Weaponization of the law thread.

nsacpi said:
It is worth keeping in mind this small detail:

When Erik S. Siebert, the Trump-appointed interim U.S. attorney overseeing both investigations, concluded that the evidence did not suffice, Trump forced him out of his job and installed Halligan, an ex-White House aide and one of the president’s former personal lawyers, in his place.
Click to expand...

Siebert probably thought the indictment is more than likely a waste of time. Not because of evidence but because of the jury pool.

The evidence is there.

You like the DC jury joke but it is a very real thing in blue areas. Lawyers and judges have mentioned it.

What I've seen in that area is that I have to believe in the judge/jury or my lying eyes. The same place that got people for trespassing after being invited in the capital.

James has an application where she and her father signed on as husband and wife for her to get a loan. I've shown it here before.

You don't get fraud more blatant than that.
 
Last edited:
You are going with the DC jury excuse again? Do they just travel the country on a bus to be in all these different jurisdictions. And your saying liberals hate Republicans so much they will not convict a lifelong Republican who handed the election to Trump? What kind of moron would open an investigation of a crime he believes no jury will convict on anyways?


I dont know much about the James case nor do I care too much about it but I know better than to take anything you say at face value. Theres nothing stopping them from refiling charges if they can actually confirm, someone corrupt enough to do it.


I keep telling you how these cases are going to play out and you get mad at me for just explaining reality to you. Did you notice Trump giving his supporters big payouts by having them sue then doing a "settlement". Give me a guess what happens next time a Dem is President. Sadly I know you people will cry about it despite Trump setting the precedent.
 
cajunrevenge said:
You are going with the DC jury excuse again? Do they just travel the country on a bus to be in all these different jurisdictions. And your saying liberals hate Republicans so much they will not convict a lifelong Republican who handed the election to Trump? What kind of moron would open an investigation of a crime he believes no jury will convict on anyways?


I dont know much about the James case nor do I care too much about it but I know better than to take anything you say at face value. Theres nothing stopping them from refiling charges if they can actually confirm, someone corrupt enough to do it.


I keep telling you how these cases are going to play out and you get mad at me for just explaining reality to you. Did you notice Trump giving his supporters big payouts by having them sue then doing a "settlement". Give me a guess what happens next time a Dem is President. Sadly I know you people will cry about it despite Trump setting the precedent.
Click to expand...


Yes, I predicted this may happen.

Look at post 9366 of the Trump Presidency.

"Yeah, this will be another open and shut case like the Comey and James' cases are. Smith is in serious trouble.

However, Halligan's appointment in Virginia could be illegal so Comey and James might walk.""


No, dummy. The DC jury shit y'all bring up is a blue state/area issue, not just DC.

Look at how all of these liberal judges keep losing challenging Trump's EOs.

Trump's won most of his cases in the appeals courts or at the SCOTUS. I think I heard it was 92% but I'm not 100% sure on that.

"I keep telling you how these cases are going to play out and you get mad at me for just explaining reality to you"

Yeah, you thought the Colorado case with Trump taken off the ballot was actually legit and it got wiped out 9-0 at the SCOTUS

How are all those alternate electors cases going, buddy? lol
 
Last edited:
I cant keep track of all your BS. Its just sad that Trump did this in such an incompetent way that we wont get to see it laughed out of court for various reasons.


Your jury comments is like me asking for a jury of stoners. We would all like friendly juries. Convincing so many people you are a piece of shit with no credibility so you cant get a fair trial is an interesting defense. Maybe cop killers should get only democrat juries since Republicans have a known bias against cop killers.


I for one am shocked liberal judges get overturned by a Republican majority SC. Its baffling.


Which cases did Trump win and get charges dismissed because he wasnt guilty? He won based off gaining immunities of the President and endless procedural appeals. For a guy so innocent he sure had a lot of "you cant use that evidence against me because of a technicality" cases.


Big difference between deserves to be and will be buddy. I never thought it would get past the first round until I heard Trumps lawyers argument. It was so bad that I thought it might actually win at some level. Seriously their argument was the voters decide if someone is term limited and if Obama ran for a third term voters wouldnt vote for him because term limits.


As for the alternate electors many have gotten off due to Judges ruling they were unwitting patsies in a conspiracy to commit fraud. Innocent via legal ignorance is truly something to be proud of.
 
cajunrevenge said:
I cant keep track of all your BS. Its just sad that Trump did this in such an incompetent way that we wont get to see it laughed out of court for various reasons.


Your jury comments is like me asking for a jury of stoners. We would all like friendly juries. Convincing so many people you are a piece of shit with no credibility so you cant get a fair trial is an interesting defense. Maybe cop killers should get only democrat juries since Republicans have a known bias against cop killers.


I for one am shocked liberal judges get overturned by a Republican majority SC. Its baffling.


Which cases did Trump win and get charges dismissed because he wasnt guilty? He won based off gaining immunities of the President and endless procedural appeals. For a guy so innocent he sure had a lot of "you cant use that evidence against me because of a technicality" cases.


Big difference between deserves to be and will be buddy. I never thought it would get past the first round until I heard Trumps lawyers argument. It was so bad that I thought it might actually win at some level. Seriously their argument was the voters decide if someone is term limited and if Obama ran for a third term voters wouldnt vote for him because term limits.


As for the alternate electors many have gotten off due to Judges ruling they were unwitting patsies in a conspiracy to commit fraud. Innocent via legal ignorance is truly something to be proud of.
Click to expand...

Judge in Michigan in Alternate elector case:

"Judge Kristen Simmons on Tuesday said she found insufficient evidence to prove the defendants acted with criminal intent.
This is a fraud case, and we have to prove intent, and I don't believe that there's sufficient evidence to prove intent," she said during a hearing Tuesday."

Not just the SCOTUS. He's won in the lower appellate courts.

I'm talking about the EO appeals which he has won overwhelmingly.

When it comes to criminal cases you'll take the technicalities if you can, especially when it comes to stupid lawfare cases

I just hope SCOTUS takes the Carroll case. It would be a shame a crazy woman gets a payday after changing her story. NY court systems are nuts.
 
No one was in any trouble for questioning election results. You can claim 100 million Martians voted against you all day long and no one cares. You can file any lawsuit you want making any claim you want. Perfectly legal. You can submit electoral college documents saying if our states winner is overturned by a court we are its electors. Perfectly fine. The issue comes when you sign electoral documents saying you are the lawfully elected electors when you are not. Its probably even legal to just ask the state legislature to give the win to you. The issue comes in when after losing all your court battles and being told by your own parties state legislatures that your claims are BS to try to use harassment, and intimidation to get that state legislature to disenfranchise the states voters for reasons you know are lies. Trump survived this by winning the temporary immunity of the President. The electors I remind you it was said they did not know what they were doing was illegal, not that what they were doing was legal.


But all I ask of you is consistency. If I am to consider Trump and his lackies vindicated because he managed to beat charges via shenanigans then it reasons the same that Comey,James, Sussman, etc were all vindicated? I am not going to play this double standard game with you. Pick one and stick to it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top