1 Like
You’ll have seen this but it underlines what you’re saying. Either get on board with the lies and gaslighting or you’re out of the GOP.
2 Likes
Playing devils advocate here, does it really matter where the charges have come from. He’s had a trial and been found guilty of a crime.
Should we really forget the fundamental principle of laws because we dont like the people who brought them forward?
Feels almost like being caught speeding but shouting out loud that you weren’t speeding because you didn’t like the traffic cop that nicked you (enter reason here).
3 Likes
These crimes are notoriously difficult to prosecute. The IRS doesn’t have the resources to proactively investigate, and so they tend to only get uncovered as part of the investigation of adjacent criminality that has opened the door to the prosecutors getting access to the financial documents to pick them apart. Remember where this case from…issues uncovered in the Mueller investigation that were kicked down to the SDNY for being outside of their scope. That resulted in the Cohen case (which identified individual 1 as an unindicted coconspirator) and the Manhattan office having enough evidence to subpoena the Trump org’s records and the records from Mazars.
These are not prosecutions that can be brought simply by having a motivated prosecutor decide to go after someone they don’t like. There needs to be the legal “in” to get a ball rolling and then enough “there there” to keep going. This speaks to the fallacy of the complaints about Bragg making campaign promises to prosecute Trump, as if that is where this case came from. This case was already years in the making and as it was a matter of public knowledge all candidates were required to answer questions about their view on prosecuting a former president. Bragg’s responses were unremarkable straight-bat prosecutor speak saying he’s prosecuted Trump before and he will take this case where ever the evidence goes.
As for the complaints about it being an unfair jurisdiction, it is where he chose to live and do business. It is also where only a week before he held a rally and his people were saying the level of support was so big that NY was back in play in the election 
5 Likes
Do you know anything about Biden’s criminal ‘affiliates’?
Even if anyone does it’s not for this thread. So a new thread of Bidens affiliates/associates crimes needs to be ‘developped’.
I suspect it has to do with Brother, son and vice president.
The location of the trial not being fair is the one that gets me.
If you don’t want a trial to happen in Manhattan or New York more generally, then don’t commit a crime in Manhattan.
Hosting a meeting at Trump tower with Pecker and Cohen to discuss paying off damaging stories (and creating untrue stories like Ted Cruz dad killed JFK) and then creating false business records using businesses with a New York address, is going to get you a trial in New York. Where else would the trial be held?
That is why the documents case is being heard in Florida (although you could argue it could be argued in DC as it was federal documents) because the documents were being held in Florida.
13 Likes
If the trial wasn’t held in NY, it could open the door for an appeal/ mistrial because the case wasn’t held in the same state as where the crime was committed - Think this is why Jack Smith went to Florida (even though he knew the risk with Eileen Cannon)… it closes the door on a later reason for appeal
4 Likes
I’m not creating a thread for an unsubstantiated rumour about unnamed ‘affiliates’.
1 Like
Just saw a headline along the lines of “Trump’s revenge plan”, and though that’s stupid to put out there as it would turn off independents. I then actually read some of the article and it says his revenge is winning the election in 2024. Just goes to show, don’t just read the headlines.
Trump and his cronies have been open about how they would use government to get retribution against those he perceives wronged him if he gets back into office. So regardless of the merits of the uncited piece you are speaking about, I cannot comprehend someone being surprised about talk of revenge being attributed to Trump and his people. It has been a key part of his rhetoric. Trump has threatened dozens of times to use the government to target political enemies - CREW | Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington
Missing in all of these threats are clearly articulated legal predicates for the actions he and his people threaten. It is just simple tit for tat without recognition that the tit was premised on legal predicates.
4 Likes
Just want to say fair play, you are more than entitled to get your point across. Many people in America see it about like you do.
I do not, and obviously most on this board don’t either, and I believe due process has happened. Trump did his utmost to delay or avoid trial, which is also what he has been doing in the other three - more serious - cases too.
I think he will appeal, and that will extend way beyond the Presidential Election, as it goes through the appellate court/s.
Ultimately, I think his fate rides on the election.
1 Like
Thanks. I just find the balance strange. Maybe if you took Trump out of the equation then it might be closer to 50/50 on the board. I know historically Liverpool attracts the more liberal pov (doesn’t translate well across borders), more of self professed peoples club, which I believe is true.
Unreliable rumours thread?
3 Likes
At least that one has some names.
4 Likes
Me neither however it shouldn’t digress this thread either so best not reply at all to non pertinent posts imo.
I guess we’re going to have to just get by with laughing emoji responses rather than any sort of elaboration.
4 Likes
If shown this now his response would be that they let her run anyway so he should be allowed to run as well,that they set the precident.
1 Like
A quick, simple distillation of the issue
4 Likes
The video is interesting, and touches on the inconsistencies in the case/trial/conviction. The opinion from a cnn legal analyst (an actual lawyer, not just a reporter)