Trump's Georgia TRIAL will be TELEVISED, Judge Says

This bs is only a deliberate attempt to stop President Trump from running again.

I support President Trump, but it’s completely obvious that the corrupt politicians and those who control them will make damn sure he cannot run again.

Some of you will say “good!” and that’s your opinion and you are entitled to it.

The issue before us is: how long before you will not be able to express that opinion?

Laugh all you want, and keep voting without REALLY paying attention to what’s happening to our country.

 

Why?????

....list the dot points.

 

You have to tell yourself that over and over, because the evidence is as obvious and overwhelming as a direct hit on your face your own pet skunk and you know it.
Takes a lot of mental acrobatics to tell yourself it didn't happen, so I know you have to work hard to deny it.
In your view, anyone who accuses Trump of anything bad is right because they think like you. Any view contrary to that must be fake. That's the end of your chain of reasoning.

It's got nothing to do with what's real or right, it's a mental state. The conclusion is predetermined, the investigation then seeks a way to support the desired conclusion.
That's cultured obsession, unrestrained hate that causes people to deny basic character values. No honorable person would permit that- but we have surprisingly few honorable people among us today, and the tolerance for it is being promoted. The nation is shamed by the decline of morals and character, because Americans used to take pride in their honor and principles.

Only harm to America will result from that.

 

Writing a paper on a legal theory isn't a crime.

 

Please keep believing that……right up to the next election…

 

What if he’s convicted in Florida…? Your excuse…?

 

The selective denial will of course continue- remarkably similar to your three-year old with chocolate all over his face telling you he has no idea what happened to the box of candy.

The Senate Judiciary Committee Subcommittee report concluded on December 9, 2020:

“The oral testimonies of witnesses on December 3, 2020, and subsequently, the written testimonies submitted by many others, provide ample evidence that the 2020 Georgia General Election was so compromised by systemic irregularities and voter fraud that it should not be certified”.

Source- https://voterga.org/

 

If court TV us in existence, you can bet Trump will be on it.

 

An unapproved report which was never acted upon by any other legislator and a web site from some rightie wingnut, all unsupported by EVIDENCE.

Who is in denial ? Ah yes, the MAGA type whose icon LOST a free, fair and secure election who then tried to stay in office by deliberately and criminally interfering with the counting of the vote by Congress.

 

For those of us that can access Court TV, chances are Trump will be on it.

 

LOL. First off, it is BS that FOX is "left leaning." There are actually those who credibly rate media bias, & none will put FOX left of center. So your own impression, only tells us all, that you are a RADICAL.

Secondly, this was my statement-- which, if you had the mettle to engage in a real debate with me, you would have quoted, instead of the meaningless few words, "FOX NEWS and the Right:"

So my statement applied to the time period, "when the investigation of Hillary's emails was taking place." Whatever you think about FOX, currently, is irrelevant to the fact that they were the primary mouthpiece of the Right, at the time which I am referencing. That you cannot even grasp the simple concept, that the present does not change the past, shows that your "analysis" of anything, is not worth a person's time, to read.

As you begin your post, first with such a ridiculous excuse for a quote from me, which gives no context to my words, and then with such an obviously out of touch with reality argument, that because I'd referred to FOX, in 2016, as associated with the Right, I therefore, "have trouble paying attention"-- that was all I'd needed to read.

It is amusingly ironic, though, that you think I am easily distracted, when it is you, who apparently hadn't been able to pay attention for the length of my one sentence, which you hadn't bothered to quote. Either that, or you don't understand that the investigation into Hillary's emails, took place in the past. Or, most likely, that because you had no real argument, this poorly constructed one-- of excerpting the name FOX from my referring to their reporting, 7 years ago, and pretending that I am talking about the present-- was the best bogus one, you could contrive. And even that one, is a loser! OK-- FOX is "left leaning." LOL, again.

 

None of that ever occurred. What you perceive as that occurring is just a biased and radical perception, which has unfortunately and illegally led to charges.

 

We'll see about that when the verdict comes in. All per due process, which seems foreign to you MAGA types who have no respect for the Constitution.

 

This isn’t due process at all. This is a fixed outcome by a corrupt system.

 

And that is not a true appraisal, made from citable, verifiable information, but a fixed response, baseless rejection, by a Trump-corrupted follower.

 

........AKA left bashing generalized thread spamming.

