Translation: Trump cult member sycophants believe Trump is above the law. Sad, but true. And not all classified docs bear the making of "Classified". Some are marked "Secret" and others "Top Secret." And still others have TS plus other markings like "NOFORN" or "SCI." All documents with any of these markings would be considered classified.
Yep, and women who are crying over Roe vs. Wade who didn't vote for her have no one to blame but themselves.
That’s an odd takeaway. I don’t follow the logic between your guess and the fact your smoking gun opinion said nothing about the facts here.
Legal experts everywhere are saying it. Some are even questioning the decision to prosecute it in South Florida versus DC. There are inevitably going to be some Trump voters on that jury and if anyone is going to get the benefit of reasonable doubt, it’s going to be a former POTUS.
Maybe the conservative prognosticators are correct that getting a conviction will be difficult. That still begs the question - what should the government have done with Trump, who was caught maintaining confidential records, and then refused to cooperate in their return, obfuscated the investigation, lied about the existence of the documents, moved the documents to avoid returning them, lied again under oath about the existence of the documents, and failed to even safely store them? What do you people suggest the government responsible for the safety of the documents do? Throw up their hands and just accept he’s going to misuse them?
Except you're not claiming the evidence isn't there, you're claiming there will be a rogue, biased juror who will acquit regardless of the evidence. Which is yet another technicality fantasy for how Trump will get off since there's no defending him on the merits.
I can’t find the odds on conviction for the documents case. The odds on the NY cases are 67% not guilty. Will be interesting what the odds are when they get posted. Trump Indictment Odds On Whether He Will Serve Jail Time Before 2026
I would say, at most, sending FBI agents to his home to recover the documents is about as far as it should go and even that was an embarrassment to the country. Indicting the leading opposition candidate in a presidential election when it’s unlikely to end in conviction is not only a waste of time, but a stain on our democracy. Now if he did something malicious with the information, such as selling state secrets to a foreign entity and they could prove that beyond a reasonable doubt…yeah, indict him. But that doesn’t appear to be the case here. And more bluntly, if you don’t see this as a weaponization of the DOJ, don’t complain when they come after you. Some of the shit they’re doing against our citizenry is extremely undemocratic.
The odds for a nutter on the Jury are high. The odds are also high that his members would like him to rule from prison.
And New York is a lot more hostile territory to Trump than south Florida. He got 46% of the vote in Dade and based on DeSantis performance in Dade, that trend continues to buck the Democrats in a significant way. All he needs is one.
Perhaps because there is no acceptable answer apart from "Two Minutes Hate" against Trump around here. Any defense of Trump around here is dismissed, mocked, and ridiculed at the expense of both Trump and the poster making the defense. At some point, we realize that we're playing a rigged game, trying to persuade people who made up their mind 7 years ago. So... we stop playing. And that's what you guys want isn't it? For us to stop playing.
A trial where jurors promise to hear the evidence in an unbiased manner isn’t (shouldn’t) be a popularity contest and certainly not a political election. There was a MAGA guy on the sex assault jury and yet….. I voted guilty on a kilo MJ possession trial even though I believe and so stated MJ should be legal. The follow up question was if the state can prove the defendant possessed the MJ could you vote for conviction. I said yes and did it though I really did not want to. However the evidence was conclusive.
Hopefully more competent prosecutors. Meanwhile you can cheer loudly for the security risk on trial, hope for jurors who violate their oath and bet on his exoneration.
I actually think the majority of jurors are like this one, i.e. they actually take their oath seriously and are willing to put their prejudices aside and render a verdict based on the facts. How a Trump-supporting juror in the Manafort trial was a beacon of justice 'I did not want Paul Manafort to be guilty, but he was,' says juror who supports Trump | CNN Politics I also believe that while a hung jury is a very real possibility considering that it only takes a single dissenting juror the chance of an actual acquittal is extremely small since the verdict would have to unanimous and objectively Jack Smith has prepared an airtight case against the former president. Considering that there are 37 counts against Trump it's also possible that he could be found guilty on some but not all of them.
