Trump found guilty on all 34 counts

[7thKeeper]

That is a description of a lynch mob.

No, it's a jury. Lynch mobs are extra judicial groups and in general, tend not to operate on arguements by two sides and their veracity.

 

[Brihaha]

The question is WHEN did the jury not have reasonable doubt" of Trump's guilt?
The mob says "Hang him" Then there is some semblance of "trial" then the mob as jury stands up and say "Hang Him."
It is an enduring problem in American Jurisprudence

The problem with unbiased Jurors in Trump's trials is that there were 4 years of "trials" and 2 unsuccessful impeachment efforts.
And all the rest.
This Jury may have just decided, "finally we are going to get him."

We are all sinners
Trump has sinned.
However, I doubt the government would be searching Melania's underwear drawer if the accused were not Donald Trump.
The powers that be have spent an inordinate amount of time and money finding Any Sin of Trumps.
And the sins are all so vague and in some cases manufactured like the Russian Hoax.
The entire thing smells.

Of course it smells. Donald Trump instigated this conspiracy and crimes thereof. When does Trump involved transactions not smell? Seriously!

 

[durangodawood]

The question is WHEN did the jury not have reasonable doubt" of Trump's guilt?
The mob says "Hang him" Then there is some semblance of "trial" then the mob as jury stands up and say "Hang Him."
It is an enduring problem in American Jurisprudence

The problem with unbiased Jurors in Trump's trials is that there were 4 years of "trials" and 2 unsuccessful impeachment efforts.
And all the rest.
This Jury may have just decided, "finally we are going to get him."

We are all sinners
Trump has sinned.
However, I doubt the government would be searching Melania's underwear drawer if the accused were not Donald Trump.
The powers that be have spent an inordinate amount of time and money finding Any Sin of Trumps.
And the sins are all so vague and in some cases manufactured like the Russian Hoax.
The entire thing smells.

Speculation and attitude.

The whole trial was public.
The evidence was public.

If there was some aspect of the actual trial that seems "rigged" or biased, lets hear it. There wasnt. The whole thing was totally above board and available for review so we can see that for ourselves

 

[QvQ]

Of course it smells. Donald Trump instigated this conspiracy and crimes thereof. When does Trump involved transactions not smell? Seriously!

That is what I said.
IF Donald Trump was not challenging Biden for the Presidency, the FBI would not be going through Melania's underwear drawer.
Donald Trump definitely brought this "search for sin" upon himself for the crime of being a candidate who draws crowds in the 100 thousands fellow conspirators and could beat Biden's socks off if the powers that be weren't interfering in the election by any means, fair or foul.

 

[Brihaha]

That is what I said.
IF Donald Trump was not challenging Biden for the Presidency, the FBI would not be going through Melania's underwear drawer.
Donald Trump definitely brought this "search for sin" upon himself for the crime of being a candidate who draws crowds in the 100 thousands fellow conspirators and could beat Biden's socks off if the powers that be weren't interfering in the election by any means, fair or foul.

Welcome to the Grand Illusion
Come on in and see what's happening
Pay the price get your ticket for the show!

...chasing someone else's fantasy.

 

[Hans Blaster]

The question is WHEN did the jury not have reasonable doubt" of Trump's guilt?

At the end of deliberations when they reached a unanimous verdict.

The mob says "Hang him" Then there is some semblance of "trial" then the mob as jury stands up and say "Hang Him."
It is an enduring problem in American Jurisprudence

A jury is not a mob.

The problem with unbiased Jurors in Trump's trials is that there were 4 years of "trials" and 2 unsuccessful impeachment efforts.
And all the rest.

Do you think that unbiased jurors are a problem?

Also, juries in 3 civil trials in the last year have ruled against Mr. Trump.

This Jury may have just decided, "finally we are going to get him."

That's not the way juries work. They consider the case before them only.

We are all sinners
Trump has sinned.

I don't care.

However, I doubt the government would be searching Melania's underwear drawer if the accused were not Donald Trump.

No such thing happened in this case.

The powers that be have spent an inordinate amount of time and money finding Any Sin of Trumps.
And the sins are all so vague and in some cases manufactured like the Russian Hoax.
The entire thing smells.

The legal authorities don't look for sins. They look for crimes. Sins are irrelevant to the justice system. Trump was not convicted of sins, but of crimes.

 

[QvQ]

TO My good friends with whom I have spent many happy hours talking of many things.
I will not be on the internet for a while.
My brother died in another State and I will not be on the forum for a while.
Thank you in advance for the condolences and support.
I am always concerned when posters disappear.
This is a courtesy to anyone who may notice my absence.

 

[Tinker Grey]

TO My good friends with whom I have spent many happy hours talking of many things.
I will not be on the internet for a while.
My brother died in another State and I will not be on the forum for a while.
Thank you in advance for the condolences and support.
I am always concerned when posters disappear.
This is a courtesy to anyone who may notice my absence.

Sorry for your loss.

 

[childeye 2]

An opinion which is still narcissistic.

That's you projecting your opinion. There is a difference between knowledge/facts and opinions/beliefs. I'm going to say this up front about positive and negative prejudice. There is a form of wickedness that can be described as wanting to believe bad things about other people, as opposed to wanting to believe good things about other people. The pure of heart project their purity onto others and the defiled conscience projects it's impurity onto others. This is the contrast between grace through faith, and cynicism.

The fact is some people know more than other people as a matter of circumstance and they are smarter, wiser and better at some things than others. It's no one's fault that this occurs, and it should not be taken personal so as to get lifted up or put down. That is carnal vanity.

Suppose you had more experience and more knowledge about a job than the others next to you who were applying for the same job. Then as a matter of circumstance you would be able to answer some questions about how to go about doing the job better than they could simply because they did not have as much knowledge and experience as you. You could teach them a thing or two because it would be obvious to you that which they didn't know. Therefore. it would not be narcissistic to honestly state that you feel you could do a better job. It would not be meant to brag or to offend anyone.

Being the best implies you are better than the rest in some way.

Of course. As I said some people are better at what they do than others as a matter of circumstance.

In this case better at being president than the person who hadn't even got the job yet. That's what an inflated ego looks like.

As I explained, if you know more about the job than they do because you have had more experience, you will also know it's not a matter of inflated ego or carnal vanity.

Why couldn't they rival him? Hilary was the first lady and has been involved in politics for decades, just like Biden.

First off, this isn't about being good at politics or involved in politics. The issue here is who has more experience about governing and how government works.

And yet he continues to run now, even though it's clear his mental faculties are severely diminished and even though there are indeed better candidates than him right now.

I've seen no candidates better than Joe in this election, despite his decline.

Here he is claiming he just took a photo with someone that wasn't even there.

So it turns out he is stupid.

The posted video only shows that old people become forgetful. The word stupid however implies low intelligence (NOT the same thing). The video proves he had forgotten why she couldn't be there, and his quick witted self-defamatory joke shows he is still an intelligent person.

Which Biden has in spades.

I can't say I've seen Joe say anything that shows a false humility.

Yet he said that supposed awful thing. It's like someone saying " I don't mean to offend" then immediately proceeding to say something offensive.

Well, you're correct about discerning that Biden does not mean to offend anyone by saying he thinks he would be a better president.

The funny thing is Biden shows a lot of the negative traits Trump is accused of having,


Biden has lied.

Biden has insulted people.

Biden has said racist things.

I think we all have lied in some degree and insulted someone in some degree, and said things from a negative prejudice in some degree. The issue of them being negative traits is more complicated, because pride works to manifest both feeling lifted up and feeling put down. Sometimes what people perceive to be lies are simply honest mistakes and sometimes they are misunderstandings. Some people are easily insulted. Cynicism is self-fulfilling for the cynic. If you told someone who was easily insulted that they were easily insulted, guess what? They would be insulted. It's the intentions of the heart that show the difference between the wheat and tares.

The same accusations leveled at Trump. The difference is Biden supporters will either ignore, downplay or try to justify it when Biden does it, just like you are trying to do right now.

There's nothing immoral about clearing up misunderstandings. But one cannot justify wickedness.

Therefore, I must disagree. I know a lie intends to pose as the truth so as to deceive, but there are nuances that reveal what is true and what is false. A misinformed person can accuse the honest man of being dishonest. The slanderer can also accuse those pointing out their slander; by claiming they are the ones slandering him. Similarly, my insistence that convincing proof be given to support any accusations against Biden is not wrong, even if you prefer to call it trying to justify Biden.

It's not immoral to justify Biden in the face of slander, because slander is wrong. I would not try to justify slander from anyone because it's immoral. It's wrong to want to believe bad about anyone, which is why we shouldn't believe or repeat bad things said about others without any proof. This is why I said up front, "There is a form of wickedness that can be described as wanting to believe bad things about other people, as opposed to wanting to believe good things about other people".

