Trump's mug shot

[Clizby Wampuscat]

No, he also told them that they would have to "fight like hell". He spent more time doing that then telling them to protest peacefully.

https://www.npr.org/2021/02/10/966396848/read-trumps-jan-6-speech-a-key-part-of-impeachment-trial

' "We fight like hell. And if you don't fight like hell, you're not going to have a country anymore," he said.'

He also lied several times in the speech about the election being stolen. Do you think that people would listen to one "protest peacefully" wink wink, nudge nudge, statement when over 90% of it was an incitement to riot? You need to read the entire speech.



Do I need to?

I have many times, nowhere does he incite violence. Where did he say to enter the capital or overturn the election? Hillary, Biden, Obama, Raskin and I bet all politicians at one point have said "we need to fight to stop ________.

When Shumer said:

“I want to tell you, Gorsuch, I want to tell you, Kavanaugh, you have released the whirlwind, and you will pay the price. You won’t know what hit you if you go forward with these awful decisions"

Then a mob congregated outside the justices homes and they caught a person with a gun on Kavanaugh's properties and he has been charged with attempted murder. Why isn't Schumer under indictment for that?

Also, why would Trump agree to national guard troops prior to Jan 6th if he wanted to overthrow the election? Christopher Miller testified Trump agreed to those being deployed to protect the protesters rights.

Believing you won an election is not lying, Hillary said the 2020 election was stolen. She said:

"You can run the best campaign, you can even become the nominee, and you can have the election stolen from you."

The hypocrisy is stunning.

 

[Clizby Wampuscat]

No, you've just fallen victim to the persistent Trumpian tactic of delay, delay, delay, ... that he's long been known for.

He knows what he did, so his lawyers can mount a defense on that base, although telling the truth is certainly not his forte.

Trump did not set the day he was indicted nor the day the trial was scheduled. Again is 12.7 M pages of documents reasonable to go through in 217 days? No, it is not.

 

[Clizby Wampuscat]

There is such a thing as Discovery which prevents "trial by ambush."

Discovery enables the parties to know before the trial begins what evidence may be presented. It's designed to prevent "trial by ambush," where one side doesn't learn of the other side's evidence or witnesses until the trial, when there's no time to obtain answering evidence.​

​

source: https://www.americanbar.org/groups/..._education_network/how_courts_work/discovery/​

​

100% agree. But if someone does not have enough time to go over the evidence the state is going to use then it is an ambush. That is not justice but tyranny.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I have many times, nowhere does he incite violence. Where did he say to enter the capital or overturn the election? Hillary, Biden, Obama, Raskin and I bet all politicians at one point have said "we need to fight to stop ________.

When Shumer said:

“I want to tell you, Gorsuch, I want to tell you, Kavanaugh, you have released the whirlwind, and you will pay the price. You won’t know what hit you if you go forward with these awful decisions"

Then a mob congregated outside the justices homes and they caught a person with a gun on Kavanaugh's properties and he has been charged with attempted murder. Why isn't Schumer under indictment for that?

Also, why would Trump agree to national guard troops prior to Jan 6th if he wanted to overthrow the election? Christopher Miller testified Trump agreed to those being deployed to protect the protesters rights.

Believing you won an election is not lying, Hillary said the 2020 election was stolen. She said:

"You can run the best campaign, you can even become the nominee, and you can have the election stolen from you."

The hypocrisy is stunning.

You are not paying attention. You also don't understand what an apt analogy is.

You appear to either have no clue or are being less than honest.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Trump did not set the day he was indicted nor the day the trial was scheduled. Again is 12.7 M pages of documents reasonable to go through in 217 days? No, it is not.

Why not? You need to make your case. This is not just 12.7 million pages of loose papers. They will be a series of searchable computerized documents. 217 days and a team of attorneys? No problem.

 

[metis]

Trump did not set the day he was indicted nor the day the trial was scheduled. Again is 12.7 M pages of documents reasonable to go through in 217 days? No, it is not.

I don't fall for his repeated tactics, and the research has already been done and given to them.

 

[Callisto]

Trump did not set the day he was indicted nor the day the trial was scheduled. Again is 12.7 M pages of documents reasonable to go through in 217 days? No, it is not.

Yes, it is plenty of time and many cases with even more significant amounts of data have been done in similar time frames. This isn't the 1800s and we're not talking about pallets of boxes containing all new discoveries. This is the 21st century and for 20+ years now, lawyers have been utilizing teams and software to sift through data rapidly and, more recently, utilizing AI as well which expedites things further.

