ADVERTISEMENT

Restoring Decency in the White House

Just a guy with 34 felony convictions, a Jeffery Epstein frequent flier account, twice divorced-serial philanderer that can't name a single verse from The Bible.
1 misdemeanor repeated 34 times by stacking 34 entries for 1 single transaction and inexplicably turned it into 34 felonies to make it appear as a heinous crime instead of a bookkeeping dispute.

Not to mention ambiguous jury instructions and due process violations by allowing jury to convict without unanimity.

You guys are worried about due process for an illegal gang banging thug…but brush it off here…just so you can call your President a felon.
 
Last edited:
1 misdemeanor repeated 34 times by stacking 34 entries for 1 single transaction and inexplicably turned it into 34 felonies to make it appear as a heinous crime instead of a bookkeeping dispute.

Not to mention ambiguous jury instructions and due process violations by allowing jury to convict without unanimity.

You guys are worried about due process for an illegal gang banging thug…but brush it off here…just so you can call your President a felon.
Yeah. Not being the biggest Trump fan, that whole thing was a sham and despicable, moreso than anything Trump has done.
 
Yeah. Not being the biggest Trump fan, that whole thing was a sham and despicable, moreso than anything Trump has done.
Judicial thuggery.

Party of thugs.

No one does it better.

Heck they’re 86ing Chuck Schumer and Gretchen Witmer for perceived snuggling too closely with Trump.

These are sick people.
 
Not to mention ambiguous jury instructions and due process violations by allowing jury to convict without unanimity.
Can you at least take 3 seconds to look up a real source before you believe stuff? It was a unanimous jury and they were instructed that it must be unanimous.

But for your own ignorance, here are the actual jury instructions. Go ahead and turn to page 49.

Your verdict, on each count you consider, whether guilty or not guilty, must be unanimous; that is, each and every juror must agree to it.
 
Can you at least take 3 seconds to look up a real source before you believe stuff? It was a unanimous jury and they were instructed that it must be unanimous.

But for your own ignorance, here are the actual jury instructions. Go ahead and turn to page 49.
the corrupt kangaroo judge and the Manhattan jury decision will get reversed. I have no doubts. The world has no doubts.

They were confused on the specific “unlawful means” underlying the secondary crime. This is as a departure from legal standards set by Supreme Court precedent, and therefore will be reversed, and a factor that confused jurors, as evidenced by their requests for clarifications. The ambiguity, combined with unclear charges, and the fact that the judge and prosecution twisted the case like a pretzel in order to “get trump”. If ever there was a “show me the man and I’ll show you the crime, this was it”. And it’s a big reason why Dems lost big constituencies and Trump gained them. Which resulted in a
Landslide win for Trump. Your people reap what they sow.
 
the corrupt kangaroo judge and the Manhattan jury decision will get reversed. I have no doubts. The world has no doubts.

They were confused on the specific “unlawful means” underlying the secondary crime. This is as a departure from legal standards set by Supreme Court precedent, and therefore will be reversed, and a factor that confused jurors, as evidenced by their requests for clarifications. The ambiguity, combined with unclear charges, and the fact that the judge and prosecution twisted the case like a pretzel in order to “get trump”. If ever there was a “show me the man and I’ll show you the crime, this was it”. And it’s a big reason why Dems lost big constituencies and Trump gained them. Which resulted in a
Landslide win for Trump. Your people reap what they sow.
Show the Supreme Court precedent where this was a departure from. The ones that I think of would be Erlinger v. United States, Almendarez-Torres v. United States, and Ramos v. Louisiana. But none of those dealt with predicate acts.

I am not aware of anything beyond the Appeals Court that has dealt with predicate acts, with mixed results throughout the district courts.

There's UNITED STATES V GIPSON, but that reached the Appeals Court and only deals with federal criminal trials, not state criminal trials.

It could very well get remanded on appeal, especially if it makes it up to the SCOTUS. The fact that Clarence Thomas came out one week after the Trump trial and announced that he is willing to break with HIS OWN precedent to clear the way for his potential decision says everything you'd need to know.
 
When i think of moral people and leaders that walk in the path of christ, I definitely think of the guy that hawks bibles with his name on it. Thank God for DJT. We can now say happy Easter again and merry Christmas. I hope he runs for a 3rs time so we can hold off the demonic dems and their war on Christmas
 
In other news,.....Trump’s approval rating goes up another point. It is now at 54%. That is crazy high., but well deserved
 
In other news,.....Trump’s approval rating goes up another point. It is now at 54%. That is crazy high., but well deserved
lol according to who?

Gallup is at 44%
YouGov is 42%
Quinnipac is at 41%
Civiqs is at 42%
even Fox News is at 49%
 
  • Like
Reactions: pittguy81
In other news,.....Trump’s approval rating goes up another point. It is now at 54%. That is crazy high., but well deserved
With the Dems siding with wife beating gang members it’s only going to get higher
 
It's going to take some time to restore decency to the White House. The fascist Biden Harris dictatorship left a hot mess to clean up and it will take a lot of work and patience to get the stink out of there.
 
