Chew on this, Trump fans: tweeted by Eric Swalwell:
Rep. Eric Swalwell@RepSwalwell·22h If you werenât pissed off when Michael Cohen was convicted for paying hush money to Stormy Daniels you CANNOT be pissed off for Donald Trump being convicted for ordering him to do it. Period. Sit down.
No we do not agree that he was given due process. See my response to SFW below.
I will add that in a banana republic all that you would get is the first trial ...
So, in detail, please explain how Trump was not given due process.
As things stand now, he's a convicted felon.
And the only reason he wasn't convicted in a criminal case of rape was that the statute of limitations ran out. A jury of his peers heard testimony on the matter and agreed that Trump raped Carroll. Granted (IIRC) the act wasn't termed rape because Carroll couldn't be sure whether Trump penetrated her with his penis and NY strictly defines rape as penetration by penis.
So if you want to defend Trump because technically he didn't rape Carroll, go ahead.
But another jury of his peers found him criminally guilty on 34 counts. Good luck beating that on appeal.
Final thought: for a guy who claims he's unstoppable and a super-genius, Trump sure does get himself into a lot of trouble. Like, ALL THE TIME.
Location: Perched on the precipice of the cauldron of truth
Posted:
May 31, 2024 - 5:21pm
maryte wrote:
TRUMP: If they can do this to me, they can do this to anyone.
Yes. If you commit 34 felonies by filing false business records to cover up election interference, you too can be convicted by a jury of your peers via the due process of our criminal justice system.
Exactly.
Trump wants it to be about something â anything â over and beyond this trial on these charges. He wants it to be about the allegation that the judicial system has been weaponized against him and other Trump/MAGA supporters by Biden and the Democrats (remember, those January 6 defendants who have been convicted and jailed are âhostages.â). He wants it to be about saving this country from Biden and the Radical Left (You need to fight if you want to have a country.). He wants it to be about an election is fair if he wins and a trial is fair if he is not found guilty. By contrast, if he loses the election or is found guilty at trial that means the election and trial were ârigged.â The judge is âhighly conflictedâ and âcorrupt.â The jurors are biased because Manhattan residents are overwhelmingly Democrats who voted for Biden and against Trump.
In a world where people like you that equate accusations with of a conviction resulting from a trial, yes splitting hairs is a necessity.
One of the reasons we have courts is to slow down people like you who do not believe in due process and would sooner lynch someone like Trump than give him trial.
Wow, now youâre really spinning out into the universe, Well at least we agree that now he was given due process.
Typical. You missed the splitting hairs point. For some reason you believe sexual harassment can be forgiven if the result was only a civil conviction. My point was that OJ was also able to avoid a criminal conviction but not a civil judgement. Did that make OJ any less innocent?
One of the reasons we have courts is to slow down people like you who do not believe in due process and would sooner lynch someone like Trump than give him trial.
ergo, since this trial was the result of due process, I am fully satisfied that justice has been done.
I mean, I guess that's what you're saying? Never really sure.
Trials have rules that are for the purpose of assuring due process. They also allow for appeals where due process and other issues with a trial such as a biased judge for example may be reviewed and corrected by a higher court if necessary. At least that is my understanding.
A first trial is just a first trial. If both parties are satisfied it ends at the first trial. If one or the other party involved does not like the outcome, they can appeal. and hope for a reversal or correction.
So, I guess what you are saying is that there is no need to appeal a conviction. Or appeals should not be allowed ?
One of the reasons we have courts is to slow down people like you who do not believe in due process and would sooner lynch someone like Trump than give him trial.
ergo, since this trial was the result of due process, I am fully satisfied that justice has been done.
I mean, I guess that's what you're saying? Never really sure.
I love how you mindlessly support Trump no matter what he has done or will do. Life must be very simple for you.
"Trump has been found financially liable for sexual abuse and defamation and criminally convicted of 34 felonies."
Does stating it this way mean he didn't engage in sexual misconduct? FYI, I still think OJ killed Nicole.
Keep on splittin' those hairs.
