ADVERTISEMENT

364 million verdict against the trumpster

What Letitia James did was just a bad idea - especially once she got to taunting Trump publicly about it. She really should’ve backed off this. It sets more than one bad precedent.

However, I think Jack Smith’s federal prosecution has genuine merit to it - even if there was some level of political motivation behind it. Trump was almost daring the DOJ to come after him. And it seems evident to me that he violated the law.
Concur. That was the worst case to start with and should never have been brought. The two federal cases are solid and the indictments are thorough and easy to understand. We have people here that refuse to read them. They KNOW he’s innocent and it’s all a WITCH HUNT. Facts be denied and damned. 😏
 
  • Like
Reactions: crazed_hoosier2
You’ll get to read them in the opinion, I’m sure. The lawyers answers at oral argument usually don’t matter much anyway.
Feels like just like any court of appeals oral argument by and large. Everybody walks out of a the court of appeals and says "Man Judge so and so was really hammering on the Plaintiff's lawyer. Then the opinion comes out and that issue isn't even addressed.

The opinion is already in draft form I'm sure. No clue which way the wind blows for a 30 second highlight real....
 
  • Like
Reactions: BradStevens
LOL, Leveraging his partial ownership in what? Dude ain't nearly as wealthy as your Pillow guy or Rugy G have convinced you he is.
He's got enough to pay it, if it holds up - which it won't.

Maybe he'll start taking his Presidential salary to pay it.
 
Willful Retention of national security information - which is a violation of the Espionage Act of 1917…and ensuing obstruction of Justice as the government sought to retrieve them.

He literally admitted to doing this on tape. He also admitted to sharing information about the contents of the withheld documents with people who did not hold security clearances.

If he’d have complied with the months of government requests to return all of this material, he might have avoided criminal prosecution. Instead, he came up with a ridiculous defense that he had declassified all these documents prior to leaving office.

Former presidents cannot just abscond with troves of classified documents when they leave office. That’s not how this works.
Of course they can abscond with troves of classified documents when they leave office. Biden did it. If Biden can do it and not be charged, it's evidently not a crime. And Biden wasn't even President when he left office. Neither was Pence.

Neither was Hillary, but I guess it's OK to destroy classified data.

Your double standard is showing.
 
Feels like just like any court of appeals oral argument by and large. Everybody walks out of a the court of appeals and says "Man Judge so and so was really hammering on the Plaintiff's lawyer. Then the opinion comes out and that issue isn't even addressed.

The opinion is already in draft form I'm sure. No clue which way the wind blows for a 30 second highlight real....
If it's in Trump's favor, you can count on it being released after the election.
 
It's going to be a complicated opinion. It's very rare for any appellate opinion to come out within a month of the argument.
It's only complicated because it's a novel case - no one else has been charged in these situations, which the Appeals Court questions indicated. It's a mish-mash of laws taken together to put together a false charge.

As a non-lawyer, I don't think it's complicated at all.
 
It's only complicated because it's a novel case - no one else has been charged in these situations, which the Appeals Court questions indicated. It's a mish-mash of laws taken together to put together a false charge.

As a non-lawyer, I don't think it's complicated at all.
If there is even one dissenter, it will make it complicated.

Here's some info. NY is quicker than most (avg. 31 days):

 
Of course they can abscond with troves of classified documents when they leave office. Biden did it. If Biden can do it and not be charged, it's evidently not a crime. And Biden wasn't even President when he left office. Neither was Pence.

Neither was Hillary, but I guess it's OK to destroy classified data.

Your double standard is showing.
Liar and hypocrite. First, they got all 11 of the emails with classified information from HRC's unauthorized personal email server. All of them. She was guilty of gross negligence and should have been prosecuted IMO. I'm not a hypocrite, you are. Biden and Pence had a fraction of the documents that Trump had, and they willingly gave them back when they discovered they had them. They probably are also guilty of gross negligence in handling classified information, but they did not obstruct justice. Like HRC's case, they aren't going to prosecute gross negligence. Besides, they have a rule against prosecuting sitting Presidents - and he's old. Finally, Trump DELIBERATELY took those classified documents. Many classified at the very highest levels (TS/SCI and TS/SAP). He had more than 300 of them. Then he tried to hide them and obstructed justice rather than return them. He instructed his lawyer to lie and say all were returned when he knew they weren't. He should be prosecuted. I'm not a hypocrite, you are.

Cases ranked in terms of egregiousness and criminality:

1) Trump (and it's not close)












2/3) Biden/Pence (only charge would likely be gross negligence - I'd be perfectly happy with prosecuting both as they should have prosecuted HRC, but Comey said they wouldn't prosecute because it wasn't deliberate. Military would, but that's apparently irrelevant.)

4) HRC (and I still think she should have been prosecuted, because I'm not a hypocrite, you are)
 
Concur. That was the worst case to start with and should never have been brought. The two federal cases are solid and the indictments are thorough and easy to understand. We have people here that refuse to read them. They KNOW he’s innocent and it’s all a WITCH HUNT. Facts be denied and damned. 😏

He literally cops to doing this on tape. So anybody who says that he's innocent has to assume that he was lying on tape. Which I guess that's a reasonable enough assumption to make, given the history of his relationship with truth.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Aloha Hoosier
Are you against selling Bibles?

Check DJT stock - it's gone up quite a bit lately. He's doing fine.
DJT stock with $837,000 in revenue and $16.4 million in losses. In a quarter. I recommend you sell all your liquid assets and invest heavily.
 
He literally cops to doing this on tape. So anybody who says that he's innocent has to assume that he was lying on tape. Which I guess that's a reasonable enough assumption to make, given the history of his relationship with truth.
I'm not saying he didn't do it. I'm saying it's not a crime, as evidenced by others doing it with no charges against them.
 
LOL, Leveraging his partial ownership in what? Dude ain't nearly as wealthy as your Pillow guy or Rugy G have convinced you he is.
You're wrong here. Trump's net worth from Truth Social alone is $3.4 billion.


Lindell claims he's not even a billionaire. This site pegs his net worth below $200 million:

 
Are you against selling Bibles?

Check DJT stock - it's gone up quite a bit lately. He's doing fine.
What do you think kept Trump from using the money he profited from his watches, shoes,Bibles etc to supplement the needs of those poor people in NC and GA that Trump claimed FEMA was only giving $750 to? Since he cares so much...

Maybe he should have repeated the shooting paper towels into the crowd move he made in Puerto Rico. Folks in the Tarheel state are in general more receptive to hoops than most people in Puerto Rico would be...
 
  • Haha
Reactions: DANC
You're wrong here. Trump's net worth from Truth Social alone is $3.4 billion.


Lindell claims he's not even a billionaire. This site pegs his net worth below $200 million:

Someday I will take a look at Truth Social. Right after I spend time on Huffington Post
 
I can’t wait to see all the lil libs on here melt down after Trump is re elected. If we’re lucky most of them will leave the country.
I'm no liberal, but I'm looking forward to the MAGA meltdown after Trump loses. You'll blubber like babies. Crying jag for days.
 
What Letitia James did was just a bad idea - especially once she got to taunting Trump publicly about it. She really should’ve backed off this. It sets more than one bad precedent.

However, I think Jack Smith’s federal prosecution has genuine merit to it - even if there was some level of political motivation behind it. Trump was almost daring the DOJ to come after him. And it seems evident to me that he violated the law.
It does not matter ,the Supreme Court gave him immunity
 
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT