What's new
By:
Filters

Donald is about to go through some things...

fishonjazz said:
It's just weird cause apparently you are backing desantis and don't care about trump. Yet your posts always seem to be in defense of trump or against trumps opposition. I see posts critical or desantis and it's crickets. I see posts critical of trump and there you are.
Click to expand...
I’ve notified this as well. All the anti anti trump/pro desnantis people I know are defending trump right now against this judge, DC, and making whataboutism claims. They’re even calling this election interference. If they’re really for DeSantis, shouldn’t they be piling on Trump? It’s just weird to see how many supposedly pro DeSantis people seem to be Trump’s biggest fluffers right now. Don’t they want to win? And if Dems really are just trying to take trump out, why not dump his *** and support the best candidate against Biden? Wouldn’t that own the libs more than fluffing trump/giving away millions?

Repubs have now had 2 primary elections, 3 general elections (if he’s in 2024), and 2 impeachments to rid themselves of Dump. Yet… they stick with him.

apnews.com

Trump's campaign finances are strained as legal peril mounts

Donald Trump’s political operation enters the second half of the year in a strained financial position.
apnews.com apnews.com
 
Last edited:
WASHINGTON -- When Senate Leader Mitch McConnell rose to announce his vote to acquit Donald Trump of impeachment charges in the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the Capitol, the Republican assured the public the former president would have his day in court.

“He didn’t get away with anything yet — yet,” McConnell vowed.

“We have a criminal justice system in this country. We have civil litigation. And former presidents are not immune from being accountable by either one.”
Click to expand...
abcnews.go.com

Republicans don't dare criticize Trump over Jan. 6. Their silence fuels his bid for the White House

Senate Leader Mitch McConnell once vowed Donald Trump would have his day in court after the Jan. 6, 2021, Capitol attack
abcnews.go.com abcnews.go.com


GOP 2021: “This isn’t a political issue but a legal issue. We can’t indict trump. Besides, the election has already happened. Trump needs to have his day in court. Let the jury decide.”
GOP 2023: “This isn’t a legal issue but a political issue. Trump shouldn’t be indicted. Besides, the election is coming up in a year. Trump shouldn’t be in court. Let the voters decide.”
 
Al-O-Meter said:
I'm there when it looks like governmental corruption. With DeSantis it is pudding fingers or he's the real fascist. Meh. Do you expect me to argue that DeSantis didn't really use his fingers to eat pudding or that the term 'fascist' is being used wrong? Maybe DeSantis did use his fingers and everybody uses the fascist label wrong because fascist doesn't mean anything. Wikipedia has something like 25 different prominent political scientists who all have different definitions for fascism. Pick any of them and 24 other PhDs will insist you're wrong. The term now is nothing but a pejorative. It is equivalent to calling someone a ******* with ******* policies. There is no point in debating the point because there isn't one.
Click to expand...

I mean maybe just one time you might say something good about desantis? You are just never there for him. Always there for trump though.
 
The Thriller said:
abcnews.go.com

Republicans don't dare criticize Trump over Jan. 6. Their silence fuels his bid for the White House

Senate Leader Mitch McConnell once vowed Donald Trump would have his day in court after the Jan. 6, 2021, Capitol attack
abcnews.go.com abcnews.go.com


GOP 2021: “This isn’t a political issue but a legal issue. We can’t indict trump. Besides, the election has already happened. Trump needs to have his day in court. Let the jury decide.”
GOP 2023: “This isn’t a legal issue but a political issue. Trump shouldn’t be indicted. Besides, the election is coming up in a year. Trump shouldn’t be in court. Let the voters decide.”
Click to expand...

Great point
 
Trump’s trial for the 1/6 charges will need to be televised, if any trial in our history ever needed to be. It’s not a given, and may require a decision by the Supreme Court.
 
The Thriller said:
Repubs have now had 2 primary elections, 3 general elections (if he’s in 2024), and 2 impeachments to rid themselves of Dump. Yet… they stick with him.

apnews.com

Trump's campaign finances are strained as legal peril mounts

Donald Trump’s political operation enters the second half of the year in a strained financial position.
apnews.com apnews.com
Click to expand...
This is a great point as well.
Many republicans are like "I dont like trump" but will vote for him over all other republicans and all other democrats lol.

I dont like Biden, which is why I would vote for most all democrats over him (I voted in the primaries and voted for Elizabeth Warren and also like Bernie and would have voted for literally every other democratic candidate other than bloomberg before I would have voted for Biden) and some republicans too.
 
Heard on KSL 1160 this morning about some study or poll done at a university near chicago that found that 12 million adult americans believe that violence is justified in order to put donald trump back into power. 12 million adults in america think we should just do away with elections and instead simply install trump as president using violence as the method according to this study. Hmmmmm, I wonder what political party those 12 million belong too.
When trump told his followers that they need to fight like hell or else they wouldn't even have a country anymore they really took that message to heart.
 
fishonjazz said:
This is a great point as well.
Many republicans are like "I dont like trump" but will vote for him over all other republicans and all other democrats lol.

