The last Trump.

[baggieal]

The corruption of Biden and his family, the ineffectiveness of Sunak , the authoritarian lockdowns, the questionable motives of Bill Gates the interference of the unelected EU, the WHO & WEF.- that's your option?

There's a lot of popular support for Trump and it is a concern that Biden and the war mongering Democratic party are trying to stop Trump by using the legal system which is no longer an upholder of laws and their constitution.

It's what banana republics do - imprison the people who are threats to those in power

And innocent til guilty seems not a principle you hold & yopur grasp of democratic process seems wak.

Wake up & look!! - have a look at Biden financial involvement in UKraine , in installing Zelensky, in removing Imran Khan - there is a long list.

Pavlov dog syndrome?? woof woof

Pity Biden is not giving the green light to fire some nice fat rockets into Moscow. Eye for any eye whilst innocent civilians are being slaughtered in Ukraine!

As for Wagner bordering on Poland - come and have a go if you think your hard enough 🤣

[bordering]

Pity Biden is not giving the green light to fire some nice fat rockets into Moscow. Eye for any eye whilst innocent civilians are being slaughtered in Ukraine!

As for Wagner bordering on Poland - come and have a go if you think your hard enough 🤣

Fat rockets @ Moscow ?- that is world war 3

You should read about USA & NATO interference in Ukraine from 2012

But you won't- but you want world war 3

You are truly crazy

[bordering]

This is the view of Alan Derkowitz , Harvard emeritus professor of law- so maybe he has a more informed view than any of us on this thread in relation to Trump indictments.......................

"Well, first of all, nobody should take it at all seriously. The fact that there was a grand jury indictment means nothing. It's the prosecutor who indicted. The best evidence of that is that it was on his website before the grand jury even voted.

[B]Now, the whole strategy of all these four cases is to get a conviction before the election, even if they're going to lose on appeal

. I used to teach my students, many of them future prosecutors: if you bring a RICO case, that increases your chances of winning a trial and losing on appeal. The same thing is true with conspiracy and other cases involving mental states.

[B][I][U]And so all four of these cases are designed to get quick, quick convictions in jurisdictions that are heavily loaded against Donald Trump. And these prosecutors don't care as much as prosecutors generally do about having the convictions reversed on appeal, because that will happen after the election. [Emphasis mine.

Which only goes to prove what I've been arguing now for months. If you're going after the man who's running against your incumbent president, you had darn well better have the strongest case possible.

And these are among the four -- at least three of them -- three weakest cases I've ever seen against any candidate. We don't know about the fourth, but it seems like it's very much like the DC case.

And if you're going after the man running for president against your person, you have to have the strongest case. Otherwise it becomes a banana republic: anybody can prosecute anybody.

And we're opening the door to prosecution of Democrats by Republicans, Republicans by Democrats."

It's what Alexander Hamilton wrote in The Federalist is the most dangerous threat to democracy. And we're seeing it unfold in front of our eyes very, very tragically. I'm not a Republican. I'm not a Trump supporter, but I care deeply about the Constitution. I care deeply about preserving the rule of law. And we're seeing it being frittered away for partisan political purposes.

So anti and pro Trump is not the issue - the rule of law and its non politicisation are the issues.

But hell what does Derkowitz an emeritus Harvard law professor know compared to ourselves????

[bordering]

This is the view of Alan Derkowitz , Harvard emeritus professor of law- so maybe he has a more informed view than any of us on this thread in relation to Trump indictments.......................

"Well, first of all, nobody should take it at all seriously. The fact that there was a grand jury indictment means nothing. It's the prosecutor who indicted. The best evidence of that is that it was on his website before the grand jury even voted.

[B]Now, the whole strategy of all these four cases is to get a conviction before the election, even if they're going to lose on appeal

. I used to teach my students, many of them future prosecutors: if you bring a RICO case, that increases your chances of winning a trial and losing on appeal. The same thing is true with conspiracy and other cases involving mental states.

[B][I][U]And so all four of these cases are designed to get quick, quick convictions in jurisdictions that are heavily loaded against Donald Trump. And these prosecutors don't care as much as prosecutors generally do about having the convictions reversed on appeal, because that will happen after the election. [Emphasis mine.

Which only goes to prove what I've been arguing now for months. If you're going after the man who's running against your incumbent president, you had darn well better have the strongest case possible.

And these are among the four -- at least three of them -- three weakest cases I've ever seen against any candidate. We don't know about the fourth, but it seems like it's very much like the DC case.

And if you're going after the man running for president against your person, you have to have the strongest case. Otherwise it becomes a banana republic: anybody can prosecute anybody.

And we're opening the door to prosecution of Democrats by Republicans, Republicans by Democrats."

It's what Alexander Hamilton wrote in The Federalist is the most dangerous threat to democracy. And we're seeing it unfold in front of our eyes very, very tragically. I'm not a Republican. I'm not a Trump supporter, but I care deeply about the Constitution. I care deeply about preserving the rule of law. And we're seeing it being frittered away for partisan political purposes.

