people. I find the texts between Strzok and his squeeze from several years ago frightening, but revealing in that they state what I believe to be the beliefs of the likes of people at the tops of those agencies--the hell with the will of the American people, we will impose our views upon them. I was always opposed to the patRIOT act because it empowered those people to violate our constitutional rights in ways that did not exist before. What we have seen in the last 7 years or so is what I believe to be the inevitable result of permitting such abuses.

He believes that Donald Trump has committed severe violations of law because such has been alleged by those in law enforcement. I believe that the top law enforcement officiails (indluding Judge Engron) are so corrupt that I consider their representations to be unreliable and very likely untrue. In large part, my distrust of law enforcement and belief in their bias results becuase they have not prosecuted, or even investigated, what appear to be much more severe violations by others. I will wait to see what proves up in court (and perhaps more importantly, what survives after appeal) before making a decision.

So Tanq is certain that Trump has committed crimes, but apparently uncertain as to the honesty and reliability of law enforcement. I am certain that top law enforcement officials are so biased and dishonest that I do not trust their assertions about Trump.

My biggest hang up with tanq. is that there is no one on this board than he who makes a more persuasive case FOR re-installing the moron Trump as president in 2024.

If the Garland/Wray brand of underhanded, politically motivated use of our legal processes is excused, just because we don't like the target - - which is very much what tanq. is doing here - - then we do not have a justice system. We have a cabal of politically connected thugs willing to use the levers of government against the citizenry. And in that context, the Trumplets may actually be correct. Putting Donald Trump back in office could very well be the only real way to counter that internal evil.

I admire tanq.'s obvious smarts and impressive stamina. I do not at all understand his motivations. Lawyers are supposed to be effective at persuading others. He is the opposite of that.

I mean other than the fact that whenever there is some judge, FBI agent, etc. going after Trump or other Americans it seems to be a Trump appointed judge/government official.

Cleaning up the corrupt justice system by putting the guy in power who put the corrupt justice system in power is just.....

Can somebody que the videos of the black prosecutor chick speaking a few years ago to big crowds saying she’s gonna “get Trump” and “take him down”

(10-11-2023 06:36 PM)450bench Wrote:  Can somebody que the videos of the black prosecutor chick speaking a few years ago to big crowds saying she’s gonna “get Trump” and “take him down”

She didn't use the word promise, so I guess that should mean something.

(10-11-2023 06:43 PM)Redbanksdog Wrote:  

(10-11-2023 06:36 PM)450bench Wrote:  Can somebody que the videos of the black prosecutor chick speaking a few years ago to big crowds saying she’s gonna “get Trump” and “take him down”

She didn't use the word promise, so I guess that should mean something.

There are 10+ videos of this nutcase telling anyone who’ll listen that she’s going to “get Trump.”
It’s hilarious. One shows her really freaking out and crying and stuff. It was from around 2021. The poster child for TDS.

(10-11-2023 06:31 PM)Eagleyed Wrote:  

(10-11-2023 07:46 AM)AdoptedMonarch Wrote:  

(10-10-2023 11:09 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  Message to the board. Tanq is basically a good guy.

I don't understand his position on these issues, but we have hashed that out pretty thoroughly. We are both libertarians but with somewhat different slants. I'm putting words in Tanq's mouth here, but I think they fit, that he is a law-and-order guy and believes that the DOJ/FBI/CIA/DHS bureaucracy, and related state and local law enforcement bureaucracies, are honest brokers enforcing the laws in an honest and non-partisan way. I believe the rank and file of law enforcement and national security are decent, honest people, but I believe that the career bureaucrats at the top are corrupt and power-hungry individuals who believe that their preferences should overrule the will of the people. I find the texts between Strzok and his squeeze from several years ago frightening, but revealing in that they state what I believe to be the beliefs of the likes of people at the tops of those agencies--the hell with the will of the American people, we will impose our views upon them. I was always opposed to the patRIOT act because it empowered those people to violate our constitutional rights in ways that did not exist before. What we have seen in the last 7 years or so is what I believe to be the inevitable result of permitting such abuses.

He believes that Donald Trump has committed severe violations of law because such has been alleged by those in law enforcement. I believe that the top law enforcement officiails (indluding Judge Engron) are so corrupt that I consider their representations to be unreliable and very likely untrue. In large part, my distrust of law enforcement and belief in their bias results becuase they have not prosecuted, or even investigated, what appear to be much more severe violations by others. I will wait to see what proves up in court (and perhaps more importantly, what survives after appeal) before making a decision.

So Tanq is certain that Trump has committed crimes, but apparently uncertain as to the honesty and reliability of law enforcement. I am certain that top law enforcement officials are so biased and dishonest that I do not trust their assertions about Trump.

My biggest hang up with tanq. is that there is no one on this board than he who makes a more persuasive case FOR re-installing the moron Trump as president in 2024.

If the Garland/Wray brand of underhanded, politically motivated use of our legal processes is excused, just because we don't like the target - - which is very much what tanq. is doing here - - then we do not have a justice system. We have a cabal of politically connected thugs willing to use the levers of government against the citizenry. And in that context, the Trumplets may actually be correct. Putting Donald Trump back in office could very well be the only real way to counter that internal evil.

I admire tanq.'s obvious smarts and impressive stamina. I do not at all understand his motivations. Lawyers are supposed to be effective at persuading others. He is the opposite of that.

I mean other than the fact that whenever there is some judge, FBI agent, etc. going after Trump or other Americans it seems to be a Trump appointed judge/government official.

Cleaning up the corrupt justice system by putting the guy in power who put the corrupt justice system in power is just.....

Donald Trump’s complete incompetence when it comes to hiring and character judgment is beyond any shred of doubt. But it is absurd to suggest that he is “the guy … who put the corrupt justice system in power.”

You really aren’t paying any attention whatsoever, Ee, if you think that the corruption in our Justice system started with the Trump administration.

(10-11-2023 07:39 PM)AdoptedMonarch Wrote:  

(10-11-2023 06:31 PM)Eagleyed Wrote:  

(10-11-2023 07:46 AM)AdoptedMonarch Wrote:  

(10-10-2023 11:09 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  Message to the board. Tanq is basically a good guy.

I don't understand his position on these issues, but we have hashed that out pretty thoroughly. We are both libertarians but with somewhat different slants. I'm putting words in Tanq's mouth here, but I think they fit, that he is a law-and-order guy and believes that the DOJ/FBI/CIA/DHS bureaucracy, and related state and local law enforcement bureaucracies, are honest brokers enforcing the laws in an honest and non-partisan way. I believe the rank and file of law enforcement and national security are decent, honest people, but I believe that the career bureaucrats at the top are corrupt and power-hungry individuals who believe that their preferences should overrule the will of the people. I find the texts between Strzok and his squeeze from several years ago frightening, but revealing in that they state what I believe to be the beliefs of the likes of people at the tops of those agencies--the hell with the will of the American people, we will impose our views upon them. I was always opposed to the patRIOT act because it empowered those people to violate our constitutional rights in ways that did not exist before. What we have seen in the last 7 years or so is what I believe to be the inevitable result of permitting such abuses.

He believes that Donald Trump has committed severe violations of law because such has been alleged by those in law enforcement. I believe that the top law enforcement officiails (indluding Judge Engron) are so corrupt that I consider their representations to be unreliable and very likely untrue. In large part, my distrust of law enforcement and belief in their bias results becuase they have not prosecuted, or even investigated, what appear to be much more severe violations by others. I will wait to see what proves up in court (and perhaps more importantly, what survives after appeal) before making a decision.

So Tanq is certain that Trump has committed crimes, but apparently uncertain as to the honesty and reliability of law enforcement. I am certain that top law enforcement officials are so biased and dishonest that I do not trust their assertions about Trump.

My biggest hang up with tanq. is that there is no one on this board than he who makes a more persuasive case FOR re-installing the moron Trump as president in 2024.

If the Garland/Wray brand of underhanded, politically motivated use of our legal processes is excused, just because we don't like the target - - which is very much what tanq. is doing here - - then we do not have a justice system. We have a cabal of politically connected thugs willing to use the levers of government against the citizenry. And in that context, the Trumplets may actually be correct. Putting Donald Trump back in office could very well be the only real way to counter that internal evil.

I admire tanq.'s obvious smarts and impressive stamina. I do not at all understand his motivations. Lawyers are supposed to be effective at persuading others. He is the opposite of that.