  • Haha
Reactions: jtownknowitall
It's going to take some time to restore decency to the White House. The fascist Biden Harris dictatorship left a hot mess to clean up and it will take a lot of work and patience to get the stink out of there.

I'll take "i don't understand political ideologies " for 200 Alex.
 
lol...nothing says restoring dignity to the White House like the NVIDIA Presents the META Easter Egg Roll, brought to you by Amazon in collaboration with McDonalds.

For the low price of $75,000 you too can get your logo slapped on Easter baskets. For $200,000 you get to have your logo sewn into the President of the United States' suit like a NASCAR driver.

But I guess it's better than doubling the national debt to buy enough eggs for the kids to play with.
 
lol...nothing says restoring dignity to the White House like the NVIDIA Presents the META Easter Egg Roll, brought to you by Amazon in collaboration with McDonalds.

For the low price of $75,000 you too can get your logo slapped on Easter baskets. For $200,000 you get to have your logo sewn into the President of the United States' suit like a NASCAR driver.

But I guess it's better than doubling the national debt to buy enough eggs for the kids to play with.
Beats troons and degenerates flashing their fake tits on the whitehouse lawn. Or the crack head son

but I get that the left loves and defenses drag queens and troons and is normalizing Maps. Nice comparison
 
Beats troons and degenerates flashing their fake tits on the whitehouse lawn. Or the crack head son

but I get that the left loves and defenses drag queens and troons and is normalizing Maps. Nice comparison
I guess coke-head sons are ok though, and ketamine-addled donors who have spent more time under the knife than a butcher block. Leading them all is a man caked in more makeup than the drag queens and there will be plenty of fake tits for everyone.
 
Show the Supreme Court precedent where this was a departure from. The ones that I think of would be Erlinger v. United States, Almendarez-Torres v. United States, and Ramos v. Louisiana. But none of those dealt with predicate acts.

I am not aware of anything beyond the Appeals Court that has dealt with predicate acts, with mixed results throughout the district courts.

There's UNITED STATES V GIPSON, but that reached the Appeals Court and only deals with federal criminal trials, not state criminal trials.

It could very well get remanded on appeal, especially if it makes it up to the SCOTUS. The fact that Clarence Thomas came out one week after the Trump trial and announced that he is willing to break with HIS OWN precedent to clear the way for his potential decision says everything you'd need to know.
 
Funny that you didn't answer the question of what SCOTUS precedent the judge acted against as you claimed.

So that guy's first point is that Trump wasn't given the underlying crime in the indictment. That's true...it's also not required by law to do so in the indictment. It's required to comprise the essential facts of the offenses being charged, the offenses being charged were falsifying business records. The indictment states that. Was is gamesmanship by the DA, sure. Does it meet the minimum required, sure. Does it meet the standard that it will be held to for such a high-profile case, maybe not we'll see. But we all know what the result will be once it reaches the six-to-three SCOTUS.

His second point about the underlying crime not being present in the jury instructions can be proven false by simply looking at the jury instructions.

Here you go

Page 30 - New York Election Law Predicate
Page 31-34 - Unlawful Means Defined
Page 31-32 - Violations of the Federal Election Campaign Act
Page 32-33 - Falsification of other Business Records
Page 34 - Violation of Tax Laws

So that's 0-2 on his claims. I guess he really needed to get rid of a few copies of his book.
 
Funny that you didn't answer the question of what SCOTUS precedent the judge acted against as you claimed.

So that guy's first point is that Trump wasn't given the underlying crime in the indictment. That's true...it's also not required by law to do so in the indictment. It's required to comprise the essential facts of the offenses being charged, the offenses being charged were falsifying business records. The indictment states that. Was is gamesmanship by the DA, sure. Does it meet the minimum required, sure. Does it meet the standard that it will be held to for such a high-profile case, maybe not we'll see. But we all know what the result will be once it reaches the six-to-three SCOTUS.

His second point about the underlying crime not being present in the jury instructions can be proven false by simply looking at the jury instructions.

Here you go

Page 30 - New York Election Law Predicate
Page 31-34 - Unlawful Means Defined
Page 31-32 - Violations of the Federal Election Campaign Act
Page 32-33 - Falsification of other Business Records
Page 34 - Violation of Tax Laws

So that's 0-2 on his claims. I guess he really needed to get rid of a few copies of his book.
Come on.....it's bullshit. How many elected officials then could you get for this? How many? It was trumped up charges (pun not intended) to just label him a "felon" for campaign purposes. It didn't work. It was absolutely weaponization of the court system and you know Trump will do the same in retribution.

And....................if you were serious about beating him, the Dems wouldn't have run the single worst presidential candidate in the entire history of our nation. It was the ultimate "Emperor's New Clothes" in trying to sell that tard as "dynamic" and "fresh air" which the left and their media sycophants tried desperately to sell.

