Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Notice the part: Manhattan District Attorney Bragg has opened the door for politically motivated prosecutions of federal officials by state and local prosecutors.
Well it has a purpose, I suppose that is a good thing.Note the purpose of the Committee. They have already reached a conclusion before the hearing,
The House Judiciary Committee will hold a hearing on Thursday, June 13, 2024, at 10:00 a.m. ET to examine Alvin Bragg's political prosecution of President Trump. With his unprecedented politicized indictment of President Trump, Manhattan District Attorney Bragg has opened the door for politically motivated prosecutions of federal officials by state and local prosecutors. Other ambitious state prosecutors have already followed Bragg's lead and pursued politically motivated indictments of President Trump.
Hearing on the Manhattan District Attorney’s Office
judiciary.house.gov
That was my point. There were plenty of questionable things about the trial. Enough that there's a good chance the appeals court or the SCOTUS will finally do what it takes to make things right.
It was a similar "political stunt" by Congress that got Hunter put on trial--and convicted.
You mean conclusions can't be reached before a hearing? Someone forgot to tell Trump's judge about that!Note the purpose of the Committee. They have already reached a conclusion before the hearing,
The House Judiciary Committee will hold a hearing on Thursday, June 13, 2024, at 10:00 a.m. ET to examine Alvin Bragg's political prosecution of President Trump. With his unprecedented politicized indictment of President Trump, Manhattan District Attorney Bragg has opened the door for politically motivated prosecutions of federal officials by state and local prosecutors. Other ambitious state prosecutors have already followed Bragg's lead and pursued politically motivated indictments of President Trump.Hearing on the Manhattan District Attorney’s Office
Just as they did before Trump's trial
You mean here? Should Donald Trump be Sentenced to Jail for 34 Felonies?
The prosecutor probably had, but he had was already aware of all of the evidence. There is no sign that the judge had any bias, n fact he bent over backwards for Trump. Anyone else violating a court order as often as Trump did would have gotten jail after the second violation at the most. Usually the first violation of that sort of court order earns jail time.
Okay, I will trust you on that.
I already edited my post. Oddly enough when I posted that was when I saw your post. I think that I started typing first so mine is in front of yours even though you finished first. I did not even check her, what turned out to be a very dishonest link. I explained why what the House is doing fits the definition of a kangaroo court. She was never able to do that. That was an amazing amount of projection and hypocrisy on her part.
What are you talking about? I can see that you still do not understand what a kangaroo court is even though I explained how what the House is doing qualifies as one. Your TDS is rather strong tonight. The House used extremely loaded language when they have no evidence of wrong doing at all. The state in its indictment of Trump made it clear what he was accused of. That is pretty standard for a court of law. But then you probably do not understand how the Republican treatment of for Trump in the first Senate impeachment trial was another classic kangaroo court. Here is a hint, if one side is prevented from presenting any evidence for their case you know that you have a kangaroo court.
The right has been goin after Hunter Biden for years, but when he actually gets convicted of something it is a leftist stunt. gotcha.
Ah yes, she noticed it when it was someone else, but not when she did it herself.
Yep, the Senate democraps are now preventing evidence from being presented there, and are interfering with the Garland hearings by preventing the evidence from being heard.
You do understand what it means when a phrase is put in quotes, don't you?
No I don't. "Explain" it to me.
Since you only argue with me, I'll let someone else explain it: Quotation Marks for Sarcasm
Do you mean Garland refusing to release the video of the Biden interview? They have the transcript. They haven't given a credible reason why they would need the video. And given the unethical behavior of Jordan and Comer these MAGAs can't be trusted with the video. These two have a history of lying, so they have eliminated themselves as credible oversight officials. MAGAs don't have honor or princples, they they expect the democrats to have them, and pressure them by exploiing the system. The system is an honor system, and those who disrespect it are not allowed to use it.
www.sun-sentinel.com
Garland isn't doing anything illegal or unethical. He recognized the corrupt members who lack honor, and are trying to exploit an honor system. Garland is respectable. Jordan and Comer are corrupt, and can't be trusted.