12
WinsAnon 12 points ago +12 / -0

This is not fully on point with Merchan and Trump's case, but it does send a signal that the Court is going to really drill down on whether the jury decision was unanimous when Merchan instructed them that they do not have to be unanimous about their finding of which predicate crime Trump committed. That jury instruction was patently wrong and the SCOTUS will overturn it.

22
WinsAnon 22 points ago +23 / -1

Too many doomers here. If he is convicted and sentenced to prison (which I don’t think even Merchan would do), he will get immediate relief from serving time during the appeal process because it isn’t a violent crime and the trial was so unfairly conducted.

And the presence of a conviction will not hurt him in the election, but would instead make voters more motivated to elect him so we can start dealing with this corruption. Polls are firmly behind Trump on this very point.

Finally, Congress will not have grounds to disqualify him for a conviction the public hates which also does not meet the “high crimes or misdemeanors” standard.

3
WinsAnon 3 points ago +3 / -0

It will likely take a while because they will go through the same deliberations on each of the 34 counts. I'm guessing a week.

2
WinsAnon 2 points ago +2 / -0

Yeah, Raging Bullshitter, just like Democracy was destroyed last time Trump was in the White House.

1
WinsAnon 1 point ago +1 / -0

Yes, this is Gates’ sophomoric spin: With better health, people in poor countries will make more rational decisions and stop having them babies in hopes a few survive. It’s utter BS. There is no mathematical calculus going on in those countries. It is instead cultural, where people in those countries like sex as much as other humans do but they do not believe in killing unborn children like Bill Gates wishes them to do.

12
WinsAnon 12 points ago +12 / -0

The radical Left won't allow for peace. The protests on college campuses right now is priming the pump. Setting the pace, establishing the tone. Hollywood and celebrities will encourage protests which will become violent so they can accuse the Trump Admin of being Nazis interfering with free speech.

Ironically, its exactly what they think January 6 was, but they will take it up a thousand notches and actually commit violence, then declare that government efforts to stop them is contradicting the Right's stance on January 6 political speech.

4
WinsAnon 4 points ago +4 / -0

Dude, come on. I hadn’t heard of this either and I often come here for my news. Not hard to link to a source because anons all too often get caught up in unsupported notions. Which reflects badly on all of us. Lay off the guy asking for sauce.

1
WinsAnon 1 point ago +1 / -0

Everyone knows Trump wins in a fair election. The Left will not fight fair. They will need to do something to change the outcome. And they have no problem with any circumstances, whether it is destroying the country, killing millions of people, you name it.

6
WinsAnon 6 points ago +6 / -0

Smart play by Trump. He is making sure every vote for RFK comes from a potential vote for Biden rather than a confused conservative.

48
WinsAnon 48 points ago +49 / -1
  1. The press. Such heroes.

  2. The President they all wanted to kill. Blue suit, red tie. Anyone come to mind?

8
WinsAnon 8 points ago +8 / -0

The first season of Reacher was great. The second season made me think the franchise is done. And that was largely due to Ritchson’s poor acting.

I was going to at least give any new season a fighting chance. No more. He is dead to me like Sean Penn or Robert DeNiro or Alec Baldwin.

3
WinsAnon 3 points ago +3 / -0

They don't need to say the oath to be bound by law and the Constitution.

10
WinsAnon 10 points ago +10 / -0

The movie was made to scare conservatives from considering taking this country back.

3
WinsAnon 3 points ago +3 / -0

The elements necessary to winning a defamation case are:

1. A statement of fact was made, and it was made to someone else (Kari admits this)
2. The statement was false (Kari does not admit this, it is now the plaintiff's burden to prove that the statements were false)
3. Kari was negligent or acted with absolute malice in determining the truth of the statement (Kari denies this so again the plaintiff would need to prove this)
4. The statement caused some demonstrable damage (Kari also denies this, so again the plaintiff will have to prove it)

There is no way the plaintiff gets a directed verdict here.

view more: ‹ Prev Next ›