I mean other than the fact that whenever there is some judge, FBI agent, etc. going after Trump or other Americans it seems to be a Trump appointed judge/government official.

Cleaning up the corrupt justice system by putting the guy in power who put the corrupt justice system in power is just.....

Donald Trump’s complete incompetence when it comes to hiring and character judgment is beyond any shred of doubt. But it is absurd to suggest that he is “the guy … who put the corrupt justice system in power.”

You really aren’t paying any attention whatsoever, Ee, if you think that the corruption in our Justice system started with the Trump administration.

It isn't entirely but as I said it's so often when you come across someone that is corrupt for prosecuting Trump or regular Americans for going to school board meetings it's so often a Trump appointed person. Because he didn't use lists like the heritage foundations to select judges and instead picked his own.

The FBI is probably the most important pick for investigating corruption in the entire United States and Trump picking Wray soley rests on his shoulders since it was a surprise pick that he made without consulting anyone. When there were multiple high level dems praising Trump for doing it that day I was immediately worried.

But, I'm expected to believe the man who did that will now drain the swamp. That's the point. The man who selected Wray and so many of these other judges will not be the one whose going to get rid of all the corruption.

And maybe just maybe as you say if it was just so corrupt before Trump, he should have had his DOJ investigate these people instead of goign after drs. But, his multiple DOJ picks did nothing. But, he'll totally drain the swamp this time. Believe us say his supporters.

(10-11-2023 05:54 PM)Redbanksdog Wrote:  

(10-11-2023 04:56 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(10-11-2023 03:46 PM)Redbanksdog Wrote:  I hear no one forgot to check a box for a jury trial. Didn't someone tell us they forgot to check that box for a jury trial?

Quote:"The AG checked off non-jury, and there was no motion for a jury," Engoron said about the process in Trump's case -- but he added that if a motion for a jury trial had been filed, he would have rejected it because the attorney general asked for "equitable" relief, which does not entitle participants to a jury trial.

Kind of exactly what I posted -- she could have checked the box, she could have argued for the jury.

But somehow her client thought there would be a jury, which is the first problem.

"This charge has a jury option. Aleena Habba ****** up and didnt 'check the box' for a jury trial".

James sought "equitable relief," the return of profits illegally obtained, that, under New York's constitution, precludes a jury trial.

After Engoron clarified why Trump was not entitled to a jury, Habba said, "I would like to say thank you, your honor."

Here: https://csnbbs.com/thread-978134-post-19...id19200350

Quote:There actually some actions here that are at equity -- that a jury does not render judgement. And some actions that are at law -- where a jury can. At the very least, a jury can act as a finder of fact.

Alina never checked the box. Alina never tried to put it in a motion to argue. When she well could have. And from I gather in similar cases from colleagues in NY -- that is done consistently.

And on top of that above, the judge specifically mentioned at the beginning -- 'I see no party asked for a jury'.

Compare against the bolded.

(10-11-2023 07:12 PM)450bench Wrote:  

(10-11-2023 06:43 PM)Redbanksdog Wrote:  

(10-11-2023 06:36 PM)450bench Wrote:  Can somebody que the videos of the black prosecutor chick speaking a few years ago to big crowds saying she’s gonna “get Trump” and “take him down”

She didn't use the word promise, so I guess that should mean something.

There are 10+ videos of this nutcase telling anyone who’ll listen that she’s going to “get Trump.”
It’s hilarious. One shows her really freaking out and crying and stuff. It was from around 2021. The poster child for TDS.

What do *you* think of all the testimony of the controller, the CFO, and the Deutsche Bank bankers on present trial? Or do you just 'glib' that over?

For the love of God, Dollaritas are back at Applebee's.

(10-11-2023 08:42 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(10-11-2023 07:12 PM)450bench Wrote:  

(10-11-2023 06:43 PM)Redbanksdog Wrote:  

(10-11-2023 06:36 PM)450bench Wrote:  Can somebody que the videos of the black prosecutor chick speaking a few years ago to big crowds saying she’s gonna “get Trump” and “take him down”

She didn't use the word promise, so I guess that should mean something.

There are 10+ videos of this nutcase telling anyone who’ll listen that she’s going to “get Trump.”
It’s hilarious. One shows her really freaking out and crying and stuff. It was from around 2021. The poster child for TDS.

