- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: I was inside the court when the judge closed the Trump trial, and what I saw shocked me
Posted on 5/21/24 at 7:07 pm to davyjones
Posted on 5/21/24 at 7:07 pm to davyjones
quote:
no amount of votes of consequential significance will be changed in this matter, whether it’s a guilty verdict or not guilty
The mugshot + a bullshite verdict against Trump will help him in some circles.
0
Posted on 5/21/24 at 7:15 pm to RedStickFox
quote:
None of those crimes need to be tried in this trial. This is clearly laid out in the document I already posted. Maybe you should actually read it.
You realize the jury doesn’t see pre-trial motions, right? How are they supposed to know those are the crimes the state is referring to? How can a prosecutor prove mens rea without describing the alleged crime?
Posted on 5/21/24 at 7:16 pm to Born2rock
hold your breath while waiting for Trump to go to prison!
Posted on 5/21/24 at 7:17 pm to BBONDS25
quote:He's orange. He's a man. He's rich. He must be guilt of something.
How can a prosecutor prove mens rea without describing the alleged crime?
Posted on 5/21/24 at 7:31 pm to BBONDS25
quote:So, just to confirm, you have read all the court transcripts and are claiming that the prosecution hasn't talked about these underlying crimes at any point in front of the jury?
You realize the jury doesn’t see pre-trial motions, right? How are they supposed to know those are the crimes the state is referring to?
Posted on 5/21/24 at 7:32 pm to RedStickFox
quote:
So, just to confirm, you have read all the court transcripts and are claiming that the prosecution hasn't talked about these underlying crimes at any point in front of the jury?
Have you seen a single report of the alleged predicate crimes and their elements being presented? And evidence of his intent to commit those crimes? You trust the media. Link us the report of that happening.
Are you prepared to admit if the jury wasn’t presented this information that this is a sham trial?
This post was edited on 5/21/24 at 7:35 pm
Posted on 5/21/24 at 7:44 pm to BBONDS25
quote:
Have you seen a single report of the alleged predicate crimes and their elements being presented?
Again I ask, since you are claiming the the prosecution has presented nothing regarding the underlying crimes, you have read the transcripts and verified this? Or just pulling it out your arse?
Posted on 5/21/24 at 7:46 pm to RedStickFox
quote:
Again I ask, since you are claiming the the prosecution has presented nothing regarding the underlying crimes, you have read the transcripts and verified this? Or just pulling it out your arse?
I have not read all of the transcripts. I have also not seen a single report stating that the statutes and elements were described to the jury and evidence of intent presented. Have you?
I ask again, if those things did not occur, will you admit this is a sham trial? Yes or no?
This post was edited on 5/21/24 at 7:47 pm
Posted on 5/21/24 at 7:53 pm to L.A.
Revenge is going to be deelish
Posted on 5/21/24 at 7:54 pm to RedStickFox
quote:Wow!
Dershowitz is a lying sack of shite.
Yeah, that's his history.
Posted on 5/21/24 at 7:55 pm to BBONDS25
quote:
This isn’t a federal court you half-wit.
Posted on 5/21/24 at 7:55 pm to BBONDS25
quote:
That was all about the alleged falsification of documents. Which cohen blew up.
If by "blew up" you mean "absolutely confirmed and showed Trump is guilty", then sure.
quote:
The elements of the predicate crimes were never presented or even attempted to be proven.
Did you not pay attention to the trial? They spent quite a bit of time explaining how this was unduly influencing an election.
Posted on 5/21/24 at 7:57 pm to NC_Tigah
quote:
Dershowitz is a lying sack of shite.
Wow!
He was definitely lying when he said he didn't have sex with any minors while visiting his buddy Jeff Epstein, per the victims.
Posted on 5/21/24 at 7:58 pm to BamaAtl
You are such a worthless sack of shite.
Posted on 5/21/24 at 7:58 pm to RedStickFox
quote:
Epstein had been banned from all trump properties for nearly a decade. You are so woefully ignorant it must be painful.
I was talking about Dershowitz you moron
Posted on 5/21/24 at 7:59 pm to BBONDS25
quote:
I have not read all of the transcripts. I have also not seen a single report stating that the statutes and elements were described to the jury and evidence of intent presented. Have you?
I have not seen everything presented nor read all of the transcripts, but if you had read just the opening statement for the prosecution you would know they started discussing the underlying crimes in the 3rd sentence.
I've never made the claim that the prosecution will win. I've never made the claim that they have presented the required evidence. You are once again moving the goal posts.
Your side is out there saying that no one can even name the underlying crimes. That's bullshite. They have been laid out by the prosecutor and have been discussed during the trial. I'm not claiming they have proven guilt or intent, but your claim that they can't be listed is pure lunacy and a denial of reality.
Posted on 5/21/24 at 8:02 pm to BamaAtl
quote:The ones who unequivocally retracted their statements when challenged?
per the victims.
or did you or your idiot alter have someone else in mind?
This post was edited on 5/21/24 at 8:18 pm
Posted on 5/21/24 at 8:07 pm to RedStickFox
quote:
I have not seen everything presented nor read all of the transcripts, but if you had read just the opening statement for the prosecution you would know they started discussing the underlying crimes in the 3rd sentence.
They must describe them and the elements. They may have done that. I just have not seen a single report on it. In fact, the only report I’ve seen where they are described was linked in this thread. That report said they had to go to the opposition to the motion to get clarification. That led me to believe it was not presented at trial. Can you link a report that describes how it was presented to the jury. Opening arguments are not evidence. Since the jury does not see the pre-trial motions and arguments, it stands to reason they have not been presented what is required.
This post was edited on 5/21/24 at 8:09 pm
Posted on 5/21/24 at 8:12 pm to RedStickFox
quote:
but your claim that they can't be listed is pure lunacy and a denial of reality.
You are correct. I was incorrect to say “crimes”. I should have said “charges”.
Posted on 5/21/24 at 8:15 pm to BamaAtl
quote:
If by "blew up" you mean "absolutely confirmed and showed Trump is guilty", then sure.
he admitted to stealing from trump. That absolutely destroys one of the four underlying crimes. I have already detailed how none of the four crimes alleges in the pre-trial motion are applicable following the testimony and jurisdictional issues. quote:
Did you not pay attention to the trial? They spent quite a bit of time explaining how this was unduly influencing an election.
List the statute for “unduly influencing an election”
Page 7 of 10
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News