Official Trump Insurrection Rally 1/6/21 Fukkery, NY Probe, DOJ Probe & Georgia Probe Thread!

[re'up]

Case is stronger than we all thought, for sure 34 felonies, even floater felonies, is stronger than misdemeanors, but this is going to drag on and on.

 

[King Static X]

But y'all acting like I'm saying something wild

 

[Ciggavelli]

It's not a "clown take". Don't insult me for expressing my opinion.

I want Trump to go to prison as much as anybody, but this case is some weak ass sh!t.

In comparison to the other potential cases, I agree, it's a weak case. But sometimes to get the big players, who have never faced consequences before, you have to get them on trivial shyt. Like Al Capone and taxes. I mean he murdered people, never got in trouble for it. The tax case was weak in comparison to murder, but it was only the tax case that got him in real legal consequences.

 

[Hood Critic]

The following is why multiple legal experts are saying this case will be hard to prosecute:

As Mark Pomerantz, a former prosecutor in the Manhattan DA’s office who played a significant role in the Trump investigation prior to his resignation in 2022, wrote in a recent book, a key legal question that will determine whether Trump can be charged under the felony version of New York’s false records law has never been resolved by any appellate court in the state of New York.

The felony statute requires Bragg to prove that Trump falsified records to cover up a crime. Bragg has evidence that Trump acted to cover up a federal crime, but it is not clear that Bragg is allowed to point to a federal crime in order to charge Trump under the New York state law.

The answer to this “gnarly legal question,” as Pomerantz put it, is simply unknown. So there is a serious risk that a New York judge will toss out the charges against Trump on technical legal grounds unrelated to the former president’s actual conduct.

And even if Bragg’s legal team convinces New York’s own courts that this prosecution may move forward, there is also a very real danger that the Supreme Court of the United States, with its GOP-appointed supermajority, could decide that it needs to weigh in on whether Trump should be shielded from this prosecution.

The Supreme Court has long held, under a doctrine known as the “rule of lenity,” that “fair warning should be given to the world, in language that the common world will understand, of what the law intends to do if a certain line is passed.” Thus, when the meaning of a criminal statute is unclear, the Constitution sometimes requires that statute to be read narrowly because an unclear criminal law did not give potential defendants “fair warning” that their conduct was illegal.

The dubious legal theory at the heart of the Trump indictment, explained

No one knows if Donald Trump can be prosecuted for the hush money payment to Stormy Daniels.

www.vox.com

 

[King Static X]

In comparison to the other potential cases, I agree, it's a weak case. But sometimes to get the big players, who have never faced consequences before, you have to get them on trivial shyt. Like Al Capone and taxes. I mean he murdered people, never got in trouble for it. The tax case was weak in comparison to murder, but it was only the tax case that got him in real legal consequences.

Yeah, I agree. That's why I said in my original post that I was waiting on the Georgia case with DA Fani Willis.

These other guys are acting like I said something crazy - just expressing a different opinion.

 

[choc_cardigan]

Or maybe we just have a different opinion. Ever thought of that?

Well what wealth of information are you drawing from to come to the conclusion that this is weak? Did you hear the same wise podcast that @Worthless Loser heard?

 

[The ADD]

The following is why multiple legal experts are saying this case will be hard to prosecute:

The dubious legal theory at the heart of the Trump indictment, explained

No one knows if Donald Trump can be prosecuted for the hush money payment to Stormy Daniels.

www.vox.com

 

[King Static X]

Well what wealth of information are you drawing from to come to the conclusion that this is weak? Did you hear the same wise podcast that @Worthless Loser heard?

I'm my own person with my own thoughts. I can feel how I want.

 

[the artist known az]

This is some sucka shyt from this judge

We all know Trump is gonna talk his propganda bulllshyt and rile up his base of CAC animals

This was dumb

Don Jr posted his daughter face on social media but whatever

 

[Hood Critic]

People are disappointed because its not a slam dunk case on paper. That doesn't mean it can't turn out all bad for Trump and that also doesn't include the fact that we won't know what kind of evidence Bragg has until trial.

 

[The ADD]

People are disappointed because its not a slam dunk case on paper. That doesn't mean it can't turn out all bad for Trump and that also doesn't include the fact that we won't know what kind of evidence Bragg has until trial.

#BillableHours

 

[Hood Critic]

The 14-page statement of facts Bragg submitted with the indictment:

https://www.politico.com/f/?id=00000187-4dd5-dfdf-af9f-4dfda6e80000

 

[bnew]

Yeah, I agree. That's why I said in my original post that I was waiting on the Georgia case with DA Fani Willis.

These other guys are acting like I said something crazy - just expressing a different opinion.

is that the one with the audio recoding of trump asking for a specific number of votes?

 

[BK The Great]

So that’s it? He went back home

 

[bnew]

Trump is the original "ain't no checks getting cut"