Don't blame people for voting for Trump, you gave them no choice.
 
Come on.....it's bullshit. How many elected officials then could you get for this? How many? It was trumped up charges (pun not intended) to just label him a "felon" for campaign purposes. It didn't work. It was absolutely weaponization of the court system and you know Trump will do the same in retribution.

And....................if you were serious about beating him, the Dems wouldn't have run the single worst presidential candidate in the entire history of our nation. It was the ultimate "Emperor's New Clothes" in trying to sell that tard as "dynamic" and "fresh air" which the left and their media sycophants tried desperately to sell.

Don't blame people for voting for Trump, you gave them no choice.
How many elected officials do I think you could get on charges for paying a tabloid so that it purchases the exclusive rights to the story about an affair with a porn star in order to keep it out of the press in the months prior to an election? Like 3...maybe 4.

Don't go blaming others because you voted for him, no one forced you the stick that needle in your arm.

Plus it sounds like you aren't disagreeing that he did it. So should we prosecute wealthy politicians for flagrantly breaking the law or not? They want to go after Democratic candidates who flagrantly break the law? I'm all for it.
 
How many elected officials do I think you could get on charges for paying a tabloid so that it purchases the exclusive rights to the story about an affair with a porn star in order to keep it out of the press in the months prior to an election? Like 3...maybe 4.

Don't go blaming others because you voted for him, no one forced you the stick that needle in your arm.

Plus it sounds like you aren't disagreeing that he did it. So should we prosecute wealthy politicians for flagrantly breaking the law or not? They want to go after Democratic candidates who flagrantly break the law? I'm all for it.
Flagrant breaking the law. Lol

It was a book keeping dispute.
 
How many elected officials do I think you could get on charges for paying a tabloid so that it purchases the exclusive rights to the story about an affair with a porn star in order to keep it out of the press in the months prior to an election? Like 3...maybe 4.

Don't go blaming others because you voted for him, no one forced you the stick that needle in your arm.

Plus it sounds like you aren't disagreeing that he did it. So should we prosecute wealthy politicians for flagrantly breaking the law or not? They want to go after Democratic candidates who flagrantly break the law? I'm all for it.
He didn't flagrantly break a law. It was an accounting loophole that they trumped up to some campaign finance issue. I wish the justice system took on the Biden's with the same vigor and rigor. Trump was mostly guilty of being a dick and being a dick in deep blue NYC. With all of the accoutrements that come with that. The Biden's were protected by the same color.
 
He didn't flagrantly break a law. It was an accounting loophole that they trumped up to some campaign finance issue. I wish the justice system took on the Biden's with the same vigor and rigor. Trump was mostly guilty of being a dick and being a dick in deep blue NYC. With all of the accoutrements that come with that. The Biden's were protected by the same color.
So he didn't get recorded having a conversation with his lawyer and accountant to set up a shell company to distribute payments to Stormy Daniels to buy her story and prevent it from coming out prior to the election, then use company funds rather than personal to start repaying the debt while claiming it as a business expense before assuming the Presidency?

That isn't an accounting loophole, that's blatantly illegal. If I used company funds to pay off a porn star, do you think the government would consider that a loophole or a crime? That's before even considering the campaign finance issue, which I think we all agree should have a higher standard of legality.

The justice system went easy on the Bidens? Several Republican-led investigations couldn't come up with a single chargeable offense against the Bidens other than his son's tax evasion and lying about drug use to buy a weapon. The DOJ assigned a Republican attorney that was twice appointed by both Bush and Trump to lead the investigation. His son was convicted, during his father's term as President, on all charges and was likely headed to jail on the gun charges before the pardon... So remind me about the protections they received? Do you think if a similar story came out about Don Jr. that Trump would let the DOJ investigate and bring charges against his son? Hell, if Don Jr. was caught on tape shooting someone, do you think Trump would let him spend a single day inside a courtroom?

Say what you want about the pardon, I hate that they exist, but the idea that they weren't intensely scrutinized prior to the pardon is ridiculous.
 
Last edited:
He didn't flagrantly break a law. It was an accounting loophole that they trumped up to some campaign finance issue. I wish the justice system took on the Biden's with the same vigor and rigor. Trump was mostly guilty of being a dick and being a dick in deep blue NYC. With all of the accoutrements that come with that. The Biden's were protected by the same color.
Biden has 21 LLC companies, had 172 suspicious financial activities. If u or I had 1 we would be under investigation. 30 million richer. Classified docs all over the place from 15yrs ago when he was a senator.
 
Biden has 21 LLC companies, had 172 suspicious financial activities. If u or I had 1 we would be under investigation. 30 million richer. Classified docs all over the place from 15yrs ago when he was a senator.
Then of course there’s the “Biden’s age and memory would make him a sympathetic figure to a jury” so conviction would be unlikely determination.

One has to be a complete partisan hack to think the Big Guy wasn’t a corrupt POS.
 
ADVERTISEMENT

Latest posts

ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT