The last Trump.

[Dubbag]

The end of the line for Trump.
The great hope for Putin and all authoritarian in the world.
Fail.

[Dubbag]

From Sky News....

In a press conference, DA Willis gave Trump and all his fellow accused until noon on 25 August to surrender to police.

She added that she hoped to get a trial date within the next six months and planned to try all 19 defendants together.

Pack of gangsters, the lot of them.

[albion68]

From Sky News....

In a press conference, DA Willis gave Trump and all his fellow accused until noon on 25 August to surrender to police.

She added that she hoped to get a trial date within the next six months and planned to try all 19 defendants together.

Pack of gangsters, the lot of them.

most if not all modern day American presidents are just puppets for the money men dubs..with trump it’s different he don’t need them .one way or another they’ve got to get rid of him for there own ends.as mick says the size and population of America and they come up with these two.they say god bless America….if the trump saga goes the wrong way.it’ll be god save America .

[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...'

[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

[bordering]

The end of the line for Trump.
The great hope for Putin and all authoritarian in the world.
Fail.

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

[Dubbag]

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

[Dubbag]

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

f

I hold no Earthly principle bordering. I stick to my principles bordering....enjoy your day bordering...

[yoonited]