Yup, another indictment.

Huh? That requires some mental gymnastics and belief in BS to be a viable opinion.

Source?

 

Failed to make their case for pretrial action by the court that normally follows a trial and successful verdict and rarely precedes such a trial.

 

None at all. The very same Russian lawyer that met with the Trump campaign, also met with Fusion GPS, hired by the Clinton campaign to create the Russian Dossier, based upon claims made by another Russian. Don Jr met with the same Russian, got some Hillary dirty accusations that had already been reported in the Media.

 

You have a source for any of this? Who’s committing the crime in this RW fantasy?

 

I guess there's no evidence of nefarious goings on by the murderous Hillary. Oh well.

Well, Dumb, Jr. was too stupid to form an intent to commit a crime, according to Mueller.

So, the defense here is that the Orange Blob is innocent because Hillary is not in jail for crimes you imagine she committed in your RW fantasies. And "Sho BI'en" (pronunciation courtesy of a drunken Dumb, Jr.) should also be in jail because, though senile and befuddled, he's been taking huge bribes and is a criminal mastermind. And stuff.

 

Huh? If i's "pretrial" how would "normally" follow trial? Do you have any idea what you meant to say?

 

That’s not true.

 

Could you at least link that post, then?-- wait, hold on that. Explanation, below:

I traced my post, to which you here respond--

DEFinning said: ↑
That post was directed toward someone else, ...........(your edited abridgement)--

to page 42, where I had replied to this post of yours:

Bluesguy said: ↑
Clearly you have not read ANYTHING detail or not about this case and swallow the MSM specious claims and reporting. And you STILL haven't read the Eastman memo and that is inexcusable, see I can make the same about you with the same verocity.
<End Post>


When I search this quote of yours, it brings me to the near the top of that page, where you make this response to @yardmeat. Here is the quote, to which you reply:

yardmeat said: ↑
He didn't just have them on standby. CLEARLY you haven't read a SINGLE detail about this case, or even Trump's own PUBLIC statements. You STILL haven't read the Eastman memo. It's inexcusable. I'm sorry, but you know as much about this case as you do how to spell the word Capitol.
<End Post>


So, what is undisputedly clear, is that you were parroting back yardmeat's words, and reversing his charges levied at you, to levy the same ones at him. What is also clear-- and because of your unreasonably severe shortening of my post, it took me a bit of time to figure out what was going on-- is that you had misunderstood my opening phrase, "That post was directed toward someone else." The word "that," refers to the post which I am addressing: that is, yours. And, as I show, above, your post, toward which I was directing my own comment, had been "directed toward someone else," namely: to yardmeat.

The upshot, is that you have a miscomprehending reply to my opening phrase, and ignored the rest of the post, which included the entire idea of my comment. Not that it was very important, but you had used the word "verocity." I had only corrected your spelling, telling you that it should be "veracity," except, I noted, that idea really did not fit your post: your saying those things about yardmeat, did not automatically imbue the statements with any veracity. So, I had asked, facetiously, if perhaps your typo had not been with the vowel, but with the first consonant, and you had meant to write: "ferocity."

 

Are you saying that the judicial system screwed Trump and it was a result of the functional design of the system??

 

Common knowledge not denied by anyone.

In an interview with NBC News, Russian lawyer Natalia Veselnitskaya says she first received the supposedly incriminating information she brought to Trump Tower — describing alleged tax evasion and donations to Democrats — from Glenn Simpson, the Fusion GPS owner, who had been hired to conduct research in a New York federal court case.
Trump Dossier Firm Also Supplied Info Used in Meeting of Russians, Trump Team (nbcnews.com)

Forgot that detail. The dirt on Hillary the Russian Lawyer had for Don Jr came from Fusion GPS.

Also on or around June 9, prior to and following the Trump Tower meeting, Veselnitskaya met with Fusion GPS co-founder Glenn R. Simpson,...
Natalia Veselnitskaya - Wikipedia

 

Judicial system and laws isnt designed to deal with such issues in elections. For instance the Constitution is clear, only state legislators can set the rules for voting in their states. The courts agreed that Governors or state courts by fiat changing the rules for voting, usually in the name of COVID emergency, was contrary to the Constitution, but there wasn't anything the courts could do about it at the time.

 

Try to keep up. Im the one who says

Trump or Hillary campaigns. When Trump did it the left and their mainstream minions tried the best they could to make it into a crime. Remember back then? Everything Trump did was alleged to be a crime.

 

Sounds like the problem was that Trump had to live within the law.

 

Like Pence is whining, Trump wanted him to deny the certification which pushes the decision to Congress, which Pence believed would be a disaster. Its happened?? about half a dozen times in our history. Congress not the electoral college elects the President. Perfectly within the law.

 

Sounds like RW BS. Pence got advice from sympathetic attorneys including Bill Barr that what Trump wanted was unconstitutional an illegal just like “alternate” electors was illegal. And I don’t believe it has EVER happened before.

I’ll wait for the courts.

 

because it was.

 

Yeah. One charge is under an 1870 law. Called the Klu Klux law used to counter the Klan using threats of violence and actual violence to inhibit blacks from voting.
Other charge is under law enacted in response to Enron. Arthur Anderson Accounting firm destroying the recorded Enron books while Congress was investigating Enron. Didnt have a law to criminalize Andersons actions so they enacted a new law they could hold such action criminally liable.
And the 3rd charge is for fraud against US. BUT precedent says

Less than three months ago, Justice Clarence Thomas wrote for a unanimous Supreme Court in Ciminelli v. United States that “the federal fraud statutes criminalize only schemes to deprive people of traditional property interests[.]”

[O]n two propositions, the Court is in unanimous agreement: First, fraud in federal criminal law is confined to deceptive schemes to obtain money or tangible property, and to bribery and kickbacks; second, the concept of fraud could be expanded consistent with the Constitution, but (a) that could only be done by Congress, not by creative prosecutors and judges, and (b) if it tries such an expansion, Congress must articulate the new law with sufficient clarity that the average person can reasonably be expected to understand the scope of what is prohibited.
Speaking of fraud | Power Line (powerlineblog.com)

Prosecution is stretching the laws beyond belief to support these charges.

 

What crime is that? Back when it was in the news, their argument was that dirt on Hillary would be an illegal campaign donation from a foreigner. LOLOLOLOLOLOL! The Russian Lawyer got the dirt for free from GPS AND the info was already publicly reported in the media. Campaign contribution, what a crock.

 

I suspect you just made that up.

 

Cases are presented in a court trial. Trials were never held. Only pretrial hearings.

 

What dont you understand, the action from the court, requested pre trial by Trump, were actions generally only granted by courts following court trial and a successful verdict.

 

You’re not informed! It’s a fact.

 

That’s true. And it was because there was no “there” there.

 

I’m a lawyer. I understand what pre trial means. I also speak English and could not make sense of the gobbledygook that you posted.

 

It doesn't. If ms Clinton committed treason, lots of examples of this to be clear, the law of the US is pretty clear. Are you saying that because she's a Clinton that the law doesn't apply to her? I think it is interesting that you're trying to change the subject though from the nice judge who is an associate of Hunter and all.. She seems to have quite a track record of being a super partisan hack on the bench though. Your thoughts?