If Trump was some pisspoor defendant relying on a public defender, one might have an argument it could be overwhelming. But this is a person who claims to be a billionaire and has fleeced his MAGA minions of millions upon millions of dollars for legal expenses. He has ample resources to hire high-end lawyers who in turn routinely allocate multiple teams of document reviewers to cases just like this. There is no legitimate claim to being unable to process the information in time. Absolutely none. Full stop.

 

[Clizby Wampuscat]

You are not paying attention. You also don't understand what an apt analogy is.

You appear to either have no clue or are being less than honest.

Nope. You appear to not have a response to my post.

 

[Clizby Wampuscat]

Why not? You need to make your case. This is not just 12.7 million pages of loose papers. They will be a series of searchable computerized documents. 217 days and a team of attorneys? No problem.

I already made my case. That is 2438 pages per hour to read if you read 24/7. I don't care if it is searchable, the lawyers need to read every word of all of it. The state is saying here is the evidence we are going to use to try to convict you. The lawyers need to know all that is in those pages to form a proper defense. I assume the prosecuting attorney's know what is in the documents. Also, the state can't require someone to hire a team of lawyers because they overwhelmed them with evidence. You are on the side of state tyranny.

 

[Revoltingest]

More lame obstruction by Trump....

Trump urges government shutdown in unlikely bid to 'defund' his criminal prosecutions

Republicans in the U.S. House of Representatives are at odds over how to proceed with spending legislation, which must be passed to avert an Oct. 1 shutdown. A small group of hardliners, including Trump's most fervent supporters, have complicated the agenda for House Speaker Kevin McCarthy as...

news.yahoo.com

 

[Clizby Wampuscat]

I don't fall for his repeated tactics, and the research has already been done and given to them.

Yeah, by the state that is trying to convict him. So you think it is smart for the defense to just take what the state gives them as evidence and just believe the state as to what is in it? That is just stupid and malpractice. I would fire any lawyer that did that.

 

[Clizby Wampuscat]

Yes, it is plenty of time and many cases with even more significant amounts of data have been done in similar time frames. This isn't the 1800s and we're not talking about pallets of boxes containing all new discoveries. This is the 21st century and for 20+ years now, lawyers have been utilizing teams and software to sift through data rapidly and, more recently, utilizing AI as well which expedites things further.

If Trump was some pisspoor defendant relying on a public defender, one might have an argument it could be overwhelming. But this is a person who claims to be a billionaire and has fleeced his MAGA minions of millions upon millions of dollars for legal expenses. He has ample resources to hire high-end lawyers who in turn routinely allocate multiple teams of document reviewers to cases just like this. There is no legitimate claim to being unable to process the information in time. Absolutely none. Full stop.

You cannot pick and choose how you apply the law no matter what democrats say or act.

 

[metis]

Yeah, by the state that is trying to convict him. So you think it is smart for the defense to just take what the state gives them as evidence and just believe the state as to what is in it? That is just stupid and malpractice. I would fire any lawyer that did that.

Well, the above is simply nonsense and on more than one count. Reminds me of Gandhi's statement "To cooperate with evil is evil".

Also, he has a team of lawyer and could hire more.

 

[Callisto]

You cannot pick and choose how you apply the law no matter what democrats say or act.

I said nothing about that.

 

[Twilight Hue]

After the Georgia trial wraps up:

View attachment 81493

Banana republic.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Nope. You appear to not have a response to my post.

That was a response. Was it too long? Here you go:

Try again.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I already made my case. That is 2438 pages per hour to read if you read 24/7. I don't care if it is searchable, the lawyers need to read every word of all of it. The state is saying here is the evidence we are going to use to try to convict you. The lawyers need to know all that is in those pages to form a proper defense. I assume the prosecuting attorney's know what is in the documents. Also, the state can't require someone to hire a team of lawyers because they overwhelmed them with evidence. You are on the side of state tyranny.

No, you only demonstrated your ignorance. Attorneys are not idiots. They will know how to use the search function when going over discovery. I am pretty sure that you probably do not even know how to use the most basic example of it. For example I can see that the word "banana" is used once on this page. How long would it take you to confirm that it was used only once?

 

[Revoltingest]

Banana republic.

Putting criminals, especially leaders, on
trial is the opposite of a banana republic.

 

[Twilight Hue]

Putting criminals, especially leaders, on
trial is the opposite of a banana republic.

It's called eliminating one's competition.

 

[Subduction Zone]

It's called eliminating one's competition.

No, that is called justice. It is not the fault of the Democrats that a huge percentage of Republicans are for all practical purposes braindead right now.