Trump Trials Watch I
- Thread starter 57Brave
- Start date
lol. He's making **** up.
The whole "Trump is inflating his assets" is in the mind of a nutty judge and the TDS crowd but reality doesn't support it.
There was no jury and if the judge thinks that Mar-a-lago is worth 18 million he doesn't no ****.
The overwhelming evidence is that this is political and one of the appellate judge stated it too.
nsacpi
Expects Yuge Games
The defense checked off a box waiving their right to a jury. Their choice.
If the judge made any mistakes they can be taken up on appeal.
No, that didn't happen.
It wasn't a mistake by the judge, man.
The appellates will correct this but how much money and time will be wasted?
Tapate50
Well-known member
It was an attempt to remove Trump from the ticket, plain and simple
To anybody who can actually reason. Even one of the judges on the appellate said it feels political in nature.
cajunrevenge
Well-known member
If they want to argue the process DB insisted on was meaningless thats fine with me. I dont think any competent person buys that. You show me DB employees being enthusiastic about loaning money to Trump as evidence and quite frankly I find DB relationship with Trump to be highly suspicious. They loaned him money when he was defaulting on his loan. They agreed to let him not pay almost 400 million back of a loan because of a lawsuit from Trump that they would have won easily. Unless you think suing a bank saying you cant pay your loan because they screwed up the economy has a shot in hell of winning. I am sure it has nothing to do with DB laundering money for Russia though. That we can just rule right out.
cajunrevenge
Well-known member
So you will accept the ruling from these judges? And I know I have to point this out in every post. I do not count any victories based on technicalities like statute of limitations and not the actual facts of the case as me being wrong. Much like the documents case was dismissed because of a ruling on the Special Counsel position and not the facts of the case.
Last edited by a moderator:
cajunrevenge
Well-known member
Really? Really dude? Of all things to question. You question that. Good grief.
cajunrevenge
Well-known member
Looking at evidence released is pretty damning for Trump. If a trial happens its going to be really bad for Trump because he seems to be betting on it never taking place. He just makes the most ridiculous lies that when shown to a jury are going to make him the least credible defendant there might ever be. The charges are a complicated thing that I cant speak to the possibility of conviction but from a moral standpoint Trump will would be eviscerated by this trial. The lies that he had nothing to do with people coming to the J6 rally. Just absurd. The lies that people were mad about election fraud and he had no hand in that. Bold faced lies. The claim he wasnt aware of what was going on at the Capitol. Outright lies. The claim he immediately ordered in the National Guard. Also false.
It is not even settled legally whether a President can pardon himself. James Madison wrote in the federalist papers "No man is allowed to be a judge in his own cause, because his interest would certainly bias his judgment, and, not improbably, corrupt his integrity.".
MAGA's favorite constitutional scholar Jonathan Turley said "Such an act would make the White House look like the Bada Bing Club. After a self-pardon, Trump could wipe out the Islamic State, trigger an economic golden age and solve global warming with a carbon-eating border wall — and no one would notice. He would simply go down in history as the man who not only pardoned his family members but himself."
Michigan State University law professor Brian C. Kalt, writing in his 1997 paper "Pardon Me: The Constitutional Case Against Presidential Self-Pardons," stated that a presidential self-pardon would not hold up in court.
"An attempted self-pardon would likely undermine the public's confidence in the presidency and the Constitution. A potential meltdown of such magnitude would be no time to begin legalistic discussion; the political facts of the moment would distort our considered legal judgment. Looking at the question from a cooler vantage point, the intent of the Framers, the words and themes of the Constitution they created, and the wisdom of the judges that have interpreted it all point to the same conclusion: Presidents cannot pardon themselves."
Democrats need to be clear if he wins that any corrupt pardons issued to himself means everything stops. No budgets pass. No bills pass. No emergency funding. No raises of the debt ceiling. No Judges confirmed. That all depends on their standing in Congress but even without a majority in the Senate they still have the filibuster power which we all know Republicans will nix as soon as Democrats do it to anything Trump wants. As for the Supreme Court ruling on corrupt Presidents pardoning themselves I have to believe that vote will go down party lines which means Justice loses.
It is not even settled legally whether a President can pardon himself. James Madison wrote in the federalist papers "No man is allowed to be a judge in his own cause, because his interest would certainly bias his judgment, and, not improbably, corrupt his integrity.".
MAGA's favorite constitutional scholar Jonathan Turley said "Such an act would make the White House look like the Bada Bing Club. After a self-pardon, Trump could wipe out the Islamic State, trigger an economic golden age and solve global warming with a carbon-eating border wall — and no one would notice. He would simply go down in history as the man who not only pardoned his family members but himself."
Michigan State University law professor Brian C. Kalt, writing in his 1997 paper "Pardon Me: The Constitutional Case Against Presidential Self-Pardons," stated that a presidential self-pardon would not hold up in court.
"An attempted self-pardon would likely undermine the public's confidence in the presidency and the Constitution. A potential meltdown of such magnitude would be no time to begin legalistic discussion; the political facts of the moment would distort our considered legal judgment. Looking at the question from a cooler vantage point, the intent of the Framers, the words and themes of the Constitution they created, and the wisdom of the judges that have interpreted it all point to the same conclusion: Presidents cannot pardon themselves."
Democrats need to be clear if he wins that any corrupt pardons issued to himself means everything stops. No budgets pass. No bills pass. No emergency funding. No raises of the debt ceiling. No Judges confirmed. That all depends on their standing in Congress but even without a majority in the Senate they still have the filibuster power which we all know Republicans will nix as soon as Democrats do it to anything Trump wants. As for the Supreme Court ruling on corrupt Presidents pardoning themselves I have to believe that vote will go down party lines which means Justice loses.
