As opposed to the partisan hacks who believe Trump is 100% innocent? I don’t deny the possibility Trump could be acquitted but neither do I think there shouldn’t have been charges, an indictment and a trial. Trump like any other defendant deserves his due process and presenting a vigorous defense. What I don’t think he deserves is immunity from prosecution because he is a former president and is running. For office.
It should be an interesting verdict. Not sure the majority of Americans follow politics but it will definitely be headline news. It is funny to watch the different news channels report on this case. The extremes are intriguing. I think he may be found guilty and if he is I expect the usual suspects to tag me in a **** talking post.
Ok, your stance isn't that a trial needs to be 100% conviction-proof for it to happen. It seems that your stance is a trial needs to be 100% conviction-proof if it involves a politician running for election in the same year, otherwise it shouldn't happen. That's also a bad standard. It means no politician running for election should ever be tried in that year. Concerning the timing, your assumption is not correct. Not all murder trials are slow. It depends on the complexity of it and what evidence was available and what investigations are needed. Same for ANY type of case. Financial fraud trials can easily be notoriously slow, taking a long time to investigate and gather all the evidence needed for a grand jury to indict.
I think the severity of the charge makes a difference. OJ should have charged because a double murder cries out for justice and prosecutors had good reason to think he did it. Bragg might have good reason to think Trump is guilty, but falsifying business records isn't something that demands justice in the same way. So, if you're going to charge it, it should be a slam dunk case.
From all the testimony so far it is a slam dunk case. Do you really think a D.A. is going to prosecute an ex-President if it isn't a slam dunk case? The only reason Trump would be found not guilty is because a juror may not vote to convict because of who he is, not because he is innocent.
I would say there is no such thing as a slam dunk case against a well-funded, politically connected defendant. The classified document case is a 'slam dunk' case, and we see where it's going now.
the funniest part of this case is the claim Trump was supposed to use campaign funds to pay Daniels, and instead used his own money for this, he must go to prison it's all so dumb
So because he was President he should be immune from prosecution? They aren't arguing a crime wasn't committed, just the person who committed the crime shouldn't be charged because of who he is.
Funny... the very next day after trump lied saying he told republicans to not show up and instead pass laws... here is today's rolling cast of maga trump guest supporters...
Word on The Street is that Dementia Don thinks Melania would be super easy to replace and he tells her that everyday.
Trump gets more ass kissing from those slimy VP guys than his wife, that's for sure. She doesn't even pretend to care anymore. It's a loveless marriage, and another Trump kid born into a world with a daddy who couldn't stay loyal to any marriage vows. Just another transaction for services rendered, with no honor and commitment from a daddy and husband incapable of loving anyone but himself.
Taking that quote in isolation, white christian nationalists would think that Donald J Trump was just another black dad. But since he is Donald J Trump he is god's imperfect messenger.
I'm not saying it isn't a slam dunk case. It looks like a slam dunk to me. But, I think the acceptability of bringing a shaky case to trial is relative. This isn't like OJ. OJ charges should have been brought win or lose. But I can see the argument that if they lose this case, it shouldn't have brought to begin with. But, you're right that losing here doesn't mean they didn't have a slam dunk case. They might have a juror operating in bad faith. While I'm thinking of justice, I do think that's the appeal of this case. Maga wants to say it's a politically motivated prosecution, but politically I think this is a pretty terrible case. The offense is bureaucratic, brings little moral stigma, and gives Trump a chance to play the martyr and pretend like it is politically motivated. In the end, it probably helps his election more than hurts it. And I think Trumpers are right that if this wasn't Trump the case wouldn't be brought -- but the injustice there is not that Trump is being prosecuted but that the hypothetical alternate offender wouldn't be. So then it's political, right? No. I feel an unusual urgency for justice in the case of Trump because he did cheat to become president, he cheated at more stuff while president, and he's likely to try some more in this next effort. So, a random New York developer who lies in his business records might slip by unprosecuted and I might recognize its a miscarriage of justice and also allow that our prosecutorial resources are limited and we're not going to catch everybody. But this guy paid me an offense. And I want to see justice paid to him. Not for my political advantage but because I feel like I was injured by his criminal actions. It's like if I'd been date raped and people were trying to tell me that date rape is really hard to prove beyond a reasonable doubt and most offenders get away with it -- fine, sure, but the one that did it to me, I want him in prison and I will not be satisfied with some rationalization that it's just too hard or disruptive. So, like a double-murder cries out for justice and you have a moral duty to indict even if it isn't a slam dunk, likewise, I think there is a moral duty to indict Trump because his presidency cries out for justice. I'm not so keen on this case being the right case. But also every case in which guilt can be proven is the right one. I hope this is only the first of many. We couldn't get Al Capone on murder, but justice demanded we get him on something.
I've sat on juries where during the prosecution, I thought it was a slam dunk case for them, but then after the defense presented, things changed. Always best to wait and see what happens.
I sat on a capital murder case. The defense brought in an evidence expert lawyer and a capital murder case lawyer. And of course, the lawyers were able to pick apart details in how evidence was handled by the Rusk County sheriff's department and played to emotions involving death sentences. But ultimately, the defendant was guilty.
the maga speaker of the maga house of representatives has so little to do each day that he can attend a criminal trial to promote his candidate... will say and do anything, no matter how untrue and against the rule of law...
