Jury instructions conclude in Trump's NYC criminal trial, here's what the jury was told
-
@raphjd Where to start? Hillary "Lock Her Up." Your side has been calling for imprisoning Fauci, Garland, Buttigieg, the "Biden Crime Family," and more. The difference is you make wild accusations but seem to lack evidence?
So when you gather enough to convince a grand jury to indict. Go for it.
I find it really ironic that right-wingers are screaming "Banana Republic" from one side of their mouths, yet vowing revenge from the other.
-
We know that Killary violated the Congressional subpoena, and destroyed the emails under said subpoena and other things.
Eric Strok altered the report on the Killary case to claim she didn't have "criminal intent" so she did nothing wrong. Watch the countless court videos on YouTube and see how many judges mention "criminal intent" when sentencing people for not obeying subpoenas.
The FBI lawyer confessed to illegally altering the CIA email which clearly said Cater Paige worked for them. It was altered so the email said that the CIA denied Carter Paige worked for them. He got 3 months probation, as well as keeping his job and law license.
Sussman should have been convicted.
Ray Epps is well-recorded for violating laws and others were sent to prison for decades over. He too only got 3 months of probation.
BLM and Antifa losers have also gotten weak sentences or prosecutions thrown out for their antics. As an example, those 2 lawyers who firebombed the police car with the 2 cops in it got virtually no sentences.
Lack of prosecution does not mean there's no evidence. It means there's a political motive.
It's like when Obama was elected back in 2008. 2 New Black Panther members were outside a polling place, on video, threatening white voters. They were arrested by the feds for violating federal voting laws. Once the Obama and Co came in, the charges were dropped.
-
@raphjd said in Jury instructions conclude in Trump's NYC criminal trial, here's what the jury was told:
Lack of prosecution does not mean there's no evidence. It means there's a political motive.
You are right. Like when Trump pardoned, Manafort, Stone, Flynn, Bannon and company.
It's a game of chess; don't pretend it's only the Democrats who are doing this. Congress has been going after Democrats since they were sworn in. If they had had enough evidence, they would have done something with it. Nothing was stopping them except lack of real evidence.
-
Congress DOES NOT prosecute anyone.
They have to rely on the FBI to investigate and the DOJ to prosecute.
We have seen what the FBI has done over the years. I mentioned 2 examples in a previous post.
The DOJ refused to prosecute Eric Holder, even after he was ordered by a federal court to obey the Congressional subpoena.
The DOJ refused to prosecute countless BLM and Antifa losers, despite clear evidence that they violated federal law.
The DOJ refused to charge/prosecute the people protesting outside of the SCOTUS houses in clear violation of federal law.
-
@raphjd said in Jury instructions conclude in Trump's NYC criminal trial, here's what the jury was told:
Congress DOES NOT prosecute anyone.
I know that. You know I know that. And you know what I meant.
-
Just because Congress has evidence of a crime (Eric Holder violating Congressional subpoena even after the courts stripped him of Exec Priv, for example) does NOT mean the DOJ will prosecute.
Even if the DOJ does prosecute, it does NOT mean they will do it fairly, compared to others in the same situation. We saw this with Ray Epps.
The DOJ went extremely weak on the FBI lawyer who falsified the CIA email. This fraudulent email was then used in the FISA court. That's fraud and perjury, but only got him 3 months probation.
Everyone protesting outside of the SCOTUS houses was in clear violation of federal law. Garland prosecuted none of them, except the guy who traveled from California to Virginia to kill Kavanaugh. According to the US Marshalls, that was about 500 people who were allowed to break federal law without being prosecuted. I doubt that they would have gotten off like that if they were protesting the liberal SCOTUS houses.
Imagine if, instead of New Black Panthers threatening white voters with nightsticks outside a polling place, it was KKK members threatening black voters with nightsticks. Do you honestly think Eric Holder would have dropped the charges as soon as the Obama Admin came into power? No one with an IQ over 1 believes that dropping the charges was anything other than political.
-
@jaroonn said in Jury instructions conclude in Trump's NYC criminal trial, here's what the jury was told:
@raphjd said in Jury instructions conclude in Trump's NYC criminal trial, here's what the jury was told:
Congress DOES NOT prosecute anyone.
I know that. You know I know that. And you know what I meant.
The reason I said that is because you are acting like the reason the DOJ doesn't prosecute is because there is no evidence.
It does not matter how much evidence Congress has if the DOJ refuses to prosecute.
The DOJ does what it wants, for political reasons. Likewise, the FBI does what it wants for political reasons.
-
@raphjd Biden has not prevented the DOJ from indicting Hunter. Which they have done.
As far as Congress is concerned, I was taking about the goose chase impeachment of Biden. They've been screaming "bombshells" for three years, and nothing. They've got nothing.
-
@raphjd I was in a remote part of the world during the Obama years, so wasn't paying much attention. But if what you say is true, than it was wrong. I believe anyone who breaks the law should be prosecuted. On both sides. And it happens on both sides.
-
You might remember that the Biden DOJ was going to let the gun charges time out.
It was also the Biden DOJ/IRS that offered Hunter a sweetheart deal on the tax invasion.
Liberals love to say that Biden didn't order it, but if it was Trump and Baron, would your really be as kind? Of course, not.
-
@raphjd Trump would fire the AG and pardon Baron. I'm still waiting for Congress to investigate Kushner's multi-billion dollar deal with the Saudis. Or Ivanka's making millions from the Chinese.
As I said, rich people protect their own. On both sides.
-
I think you meant to so that Trump would nuke the entire world to save Baron, while Biden would help route out crime everywhere it's found because Dems, especially Biden, are saints.
-
"He said that there is no need to agree on what occurred. They can disagree on what the crime was among the three choices. Thus, this means that they could split 4-4-4, and he will still treat them as unanimous."
This has already been widely debunked.
-
Debunked by who?
-
@jaroonn said in Jury instructions conclude in Trump's NYC criminal trial, here's what the jury was told:
@raphjd I was in a remote part of the world during the Obama years, so wasn't paying much attention. But if what you say is true, than it was wrong. I believe anyone who breaks the law should be prosecuted. On both sides. And it happens on both sides.
What about the Congressman who took down the fire exit signs, and then pulled the fire alarm?
What about the Senate staffer who filmed himself getting fucked in the ass in the Senate hearing room?
What about all the Biden nominees who lied to them on various points?
What about all the others on the left that have gotten away with things, that there is clear proof of, but never got prosecuted?
Hello! It looks like you're interested in this conversation, but you don't have an account yet.
Getting fed up of having to scroll through the same posts each visit? When you register for an account, you'll always come back to exactly where you were before, and choose to be notified of new replies (either via email, or push notification). You'll also be able to save bookmarks and upvote posts to show your appreciation to other community members.
With your input, this post could be even better 💗
Register Login