So anti and pro Trump is not the issue - the rule of law and its non politicisation are the issues.

But hell what does Derkowitz an emeritus Harvard law professor know compared to ourselves????

[WBA123]

This is the view of Alan Derkowitz , Harvard emeritus professor of law- so maybe he has a more informed view than any of us on this thread in relation to Trump indictments.......................

"Well, first of all, nobody should take it at all seriously. The fact that there was a grand jury indictment means nothing. It's the prosecutor who indicted. The best evidence of that is that it was on his website before the grand jury even voted.

[B]Now, the whole strategy of all these four cases is to get a conviction before the election, even if they're going to lose on appeal

. I used to teach my students, many of them future prosecutors: if you bring a RICO case, that increases your chances of winning a trial and losing on appeal. The same thing is true with conspiracy and other cases involving mental states.

[B][I][U]And so all four of these cases are designed to get quick, quick convictions in jurisdictions that are heavily loaded against Donald Trump. And these prosecutors don't care as much as prosecutors generally do about having the convictions reversed on appeal, because that will happen after the election. [Emphasis mine.

Which only goes to prove what I've been arguing now for months. If you're going after the man who's running against your incumbent president, you had darn well better have the strongest case possible.

And these are among the four -- at least three of them -- three weakest cases I've ever seen against any candidate. We don't know about the fourth, but it seems like it's very much like the DC case.

And if you're going after the man running for president against your person, you have to have the strongest case. Otherwise it becomes a banana republic: anybody can prosecute anybody.

And we're opening the door to prosecution of Democrats by Republicans, Republicans by Democrats."

It's what Alexander Hamilton wrote in The Federalist is the most dangerous threat to democracy. And we're seeing it unfold in front of our eyes very, very tragically. I'm not a Republican. I'm not a Trump supporter, but I care deeply about the Constitution. I care deeply about preserving the rule of law. And we're seeing it being frittered away for partisan political purposes.

So anti and pro Trump is not the issue - the rule of law and its non politicisation are the issues.

But hell what does Derkowitz an emeritus Harvard law professor know compared to ourselves????

I'm sure (without 100% checking it) that Alan Derschowitz legally represents Trump? I stand corrected if I'm wrong...

But if not, all your doing is quoting Trump's lawyer...who is obviously going to be defensive of Trump's actions and dismissive against the accusations put to him.

Seems bizarre you are quoting this source. That's like saying 'Well the defendant couldn't have done what he's accused of, because his lawyer has publicly defended him...'

[Titchfieldbaggie]

I wonder if, and when, the grown ups are going to intervene

[baggieal]

Fat rockets @ Moscow ?- that is world war 3

You should read about USA & NATO interference in Ukraine from 2012

But you won't- but you want world war 3

You are truly crazy

Where there’s a bully - you give him a good kicking otherwise he keeps bullying!

Presume you think it’s ok that Ukrainian civilians are being slaughtered - executed and raped? Did you support Adolf?

[Omegstrat6]

Fat rockets @ Moscow ?- that is world war 3

You should read about USA & NATO interference in Ukraine from 2012

But you won't- but you want world war 3

You are truly crazy

Nothing-particularly in politics-is ever straightforward black and white. I am no expert by any means but I have read around the issues, including Snyder's "Bloodlands" that examines the history of the region that stood between Hitler and Stalin, Abelow's "How the West brought war to Ukraine", Samir Puri's "Russia's road to war in Ukraine" and Luke Harding's "Collusion" which examines the relationship between Trump and Putin. Though all books on such matters can be open to accusations of bias, I wouldn't say I was totally ignorant and my take out is that whatever any claims of "mitigating circumstances" there may be, Putin is still the bad guy here who has launched an illegal invasion against a sovereign country and, moreover, has endorsed deliberate attacks on Ukraine's civilian population.

[bordering]

I'm sure (without 100% checking it) that Alan Derschowitz legally represents Trump? I stand corrected if I'm wrong...

But if not, all your doing is quoting Trump's lawyer...who is obviously going to be defensive of Trump's actions and dismissive against the accusations put to him.

Seems bizarre you are quoting this source. That's like saying 'Well the defendant couldn't have done what he's accused of, because his lawyer has publicly defended him...'

Derkowitz does NOT represent Trump though he did at his first impeachment trial.
But you miss the point...
Derkowiz, an eminent law professor says the courts are political- an effort to stop Trump running in 2024- [that is what banana republics do to stop opponents- that's my opinion]. He says democrats will prosecute Republicans and vice versa. And the other source=- the rule of law is being frittered away by partisan politics.

Trump is not the issue the politicisation of the law is & two eminent sources say so

[Omegstrat6]

Also, there is a reason why former communist bloc countries such as Bulgaria, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Romania, Slovakia and Slovenia joined NATO in 2004 and it wasn't all about the influence of the US. Could it possibly have anything to do with fear of Russia and of Putin's aims particularly?