The Georgia Indictment against Trump and many others is published

So any Republican in DC can commit any crime they want and you are okay with just letting them go . . . just as you are okay with letting a Dem go in Texas for the same?

 

I'll give you that. How many times do I have to tell you I won't support Trump in the primaries? That is one of the reasons why I will not support him.

The issue is the misuse of the justice system.

 

You've shown no misuse. You characterize any attempt to hold Trump to the rule of law as "misuse," which is nonsense.

 

Now you are putting words in my mouth. If you continue to do that, you are going to go on "ignore" again. If you are going to pay that game, debating with you is useless.

 

If you can explain how your position differs, go for it. But that's what you've expressed so far.

 

I have explained my position multiple times, and it's obvious you don't care to listen. Misuse the legal system is a major threat to democracy.

 

Okay, I'm done. I'm not responding to you any more.

 

You've shown no "misuse." You are simply characterizing any legal challenge to the Dear Leader as "misuse." I'm sorry the facts upset you, but carry on.

 

Or under house arrest so he stays in his basement and holds few meetings..........you know like Biden does now.

 

Yes you can. Not every democrat will convict Trump just for being Trump. Juries are instructed to use evidence and laws, and many people are capable of doing that separately from their political beliefs. Some are not. Part of the job of lawyers is to exclude those biased against their side. The 5% republicans would likely get overrepresented. And also, the verdict needs to be unanimous, so all it really takes is one. If they are united in standing on facts, and the evidence is indisputable and against the law, that's when you get a conviction.

There isn't really that much to gain politically anyway. Trump can get elected either way. And another republican would have a better shot against Biden either way.

 

Trump only needs one friendly person on the jury to acquit him. Just one. And even if he fails that, he can appeal to courts where there are republican appointees. He's being treated with kid gloves and his followers are still demanding he be given even MORE favorable treatment.

 

Friendly meaning willing to forsake their oath and insist he's not guilty despite evidence maybe...

 

The Democrats made a big deal out of how the Durham trial came to nothing. It came to nothing because it’s impossible to get a conviction of a Democrat in Washington, DC. As you said all it takes one, and you never get a jury in Washington, DC to convict a Democrat politician unanimously.

 

Just more proof that the justice system serves primarily the special interests of our entrenched corrupt bipartisan political class. Trump and Nixon were foolish enough to alienate the party bosses. There has been little credible evidence that any administration is significantly more corrupt than any other for decades.
They have all been thoroughly corrupt.

"The more numerous the laws, the more corrupt the government." Tacitus

 

But the stats, as posted prior, prove otherwise.

No pithy aphorism is the arbiter of anything, in particular.

 

I hold the constitution in quite high regard. It is the the sham created out of whole cloth by the Fulton county DA that I hold in complete contempt as it has nothing to do with the constitution and in fact is little more than a thinly veiled assault upon it.

 

So you don't like what the Constitution and the ECA has to say about the election process . . . but you want to pretend to care about both. Adorable.

 

Yet, in reality, it wasn’t “the Fullton county DA that indicted TRAITOR tRump. But, a grand jury of OUR fellow Americans that listened to her evidence then indicted him. Why, now, is that process an assault on our Constitution when that is exactly how thousands of other cases through the years have been brought to court?

 

The phrase ham sandwich comes to mind.

 

Neither of which are involved on the sham.

 

I don’t think that phrase is used when a grand jury was involved. But, TRAITOR tRump should have nothing to worry about.

 

Both of which are violated in the sham.

 

Neither actually.

 

No "sir", it's when the police and a DA build an indictable case. When a Grand Jury is involved it also involves the persons peers before an indictment.

 

Words that can only be spoken by somebody who hasn't read the Constitution or the ECA or actively hates both.