In a world where people like you that equate accusations with of a conviction resulting from a trial, yes splitting hairs is a necessity.
One of the reasons we have courts is to slow down people like you who do not believe in due process and would sooner lynch someone like Trump than give him trial.
Location: Blinding You With Library Science! Gender:
Posted:
May 31, 2024 - 1:14pm
TRUMP: If they can do this to me, they can do this to anyone.
Yes. If you commit 34 felonies by filing false business records to cover up election interference, you too can be convicted by a jury of your peers via the due process of our criminal justice system.
In a civil court not a criminal court. That is the part that you repeatedly ignore and that makes all the difference, which you still steadfastly refuse to acknowledge. A civil court does not require the standard of proof beyond reasonable doubt.
You are trying to equate a civil matter with a criminal matter. They are not the same, period. That is why there are different courts for these cases and why the distinction matters.
Now if you were to properly restate your sentence it would read :
Trump has been found financially liable for sexual abuse and defamation and criminally convicted of 34 felonies.
But that does not have the same impact and would not reflect your true intent to demonize Trump anyway you can.
So with that, I would call you a threat to democracy by trying to restate these things as factually correct in your mind to suit your objectives.
Worse, any practicing MD certainly knows the difference between criminal actions and civilly liable ones when it comes to the subject of malpractice. The medical profession has been the center of the universe when it comes to the subject of tort reform and the costs of malpractice insurance.
I love how you mindlessly support Trump no matter what he has done or will do. Life must be very simple for you.
"Trump has been found financially liable for sexual abuse and defamation and criminally convicted of 34 felonies."
Does stating it this way mean he didn't engage in sexual misconduct? FYI, I still think OJ killed Nicole.
It take no balls to be one of twelve. It does take balls to be one of one.
Oh, and will that be cash or charge ?
Wrong again Skippy. It takes a ginormous set of "balls"... whatever the number... to weigh-in on a guilty verdict for Trump. As much as I dislike Trump... if I was a juror... not sure if I would have found him guilty in order to protect my family.
The jurors' names will eventually get out (I don't care how careful they are trying to protect their identities) and the rabid MGA faithful will more than likely find ways to antagonize them. Trump would certainly love that as it could set the future stage for other juries that will sit in judgement of him.
Ha, it took a far greater set of "balls" to find him guilty. More than likely the juror's identities will eventually become known, and their personal hells will commence.
It take no balls to be one of twelve. It does take balls to be one of one.
So who wants to be the one juror in NYC that would be the one to question anything and cause a hung jury ?
Would not that intimidate anyone in the real world ?
It does not take much to imagine what would end up happening to that one person who would be identified simply by polling the jury.
Ha, it took a far greater set of "balls" to find him guilty. More than likely the juror's identities will eventually become known, and their personal hells will commence.
Location: Perched on the precipice of the cauldron of truth
Posted:
May 31, 2024 - 12:32pm
kurtster wrote:
As someone who has watched many of Trump's speeches in full (although not as much lately) I found it to be very organized and on point, for a Trump speech. Of course he is going to talk about being a victim, which he is in my opinion.
When it comes to taking the slings and arrows thrown at him, he is peerless. Make no mistake, any republican running for POTUS would face the same treatment as Trump. To pretend otherwise is dishonest. There is no such thing as a likeable republican when it comes to a POTUS in terms of democrats. They will all face the same wrath. That makes Trump the one and only candidate to take on the establishment. AKA, the Deep State, which you steadfastly deny its existence in any way, shape or form. This is the reason for his unshakeable support which those on your side of the aisle are unable to comprehend and freely admit that you cannot understand. And how anyone in their right mind would support Trump in the past, present and future.
Chris LaCivita@LaCivitaC·FollowYou just ended your campaignGovernor Larry Hogan@GovLarryHoganRegardless of the result, I urge all Americans to respect the verdict and the legal process. At this dangerously divided moment in our history, all leadersâregardless of partyâmust not pour fuel on the fire with more toxic partisanship. We must reaffirm what has made this nationâ¦