 

Kangaroos rule.

“To provide more texture to these definitions, references to a variety of sources are instructive. Black’s Law Dictionary is most helpful.13 It describes the kangaroo court as “1. A self-appointed tribunal or mock court in which the principles of law and justice are disregarded, perverted, or parodied . . . . 2. A court or tribunal characterized by unauthorized or irregular procedures, esp. so as to render a fair proceeding impossible. 3. A sham legal proceeding.”14 These definitions also capture the three features of inferiority, informality, and inequity. The online supplement to Black’s Law Dictionary goes into more relevant detail. “As a general rule,” it explains, a kangaroo court “is any proceeding that attempts to imitate a fair trial or hearing without the usual due process safeguards” since such “[c]onstitutional safeguards would stand in the way of a kangaroo court reaching its predetermined result.”15”
HARVARD LAW REVIEW, CRIMINAL LAW, RESPONSE, 134 Harv. L. Rev. F. 200, Kangaroo Courts, SHAUN OSSEI-OWUSU, RESPONSE TO: Criminal Municipal Courts , by ALEXANDRA NATAPOFF, VOLUME 134,ISSUE 4, FEBRUARY 2021.
https://harvardlawreview.org/forum/vol-134/kangaroo-courts/

 

I’m glad you know the Orange Stain will be found guilty . I was actually a little worried .

 

No-- you have no idea, clearly, of how I think; you can't go by your own mental acrobatics, as it appears you are doing, here.

Let's see, a District Attorney indicts the former President of the U.S., on a totally bogus charge, out of nothing but political animus, and no one in our entire judicial system does anything to stop it. With that factual foundation (which you will presumably not dispute, since I took the part that isn't common knowledge, from your own accusations), what is the more reasonable conclusion, and which one would require psychologically agile denial of the obvious, to convince oneself, it was true:

A) That our entire legal system is controlled by the Democratic Party, with the Republicans having no influence whatsoever;
or, for some other, inexplicable reason, the Georgia court system is not stepping in; the Republican governor is saying that he sees no sign of inappropriate use, by Willis, of her office; neither the Georgia judge who will hear the case (McAfee) nor the U.S. District Judge who is currently presiding over the motion to move this case to federal court (Jones) has thrown out the case; and no other Republican in the country, including Trump, is filing a suit against her?

OR ​

B) District Attorney Willis's case appears to wholely conform with the law?

 

WTF?
Please don't tell me that this is your asserting that Donald Trump, is "writing a paper!"
LMAO-- that is just too freaking hilariously unbelievable, even calibrated to the standard set by your posts, to be what you are trying to say.

 

I was talking about Eastman and Chesebro.

 

Well, since I never had been, and your post was a reply to mine, there was obviously some kind of mixup, on your end.

 

And I would say your understanding of human nature and psychology is a lot like that of a fencepost.
Political animus is the dominant behavior in politics today- not the exception you can absolutely rely on it being present in nearly every political but interaction.
You are the proof. You believe Trump, who does not hold any office of power should be imprisoned on the premise of violating technical rules, that have created no harm while those you support, who do hold offices of power are doing actual harm to the nation every day- get no notice at all from you. Reality is what it is, not what your hostility wants it to be. Manipulation of truth is the stock in trade of the people who create political animus. Hate, for short.

And if you have or know a good psychologist, Ask them if this is true: "Regardless of what you say or claim to be- What you do is who you are."

Thus, I can indeed get a very good idea of how you think. All of us are demonstrating that every day by every action. This is a skill called "Reading People". However, most people do not have that ability because they haven't learned to manage their own thought processes. I been asked many times how I knew things in advance about people, or if I was psychic. I've taught that skill for about 40 years- including to psychologists and business leaders. You can't do it until you learn to manage your own thinking, and you won't have a clue that it's even possible. Like you, now, thinking what comes out of your mouth has nothing to do with what's going on in your head.

If you read your own post, you are postulating that those in authority would be up in arms if a bogus charge was made. Like believing that because they hold power, these people must surely be moral. Except those you don't like, which are surely immoral. That's how what you do tells me how you think. Political animus.

 

Attempting to carry out that "legal theory" IS a crime if it breaks the law.

The fake electors scheme broke the law.

 

If you continue to defend Trump then your skill of "reading people" is not as well developed as you think it is.