SkepticThinker
Veteran Member
Each juror stood up and and confirmed each of their guilty verdicts.
Maybe Trump shouldn't have slept through the whole thing. He might be better informed about what happened at his own trial.
-
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:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Trump Now Banned by Law From Entering 37 Countries
- Thread starter Wandering Monk
- Start date
Maybe Trump shouldn't have slept through the whole thing. He might be better informed about what happened at his own trial.
You wrote, "If the masses can be prosecuted like this then we do live in an authoritarian state," after which I asked you, "Is this sentence true or false to you: No matter what Trump did or does, if he is convicted of it, it's indication of an authoritarian state. If you disagree, please give an example of a legal scenario where Trump is convicted and you don't object."
You didn't answer. Let me ask you again another way: Is it possible for Trump to be convicted of a crime fairly? Is there any setting hypothetical or otherwise, where a jury gives Trump a guilty verdict and it is fair in your estimation?
Rhetorical question, right? You know the answer.
He wants Trump exonerated whatever he's done, but doesn't feel free to say so, and so must frame all of this as injustice in order to posture as somebody who treats justice as an overriding a principle and goal to be strived for in all cases. I've asked several Trumpers beside Clizby to describe what a fair trial that resulted in a justified conviction for Trump would look like and haven't received an answer yet. What does that tell us about how such people really feel and what they really value?
Imagine being asked that question - what would a fair trial and conviction of Biden look like. You'd answer that there would be an investigation, a grand jury indictment, a choosing of jurors by both sides, compelling evidence for conviction presented, and a guilty verdict rendered. This may be Hunter Biden's fate, and if so, we don't expect to hear this kind of response from the left. Likewise if and when Menendez and Cuellar are convicted. Why? Because justice actually is a humanist value as is the rule of law. If those people break the law, let them face the consequences, because country and principal trump party and person.
You will probably never read something analogous from a Trump supporter, because they simply don't believe that nobody is above the law. Trump is to them, but we shouldn't wait for any to say so. Expect more of this kind of motivated reasoning.
But maybe Clizby or another pro-Trump voice could change that and give a good answer.
Last edited:
By a very liberal and blind definition of elite.
McBell
Unbound
the jury was polled after the verdict was revealed to the court.
So if Trump was awake for that part, he knows.
Clizby Wampuscat
Well-Known Member
I am not trying to "get him off". It is only helping him. It is telling to me that people think it is inconsequential that someone does not know what they were convicted of. What means did he use to commit a crime?
Clizby Wampuscat
Well-Known Member
Did they say what means he used to commit the crime?
Twilight Hue
Twilight, not bright nor dark, good nor bad.
It's good we have an appellate system to determine once and for all if the conviction is valid or not.
McBell
Unbound
If Trump does not know what he has been convicted of it is 110% his own fault.
It is all in the trans scripts that you refuse to read.
He used Michael Cohen. He used Michael Cohen to commit the crime.
Clizby Wampuscat
Well-Known Member
Yes.
I do not want Trump exonerated no matter what. I never said that. I do think his due process rights were violated in this trial.
I would have a problem if these were the circumstances:
-DA campaigning for office on the promise of getting Biden.
-A DA filing an indictment against Biden resurrecting time-barred misdemeanors but without specifying in the indictment the "second crime" that turned those time-barred misdemeanors into felonies ripe for prosecution.
-Trial judge contributions to the 2020 Trumps campaign in contravention of black letter New York law governing judicial conduct— and the judges refusal to recuse himself from the Biden trial.
- Equivalent of anti-Trump rulings on many, many issues ranging from admitting plea bargains with Michael Cohen and David Pecker that the defense objected to, to refusing to allow former Federal Elections Commission Chair Professor Brad Smith testify to the extent of his knowledge, rulings which telegraphed the judge’s push for a conviction.
- The blistering interference of the Judge of defense witnesses.
-The failure of the judge to clearly instruct on the state of mind "the second crime" would require.
- The jury not declaring what the "second crime" was on the verdict paper.
- A gag order on Biden issued by the judge.
-A four-days-a-week of trial in the spring of the election year, a schedule requiring Biden to be in a Manhattan court room for six weeks, thus interfering with the presidential campaign
He is not above the law. But the law needs to be justly applied to Trump as well, it was not.
We were told Clinton committed crimes but would not be prosecuted - She IS above the law.
We were told President Biden committed crimes but was too feeble to be prosecuted - He IS above the law.
Clizby Wampuscat
Well-Known Member
That was not an option given by the judge.
Clizby Wampuscat
Well-Known Member
How so, the jury never said what the means were. Is he supposed to read minds?
It is not, The jury never said what means he used to commit the crime. So no one knows, not even you.
McBell
Unbound
Given your epic ignorance concerning Trumps convictions, I have no doubt you harbor the same level of ignorance concerning Clintons and Bidens cases.
Not to mention the laws themselves.
But the thread is about the countries he could travel to too.
McBell
Unbound
Sticking your head in the sand and repeating the same nonsense over and over is not going to convince anyone that you are being serious about the topic.
Clizby Wampuscat
Well-Known Member
I agree. I don't see this conviction really changing many votes. I saw on 270 to Win he would have 298 electoral votes today if the polls are correct. He is raking in the donations because most people can see the unjust trial this was. When they put him in jail it will cement his win in my opinion.
mikkel_the_dane
My own religion
The bold one is what I answered and then you deflacted as if you had never written the blod text.
The difference is that I don't criticize what you say. You do criticize what I say.
Tolerance is something I have among my principles.
Riders
Well-Known Member
It's called fraud