What do *you* think of all the testimony of the controller, the CFO, and the Deutsche Bank bankers on present trial? Or do you just 'glib' that over?

I think they’re as full of $hit as you are.

(10-11-2023 08:40 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(10-11-2023 05:54 PM)Redbanksdog Wrote:  

(10-11-2023 04:56 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(10-11-2023 03:46 PM)Redbanksdog Wrote:  I hear no one forgot to check a box for a jury trial. Didn't someone tell us they forgot to check that box for a jury trial?

Quote:"The AG checked off non-jury, and there was no motion for a jury," Engoron said about the process in Trump's case -- but he added that if a motion for a jury trial had been filed, he would have rejected it because the attorney general asked for "equitable" relief, which does not entitle participants to a jury trial.

Kind of exactly what I posted -- she could have checked the box, she could have argued for the jury.

But somehow her client thought there would be a jury, which is the first problem.

"This charge has a jury option. Aleena Habba ****** up and didnt 'check the box' for a jury trial".

James sought "equitable relief," the return of profits illegally obtained, that, under New York's constitution, precludes a jury trial.

After Engoron clarified why Trump was not entitled to a jury, Habba said, "I would like to say thank you, your honor."

Here: https://csnbbs.com/thread-978134-post-19...id19200350

Quote:There actually some actions here that are at equity -- that a jury does not render judgement. And some actions that are at law -- where a jury can. At the very least, a jury can act as a finder of fact.

Alina never checked the box. Alina never tried to put it in a motion to argue. When she well could have. And from I gather in similar cases from colleagues in NY -- that is done consistently.

And on top of that above, the judge specifically mentioned at the beginning -- 'I see no party asked for a jury'.

Compare against the bolded.

Compare what, you were wrong. It was a trial with no jury from the get go. That's why the AG filed it that way. Right or wrong ?

(10-11-2023 10:07 PM)Redbanksdog Wrote:  

(10-11-2023 08:40 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(10-11-2023 05:54 PM)Redbanksdog Wrote:  

(10-11-2023 04:56 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(10-11-2023 03:46 PM)Redbanksdog Wrote:  I hear no one forgot to check a box for a jury trial. Didn't someone tell us they forgot to check that box for a jury trial?

Quote:"The AG checked off non-jury, and there was no motion for a jury," Engoron said about the process in Trump's case -- but he added that if a motion for a jury trial had been filed, he would have rejected it because the attorney general asked for "equitable" relief, which does not entitle participants to a jury trial.

Kind of exactly what I posted -- she could have checked the box, she could have argued for the jury.

But somehow her client thought there would be a jury, which is the first problem.

"This charge has a jury option. Aleena Habba ****** up and didnt 'check the box' for a jury trial".

James sought "equitable relief," the return of profits illegally obtained, that, under New York's constitution, precludes a jury trial.

After Engoron clarified why Trump was not entitled to a jury, Habba said, "I would like to say thank you, your honor."

Here: https://csnbbs.com/thread-978134-post-19...id19200350

Quote:There actually some actions here that are at equity -- that a jury does not render judgement. And some actions that are at law -- where a jury can. At the very least, a jury can act as a finder of fact.

Alina never checked the box. Alina never tried to put it in a motion to argue. When she well could have. And from I gather in similar cases from colleagues in NY -- that is done consistently.

And on top of that above, the judge specifically mentioned at the beginning -- 'I see no party asked for a jury'.

Compare against the bolded.

Compare what, you were wrong. It was a trial with no jury from the get go. That's why the AG filed it that way. Right or wrong ?

AG would file it w/o jury no matter what. AG wants a bench trial. Judges are typically better on a complex trial matter than juries.

Habba had every right to check 'no jury'. And she had every right to argue the motion. She did not do so. She punted on the opportunity to do so. But there was no 'instant win' on winning that motion in this case. Now we know, after the fact, that a motion wouldnt have succeeded. But the simple fact remains that she punted on presenting it at all. Just as I noted previously.

See bolded above. See that the judge said explicitly she could have checked it, and could have argued it.

As to your italicized -- not necessarily. There is no law that says 'everything in 63(12) actions are bench trials', insto presto automatically. A defendant has every right to present to a judge why theirs shouldnt.

