by spottybrowncow » Sat Jun 01, 2024 11:08 am
Bob Butler wrote: ↑Fri May 31, 2024 11:21 pm
guest wrote: ↑Fri May 31, 2024 7:02 pm
Who are you talking about? Trump didn't commit any crimes, and that will be established in time, but probably not until after he becomes president. Foolish evil people are gloating now, but their laughter will turn to wails before the fat lady sings.
One of the things mentioned often in the MSM trial coverage was how a jury of everyday people picked by a fair process by both sides paid attention. They reached a solid conclusion with witnesses testimony confirmed by documents. I happen to agree with them, but have only highlights of the evidence picked up from TV summaries.
What do partisan assertions with no evidence count for? What evidence of Trump not committing any crimes should have been presented but weren't? Do you think you are better lawyers than Trump found? If you were presenting any evidence I could counter it, but you aren't. That speaks to the value of what you are claiming.
Your above words prove to all that you have a very fundamental misunderstanding of how the American justice system (supposedly) works. The accused is under no obligation at all to provide evidence of (his) innocence. All the obligation is upon the prosecution to prove guilt. The prosecution failed miserably in this regard. Numerous errors of law were made, numerous examples of bias are readily available (let's start with "If elected, I will get Trump."). If you don't want to look up the others then you'll have to take countless other legal experts' words for it, they're all over the internet, including many liberal ones. Not surprisingly, given the above, he was convicted. Juries are often wrong, as demonstated by verdicts being reversed on appeal. This is just the most egregious example in recent memory, and probably the most publicized of all time. A partiicularly relevant example of a reversal is the Supreme Court's 9-0 reversal of Jack Smith (
https://americafirstpolicy.com/issues/f ... for-itself). In case you haven't been keeping up, Jack Smith is the charlatan imposter currently prosecuting the Mar-A-Lago documents case.
It will not end well for those perpetrating the legal fraud. Remember when Harry Reid eliminated the filibuster for confirmation of Federal judges? That is precisely the reason Trump was able to put his Supreme Court justices in place, which is currently the Democrats' biggest long-term headache. As bad as that was, this verdict is going to have far, far worse repercussions for the Democrats, and may end up being their undoing, as it has shown the whole world that they are completely untrustworthy. No one will want to to do business with them.
[quote="Bob Butler" post_id=87201 time=1717212085 user_id=3010]
[quote=guest post_id=87198 time=1717196577]
Who are you talking about? Trump didn't commit any crimes, and that will be established in time, but probably not until after he becomes president. Foolish evil people are gloating now, but their laughter will turn to wails before the fat lady sings.
[/quote]
One of the things mentioned often in the MSM trial coverage was how a jury of everyday people picked by a fair process by both sides paid attention. They reached a solid conclusion with witnesses testimony confirmed by documents. I happen to agree with them, but have only highlights of the evidence picked up from TV summaries.
What do partisan assertions with no evidence count for? What evidence of Trump not committing any crimes should have been presented but weren't? Do you think you are better lawyers than Trump found? If you were presenting any evidence I could counter it, but you aren't. That speaks to the value of what you are claiming.
[/quote]
Your above words prove to all that you have a very fundamental misunderstanding of how the American justice system (supposedly) works. The accused is under no obligation at all to provide evidence of (his) innocence. All the obligation is upon the prosecution to prove guilt. The prosecution failed miserably in this regard. Numerous errors of law were made, numerous examples of bias are readily available (let's start with "If elected, I will get Trump."). If you don't want to look up the others then you'll have to take countless other legal experts' words for it, they're all over the internet, including many liberal ones. Not surprisingly, given the above, he was convicted. Juries are often wrong, as demonstated by verdicts being reversed on appeal. This is just the most egregious example in recent memory, and probably the most publicized of all time. A partiicularly relevant example of a reversal is the Supreme Court's 9-0 reversal of Jack Smith (https://americafirstpolicy.com/issues/fact-sheet-jack-smith-a-record-that-speaks-for-itself). In case you haven't been keeping up, Jack Smith is the charlatan imposter currently prosecuting the Mar-A-Lago documents case.
It will not end well for those perpetrating the legal fraud. Remember when Harry Reid eliminated the filibuster for confirmation of Federal judges? That is precisely the reason Trump was able to put his Supreme Court justices in place, which is currently the Democrats' biggest long-term headache. As bad as that was, this verdict is going to have far, far worse repercussions for the Democrats, and may end up being their undoing, as it has shown the whole world that they are completely untrustworthy. No one will want to to do business with them.