I dont like Biden, which is why I would vote for most all democrats over him (I voted in the primaries and voted for Elizabeth Warren and also like Bernie and would have voted for literally every other democratic candidate other than bloomberg before I would have voted for Biden) and some republicans too.
Click to expand...
I honestly did wonder why Republicans didn't just bite the bullet and confirm the impeachment the second time around. I'm not 100% sure but I don't think an impeached and removed President can run again. Even if they can, I think it would have been a lot easier for Republican officials and voters to have moved on by now. As it stands, beating that impeachment is just another feather in Trump's hat that his supporters point to saying that it's proof that he didn't do anything wrong and it was all just another witch hunt.
 

Jones also warned about the potential harm to the nation if such attempts to undermine democracy become normalized. He stressed the gravity of the indictment, highlighting the historical significance that this event would carry and how it will be remembered for generations to come.

Regarding the scale of the prosecution, Jones stated that this might be the most substantial case in the country’s history. He called on the court system not to let Trump escape accountability for what he believes was an attempt to stage a coup.

In conclusion, Jones urged the public to comprehend the significance of the indictment and its potential long-term impact on the country’s democratic principles. He emphasized the importance of holding individuals accountable for actions that threaten the foundations of democracy.
 
One Brow said:
I accept the definition of the law school, not yours.
Click to expand...
The law school's definition and mine are identical.

From the law school definition:

Hearsay is an out-of-court statement offered to prove the truth of whatever it asserts, which is then offered in evidence to prove the truth of the matter. The problem with hearsay is that when the person being quoted is not present, it becomes impossible to establish credibility.

This is what happened:

Hutchinson gave an out-of-court statement to investigators to prove the assertion that Trump knew he lost the election. The statement was provided to investigators when the person (Trump) was not present.

The statement from Hutchinson about what Trump knew or didn't know is hearsay.
 
Al-O-Meter said:
Hutchinson gave an out-of-court statement to investigators to prove the assertion that Trump knew he lost the election. The statement was provided to investigators when the person (Trump) was not present.
Click to expand...
Your evidence that this was the purpose of the testimony?

Al-O-Meter said:
The statement from Hutchinson about what Trump knew or didn't know is hearsay.
Click to expand...
Even if that were the purpose, it would fall under the excited utterance exception.

The first exception to the hearsay rule is the "excited utterance" exception. This exception applies when someone makes a statement during a startling event, in the heat of the moment, potentially providing an unguarded and accurate piece of information. This exception is most applicable in criminal cases, as the rationale behind it is that during or immediately following a criminal act, a person is not likely to have the presence of mind to lie or give false statements. In order for a statement to qualify as an excited utterance, it must have been made in conjunction with an event that would be so overwhelming as to discount the possibility of fabrication.
Click to expand...

Trump losing the election was overwhelming for him.
 
One Brow said:
Your evidence that this was the purpose of the testimony? Even if that were the purpose, it would fall under the excited utterance exception. Trump losing the election was overwhelming for him.
Click to expand...
My evidence is that it was about what Trump knew from someone other than Trump. It also isn't covered by the excited utterance exception as that only covers things said out loud within a second or two of a thing happening. The whole point of the exception is that there is insufficient time to form a lie and so it must be the truth. Hutchinson making a statement about a thing Trump said in the aftermath or lead up to giving a speech or filing legal challenges in court isn't an excited utterance no matter how supposedly overwhelming the event was. The prosecutors have to prove Trump was 100% convinced in his own mind there were no shenanigans in the counting of the votes, no legally questionable issues in how states unilaterally changed voting procedures to deal with COVID in a way that would have advantaged his opponent, etc. when there were people around him floating these ideas.
 
Al-O-Meter said:
My evidence is that it was about what Trump knew from someone other than Trump.
Click to expand...
Restatement is not evidence. Hutchinson could have been asked if Trump ever acknowledged his loss to forestall the defense from so claiming. Do you have evidence the testimony was for the purpose you stated?

Al-O-Meter said:
It also isn't covered by the excited utterance exception as that only covers things said out loud within a second or two of a thing happening. The whole point of the exception is that there is insufficient time to form a lie and so it must be the truth.
Click to expand...

As in, immediately after the election.
fishonjazz said:
In fact, according to Hutchinson’s testimony, immediately following the announcement that Biden had won the White House, Trump had admitted he thought he had lost to Joe Biden.
Click to expand...
 
On February 12th Albertsons increased the price of Oscar Meyer hot dogs, the next day 7-11 introduced a new flavor of Slurpee.

On March 7th, Johnny asked Suzie to go out on a date for malted milk shakes, the next day Tom got hired as a cashier at Wendy's.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

Top