You're the one that "suspected" with specificity even, about what's in the indictment, not me. So basically everything you espoused here is PURE SPECULATION... Go it. You are less than credible.
Here's an idea: how about we let the judicial system do what it does: seat a jury, have a trial with witnesses, evidence, testimony where the burden of proof is on the prosecution to prove beyond a reasonable doubt to the jury that the defendant is guilty? Instead the worshippers of the orange god want to skip all that and let him off the hook without any of that. Without even reading the indictment or seeing/hearing any of the evidence, they are ready to acquit. Sounds a lot like " above the law" to me. btw the prisons are full of people who say they didn't do it.
Dude I started by trying to explain to you why this isn’t a kangaroo court. I never said he was guilty, and I never claimed to know the evidence. We’ll all find out Tuesday and can reach our own conclusions. But I was explaining to you why her prior defamation case was irrelevant against whatever these criminal charges are rumored to be (hint, the defamation suit was a civil suit between 2 private parties, this is a criminal action between the government and a potential defendant), why the process isn’t unfair and that Trump has the right to appear and hear the charges against him during the arraignment, unless waived. That’s how the criminal justice system works in this great Democracy of ours. Defendants have the right to face their accuser and defend themselves. Yet……you keep contorting shit, declaring the court a kangaroo court, decrying the charges as bogus, criticizing a grand jury process as Communist that’s actually designed in part to protect a defendant in case he’s not charged, etc., lashing out at someone as a “leftist” who’s trying to explain these things to you. All because you have not one iota of understanding about the process that you’re even commenting on in the first place, other than to spew partisan nonsense. It it were Hunter Biden in the indictment and not your Orange God you’d be jumping up and down yelling “justice works” and extolling the virtues of the American legal system when it would be from the same freaking process. Yet somehow I’m the problem here. Good grief.
To an extent it's speculation, but there's a difference between a wild ass guess and educated speculation. The grand jury is a state grand jury in New York. That automatically limits the charges to violations of NY state law. Then you look at the witnesses to see if there is a pattern or connection. Hmmm, what do Michael Cohen, Stormy Daniels and David Pecker have in common? What connection is there between them? What information did Robert Costello, Trump's grand jury "defense witness" have in relation to the others I listed? It's true no one here knows what all of the charges are, but you can make some very educated guesses as to what some of them relate to.
I think you lobbed enough personal insults at me already. But, yes, our discussion started with my statement about the sealed charges, that part is true. Have a nice day. By the way I hold no animosity towards you are a person nor as a poster.
I remember back you were saying the Mueller investigation was just a cover story, and was really a secret investigation into Hillary, and was going to blow the lid off the child eating cabal that dwell in Pizzeria basements ... remember that? Fun times ... You haven't been all that credible, yourself ...
He's a head scratchier. Stormy lost her defamation case because the judge ruled Trump's purported defammatory statement was a "hyperbolic statement" about a political adversary and was, therefore, protected speech. That case has nothing to do with his current matter other than Stormy is a witness in both.
I never said one word about that pizzeria basement story, even when it was happening. So, don't go revising history along the way. Nice strawman invention.
If criminals would limit their circles to honest, god fearing Christian people it would be so much easier...smdh at the concept that only law abiding people could offer honest testimony
Take the politics out and enjoy the comedy, if you can. I’m not putting any money on it. That is why I said it should be comedic gold. Todays comics are much more political and much less true to their profession. Personally, I would love to see Eddie Murphy put the fat suit back on and play Bragg. They already have someone doing Trump. Need nominations for Cohen and Daniel’s. I don’t know the recent cast as well, but Jayne Curtin always did a good job as an ignorant slut.
Stop your legal quibbling. You know damn well what I meant. If you want to correct me, please go ahead. But don’t act ignorant as if you didn’t know what I meant.
I wonder if you reached this far when sleazy women tried to take down Bill Clinton. Waiting for the mental masturbation that will surely come out now about how much different that case was!
No, I apparently have no idea what you meant and that, sir, is a function or your communication skills. Your sexual infatuation continues. What crime(s) did Clinton commit in connection with your referenced "sleazy women?"