Allina either forgot to check the box, or deliberately decided to not contest it. I would hope that decision was presented to the client.

(10-11-2023 09:46 PM)450bench Wrote:  

(10-11-2023 08:42 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(10-11-2023 07:12 PM)450bench Wrote:  

(10-11-2023 06:43 PM)Redbanksdog Wrote:  

(10-11-2023 06:36 PM)450bench Wrote:  Can somebody que the videos of the black prosecutor chick speaking a few years ago to big crowds saying she’s gonna “get Trump” and “take him down”

She didn't use the word promise, so I guess that should mean something.

There are 10+ videos of this nutcase telling anyone who’ll listen that she’s going to “get Trump.”
It’s hilarious. One shows her really freaking out and crying and stuff. It was from around 2021. The poster child for TDS.

What do *you* think of all the testimony of the controller, the CFO, and the Deutsche Bank bankers on present trial? Or do you just 'glib' that over?

I think they’re as full of $hit as you are.

A little hot under the collar over your refusing to listen to witnesses at all, I see.

(10-11-2023 08:42 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(10-11-2023 07:12 PM)450bench Wrote:  

(10-11-2023 06:43 PM)Redbanksdog Wrote:  

(10-11-2023 06:36 PM)450bench Wrote:  Can somebody que the videos of the black prosecutor chick speaking a few years ago to big crowds saying she’s gonna “get Trump” and “take him down”

She didn't use the word promise, so I guess that should mean something.

There are 10+ videos of this nutcase telling anyone who’ll listen that she’s going to “get Trump.”
It’s hilarious. One shows her really freaking out and crying and stuff. It was from around 2021. The poster child for TDS.

What do *you* think of all the testimony of the controller, the CFO, and the Deutsche Bank bankers on present trial? Or do you just 'glib' that over?

That isn't responding to the post. The post is about the AG campaigning on "getting Trump" years ago. What is your response to that?

(10-12-2023 08:50 AM)MonarchManiac Wrote:  

(10-11-2023 08:42 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(10-11-2023 07:12 PM)450bench Wrote:  

(10-11-2023 06:43 PM)Redbanksdog Wrote:  

(10-11-2023 06:36 PM)450bench Wrote:  Can somebody que the videos of the black prosecutor chick speaking a few years ago to big crowds saying she’s gonna “get Trump” and “take him down”

She didn't use the word promise, so I guess that should mean something.

There are 10+ videos of this nutcase telling anyone who’ll listen that she’s going to “get Trump.”
It’s hilarious. One shows her really freaking out and crying and stuff. It was from around 2021. The poster child for TDS.

What do *you* think of all the testimony of the controller, the CFO, and the Deutsche Bank bankers on present trial? Or do you just 'glib' that over?

That isn't responding to the post. The post is about the AG campaigning on "getting Trump" years ago. What is your response to that?

Worst lawyer on earth



Why are yall still suffering this foolishness

(10-12-2023 08:52 AM)shere khan Wrote:  

(10-12-2023 08:50 AM)MonarchManiac Wrote:  

(10-11-2023 08:42 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(10-11-2023 07:12 PM)450bench Wrote:  

(10-11-2023 06:43 PM)Redbanksdog Wrote:  She didn't use the word promise, so I guess that should mean something.

There are 10+ videos of this nutcase telling anyone who’ll listen that she’s going to “get Trump.”
It’s hilarious. One shows her really freaking out and crying and stuff. It was from around 2021. The poster child for TDS.

What do *you* think of all the testimony of the controller, the CFO, and the Deutsche Bank bankers on present trial? Or do you just 'glib' that over?

That isn't responding to the post. The post is about the AG campaigning on "getting Trump" years ago. What is your response to that?

Worst lawyer on earth



Why are yall still suffering this foolishness

#sadomasochism

(10-11-2023 07:39 PM)AdoptedMonarch Wrote:  

(10-11-2023 06:31 PM)Eagleyed Wrote:  

(10-11-2023 07:46 AM)AdoptedMonarch Wrote:  

(10-10-2023 11:09 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  Message to the board. Tanq is basically a good guy.

