Actually, for the New York civil fraud suit, Trump forgot to ask for a jury trial. But the judge very much found him guilty. In the E Jean Carol case, he was found guilty by not cooperating with discovery, and the jury was pretty clear on the 92m damages.
Fair, I intended that more as an idiom really. I mean whether or not the punishment goes through. He’s so damned slippery I’m not taking anything as truth until the buildings have been seized/ he’s in jail.
Yes I am aware of the line “TRUMP BAD CRIMINAL!!!” so you guys cant see when malicious prosecution is happening. The facts are right in front of you, you can either follow your team to the countries destruction, or call out injustices. I already know you are going to just be a team player.
I suppose I might have used the word malicious wrongly because I am not a lawyer, but what i was referring to was all of the cases. I am in real estate and know the real estate one very well, and that is absolute bullshit, and he did nothing wrong. That is what I meant by the words malicous prosecution.
Is this not the point of a trial? To ascertain fact and adjudicate appropriately? Hell, this is explicitly the point of a grand jury, to determine if a trial is merited in the first place. And they’ve found, several times, that taking the charges to trial is justified. Not even that he’s guilty, but that it’s worth looking into.
Additionally, what facts am I missing? He wasn’t exactly subtle with seeking to commit crimes (“Only stupid people pay taxes” comes to mind as a softball, but the fact that he was never held to the emoluments clause also stands out. Plus all the fraud and rape). Where is the misunderstanding in all this? He was found to be a rapist by a judge. He was found to have committed fraud by a different judge.
The misunderstanding isn’t yours, it’s the general publics understanding of the legal system and it’s processes. Which has been misinformed by decades of American criminal dramas like Law and Order, CSI, and NCIS. No one in this thread will go to rich people court like Trump gets to, we all get regular court if we get the privileged right to a court date. So when misinformed Trump supporters hear the judge ruled from the bench they see an overreach. When Trump’s legal team presented such a bad defense and showed a complete disregard for the court and it’s ruling in their opinion it wasn’t his team who did a bad job, but a judge who never gave him a chance.
Yes, holding a person accountable for their crimes (maybe, jury is still out) is attacking them…
Unless you’re talking media coverage. Cause we all know that the media is an arm of the government…
Actually, for the New York civil fraud suit, Trump forgot to ask for a jury trial. But the judge very much found him guilty. In the E Jean Carol case, he was found guilty by not cooperating with discovery, and the jury was pretty clear on the 92m damages.
So nah, the jury has made up their minds.
Fair, I intended that more as an idiom really. I mean whether or not the punishment goes through. He’s so damned slippery I’m not taking anything as truth until the buildings have been seized/ he’s in jail.
But yeah, they did make up their minds there.
Yes I am aware of the line “TRUMP BAD CRIMINAL!!!” so you guys cant see when malicious prosecution is happening. The facts are right in front of you, you can either follow your team to the countries destruction, or call out injustices. I already know you are going to just be a team player.
what was malicious about it?
It’s terribly rude to force rich white people to deal with the consequences of their illegal actions.
I suppose I might have used the word malicious wrongly because I am not a lawyer, but what i was referring to was all of the cases. I am in real estate and know the real estate one very well, and that is absolute bullshit, and he did nothing wrong. That is what I meant by the words malicous prosecution.
Is this not the point of a trial? To ascertain fact and adjudicate appropriately? Hell, this is explicitly the point of a grand jury, to determine if a trial is merited in the first place. And they’ve found, several times, that taking the charges to trial is justified. Not even that he’s guilty, but that it’s worth looking into.
Additionally, what facts am I missing? He wasn’t exactly subtle with seeking to commit crimes (“Only stupid people pay taxes” comes to mind as a softball, but the fact that he was never held to the emoluments clause also stands out. Plus all the fraud and rape). Where is the misunderstanding in all this? He was found to be a rapist by a judge. He was found to have committed fraud by a different judge.
The misunderstanding isn’t yours, it’s the general publics understanding of the legal system and it’s processes. Which has been misinformed by decades of American criminal dramas like Law and Order, CSI, and NCIS. No one in this thread will go to rich people court like Trump gets to, we all get regular court if we get the privileged right to a court date. So when misinformed Trump supporters hear the judge ruled from the bench they see an overreach. When Trump’s legal team presented such a bad defense and showed a complete disregard for the court and it’s ruling in their opinion it wasn’t his team who did a bad job, but a judge who never gave him a chance.
I imagine the mental gymnastics are way easier if you’re uninformed about how things work.
Does it qualify as bad faith if I ask my previous questions knowing that he had nothing and/or complete unhinged nonsense?
Removed by mod
So, same as usual then.
You aren’t fooling anyone.