F'dup Chapters in American History(The Trump Years) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Part 29

Status
Not open for further replies.
Iceman said:
So everyone is going to be very poor if Trump gets impeached?
Click to expand...
Well, many of his rich white friends when their companies can't pollute and extort their employees with impunity perhaps......
 
MagnarTheGreat said:
Al Capone: "I've been spending the best years of my life as a public benefactor. I've given people the light pleasures, shown them a good time. And all I get is abuse." (December 1927)
Click to expand...

Sounds a bit familiar, lol. :p
 
squeekness said:
Well, many of his rich white friends when their companies can't pollute and extort their employees with impunity perhaps......
Click to expand...
I take his statement as a positive as I was expecting to become extremely poor when he leaves, rather than merely very poor.
 
fnImUmR.jpg

New York Magazine, April 9, 1992
 
Vanity Fair - “HOLY ****, I THOUGHT PECKER WOULD BE THE LAST ONE TO TURN”: TRUMP’S NATIONAL ENQUIRER ALLIES ARE THE LATEST TO DEFECT

It’s likely that more Trump relationships will be stress-tested in the weeks to come as Trump’s legal peril escalates. Cohen’s lawyer Lanny Davis has given a series of cable-news interviews intimating that Cohen has valuable and damaging information on Trump to share with Mueller—including the claim that Trump had foreknowledge of Russia’s hacking of Clinton’s e-mails. One source close to Cohen told me Cohen wants to tell Mueller that Trump discussed the release of Clinton campaign chairman John Podesta’s e-mails during the weekend when the Access Hollywood "grab ’em by the *****” tape dominated the news cycle.
Click to expand...

https://www.vanityfair.com/news/201...irer-allies-defect-david-pecker-michael-cohen
 
Iceman said:
I take his statement as a positive as I was expecting to become extremely poor when he leaves, rather than merely very poor.
Click to expand...

It's always good to be optimistic. :p
 
Man, this is really like watching Richard III or Macbeth play out in the modern world.
 
how stupid are they?
 
Gotta let the Russians manipulate the elections in favor of Trump again. It's one more step towards Trumperica.
 
The Incredible Hulk said:
Keep in mind, juries don't decide matters of law, they decide matter of fact. So a juror doesnt have to have knowledge of accounting rules or tax regulations to be effective, they just have to decide for instance did event A occur before event B, which based on the judge's direction is a violation. If they find that event A occurred first based on the testimony and evidence, then they decide that the defendant is guilty because that is what the law states.

Now whether or not they can get past inherent biases and admit if something factually goes against their beliefs or preconceived notions, that's an entirely other thing. But the attorneys should be weeding those types out in the jury selection process.
Click to expand...

As a practicing litigator, it is not that simple. Most questions these days are actually questions of mixed fact and law, which involve the application of complicated law to complicated facts. In any event, accounting rules and such are questions of fact, not law. The jury has to understand the law and the facts to know how to apply one to the other.

Second, challenges are limited, so counsel have to accept the lesser of evils when it comes to jury selection.

It is for these reasons that most other advanced democracies with legal systems that derive from the English common law have greatly restricted the use of juries especially in complicated financial matters. The United States is a backwards outlier in that regard.

As well, juries do not give reasons for their decisions, so an appeal for errors in the actual decision making process of the jury is very limited. The jury can theoretically make any decision it wants without accountability.
 
DKDetective said:
As a practicing litigator, it is not that simple. Most questions these days are actually questions of mixed fact and law, which involve the application of complicated law to complicated facts. In any event, accounting rules and such are questions of fact, not law. The jury has to understand the law and the facts to know how to apply one to the other.

Second, challenges are limited, so counsel have to accept the lesser of evils when it comes to jury selection.

It is for these reasons that most other advanced democracies with legal systems that derive from the English common law have greatly restricted the use of juries especially in complicated financial matters. The United States is a backwards outlier in that regard.

As well, juries do not give reasons for their decisions, so an appeal for errors in the actual decision making process of the jury is very limited. The jury can theoretically make any decision it wants without accountability.
Click to expand...


Most Americans would balk at the idea of getting rid of "juries of peers". Mostly because they balk any time they hear lawmakers consider changing the constitution. Too many americans act as if these rights are timeless, perfect, and sacrosanct. Lawmakers would have to sit the stubborn Americans down and explain to them the issues with regular people being in a jury and deciding a person's fate. And the GOP would immediately fight it and stir their base up telling them the Dems want to take away their rights and imprison them. Itd be a political cluster****.
 
At least when Trump goes on Twitter to give him a cutesy nickname as he tries to denounce yet another flipped friend he won't have a hard time of it with a name like that.
 
And something they would have rushed to do if a democrat was president. When Obama was president and they wanted to restrict non white liberals from voting they were all about stopping "election fraud" in spite of no evidence of election fraud being a problem. Then after the 2016 election Trump was obsessed with election fraud and he tried to say millions of supposedly illegal brown skinned people voted.

But now with a white president, proof of Russians meddling with elections, and indications that they will meddle again with the midterms...the GOP is fighting against bills that would protect our elections.

Racist hypocritical traitorous jackasses.
 
If a State indicted Trump himself I wonder what would happen. I guess it would be challenged in court for one.

We know that the President has no immunity from civil litigation for acts done before taking office. That was unanimously decided by the Supreme Court 9-0 in Clinton v. Jones.

The federal DoJ guidelines have been for the DoJ to not indict a sitting President.

State governors can be and are indicted all the time.
 
The Trump Administration at this point:

[YT]Urqiqjp4SMc[/YT]
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

flickchick85
  • Locked
🇺🇸 F'dup Chapters in American History (The Trump Years) --- Part 30
546 547 548
Replies
14K
Views
534K
Lily Adler
Lily Adler
T
  • Locked
F'dup Chapters in American History(The Trump Years) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Part 28
39 40 41
Replies
1K
Views
67K
Thread Manager
T
T
  • Locked
F'dup Chapters in American History(The Trump Years) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Part 27
39 40 41
Replies
1K
Views
69K
Thread Manager
T
T
  • Locked
F'dup Chapters in American History(The Trump Years) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Part 26
39 40 41
Replies
1K
Views
73K
Thread Manager
T
T
  • Locked
F'dup Chapters in American History(The Trump Years) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Part 25
39 40 41
Replies
1K
Views
75K
Thread Manager
T

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 2 (members: 0, guests: 2)

Staff online

Members online

Total: 2,163 (members: 16, guests: 2,147)

Latest posts

Forum statistics

Threads
202,301
Messages
22,082,441
Members
45,882
Latest member
Charles Xavier

Share this page

Back
Top
monitoring_string = "afb8e5d7348ab9e99f73cba908f10802"