I don't understand his position on these issues, but we have hashed that out pretty thoroughly. We are both libertarians but with somewhat different slants. I'm putting words in Tanq's mouth here, but I think they fit, that he is a law-and-order guy and believes that the DOJ/FBI/CIA/DHS bureaucracy, and related state and local law enforcement bureaucracies, are honest brokers enforcing the laws in an honest and non-partisan way. I believe the rank and file of law enforcement and national security are decent, honest people, but I believe that the career bureaucrats at the top are corrupt and power-hungry individuals who believe that their preferences should overrule the will of the people. I find the texts between Strzok and his squeeze from several years ago frightening, but revealing in that they state what I believe to be the beliefs of the likes of people at the tops of those agencies--the hell with the will of the American people, we will impose our views upon them. I was always opposed to the patRIOT act because it empowered those people to violate our constitutional rights in ways that did not exist before. What we have seen in the last 7 years or so is what I believe to be the inevitable result of permitting such abuses.

He believes that Donald Trump has committed severe violations of law because such has been alleged by those in law enforcement. I believe that the top law enforcement officiails (indluding Judge Engron) are so corrupt that I consider their representations to be unreliable and very likely untrue. In large part, my distrust of law enforcement and belief in their bias results becuase they have not prosecuted, or even investigated, what appear to be much more severe violations by others. I will wait to see what proves up in court (and perhaps more importantly, what survives after appeal) before making a decision.

So Tanq is certain that Trump has committed crimes, but apparently uncertain as to the honesty and reliability of law enforcement. I am certain that top law enforcement officials are so biased and dishonest that I do not trust their assertions about Trump.

My biggest hang up with tanq. is that there is no one on this board than he who makes a more persuasive case FOR re-installing the moron Trump as president in 2024.

If the Garland/Wray brand of underhanded, politically motivated use of our legal processes is excused, just because we don't like the target - - which is very much what tanq. is doing here - - then we do not have a justice system. We have a cabal of politically connected thugs willing to use the levers of government against the citizenry. And in that context, the Trumplets may actually be correct. Putting Donald Trump back in office could very well be the only real way to counter that internal evil.

I admire tanq.'s obvious smarts and impressive stamina. I do not at all understand his motivations. Lawyers are supposed to be effective at persuading others. He is the opposite of that.

I mean other than the fact that whenever there is some judge, FBI agent, etc. going after Trump or other Americans it seems to be a Trump appointed judge/government official.

Cleaning up the corrupt justice system by putting the guy in power who put the corrupt justice system in power is just.....

Donald Trump’s complete incompetence when it comes to hiring and character judgment is beyond any shred of doubt. But it is absurd to suggest that he is “the guy … who put the corrupt justice system in power.”

You really aren’t paying any attention whatsoever, Ee, if you think that the corruption in our Justice system started with the Trump administration.

I agree with you here. The biggest problem are the people Obama put in place. Trump put a lot of incompetents. Obama put in evil anti-American people. Like Owl says, stupid party vs. evil party.

(10-11-2023 08:42 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(10-11-2023 07:12 PM)450bench Wrote:  

(10-11-2023 06:43 PM)Redbanksdog Wrote:  

(10-11-2023 06:36 PM)450bench Wrote:  Can somebody que the videos of the black prosecutor chick speaking a few years ago to big crowds saying she’s gonna “get Trump” and “take him down”

She didn't use the word promise, so I guess that should mean something.

There are 10+ videos of this nutcase telling anyone who’ll listen that she’s going to “get Trump.”
It’s hilarious. One shows her really freaking out and crying and stuff. It was from around 2021. The poster child for TDS.

What do *you* think of all the testimony of the controller, the CFO, and the Deutsche Bank bankers on present trial? Or do you just 'glib' that over?

What I think is that they all see the extent to which these corrupt justice officials will go to get Trump. They are rightfully scared chitless of these nazis. No wonder everyone will distance themselves from Trump to survive. Third world corrupt politics at work here. Easy enough to see with eyes wide open.

(10-12-2023 08:56 AM)stinkfist Wrote:  

(10-12-2023 08:52 AM)shere khan Wrote:  Worst lawyer on earth



Why are yall still suffering this foolishness

#sadomasochism

This... though a good lawyer stays on message regardless of the facts and whatever 'the other side' presents.... so while I'd argue that it does not make a bad lawyer, it certainly doesn't make a good conversationalist.