 

[loveofourlord]

He's getting record donations. I suspect plenty of people see this as guaranteeing his election. I remember several months ago some pundit said, "Trump is just one indictment away of guaranteeing his election." Too many see this trial (and others) as pure banana republic stuff. Remember "russia, russia, russia"? Nothing. It was all baloney. And as I've said over and over, his MO is to lose in lower courts and win in higher courts. There is obviously a lot of bias in the lower courts. The requirements for filling judgeships in higher courts is a bit more demanding.

....dude you guys got to stop rewriting history, the russia that was baloney? So much so that people went to JAIL over it? The stuff that trump even addmited too, but his excuse wasn't that it didn't happen, but , "he didn't get anything from them." that baloney? The same one where only reason he wasn't charged, was because he couldn't as a sitting president and had to be impeached first?

 

[Reasonably Sane]

Yeah, I thought it was the same with Trey Gowdy. I perceived him as someone that did not care much for Trump personally. No,surprise many don't like his personality. But he started attending the trial as well. You could tell by his demeanor he was disturbed. He said it was like night and day the way the judge handled the Trump team vs the Bragg Team...

I think they learned their lesson with the Zimmerman and Rittenhouse trials: Don't let them be televised. I know a lot of people that really wanted Rittenhouse to fry came out of it agreeing with the verdict. One of the more comical responses was a guy that said he thought the victims were black.

And that last sentence speaks volumes about the general public that has strong opinions on this stuff. Many, but not all, may have a strong opinion, yet they really don't base that opinion on any kind of adult analysis of the facts At least that guy was willing to admit he was wrong about the race of the injured parties. But it doesn't address how he could have been so interested in the trial, yet not know the guys were all white. That should have been very basic knowledge for anyone interested enough to watch the trial.

 

[FaithT]

Do you believe Biden is the paragon of honesty and good morals? As to the convicted felon label we shall see if that stands on appeal. For now liberals can celebrate but that will be a short lived party.

No, but next to Trump there is no comparison.

As for your comment that it will be a short lived party, how do you know that? And again, what are your plans if it stands?

 

[Bradskii]

No, I'll just let you be surprised.

If you don't know of any reason why the appeal might not be allowed then don't act as if you do.

 

[Bradskii]

That's none of your business.

Then I guess we all know what the answer is. Just like the dozen upon dozen of cases rejected by umpteen courts about a 'stolen' election, any verdict that goes for you is correct, all others must be wrong. People with this one eyed mentality have no credibility.

 

[childeye 2]

That is so absurd it is FUNNY. So that was the Federal Part?
Conspiring with a news agency to influence their editorial content.
I suppose the news content that was generated was considered unpaid advertising and that was the contribution?

Not only that but the catch and kill of stories that could hurt Trump's chances.

That is about the silliest Crime I have ever heard of
Who made that one up?

As I said, Trump, Pecker and Cohen had conspired to do this crime in August of 2015.

That is a description of a lynch mob.

A lynch mob is where there is no trial.

 

[ralliann]

She was paid $130,000 to say that.

No, she was paid 130,000 to say anything. She violated her DNA.

Are you even paying attention?

Well I would say the money she has received "for her say" otherwise was worth a whole lot more tham 130,000.
Either way: Pay the woman for what you want. But you might get stung cuz she might later get a more lucrative offer.
Come to think of it the same thing with Cohen.

 

[ralliann]

Not only that but the catch and kill of stories that could hurt Trump's chances.

As I said, Trump, Pecker and Cohen had conspired to do this crime in August of 2015.

A lynch mob is where there is no trial.

I gotta agree, therefore Rittenhouse had protection from them.

 

[childeye 2]

That's not confidence. Confidence would be saying: "I could be a good president". Humility would be: "I would try to be the best president I could". Narcissism would be: "I would be the best president".

Narcissism is an excessive and obsessive self-adoration.

 

[Reasonably Sane]

....dude you guys got to stop rewriting history, the russia that was baloney? So much so that people went to JAIL over it? The stuff that trump even addmited too, but his excuse wasn't that it didn't happen, but , "he didn't get anything from them." that baloney? The same one where only reason he wasn't charged, was because he couldn't as a sitting president and had to be impeached first?

Why did they go to Jail? Here is a nice summary, but it's easy enough to find the full report, if you are inclined to read it. Or plenty of more lengthy Youtube videos that get into the grizzly details. It was an utter hoax.

And here is someone who went to jail over it. It is actually exhibit one regarding what's wrong with the entire "Get Trump" nonsense...

 

[childeye 2]

Why did they go to Jail? Here is a nice summary, but it's easy enough to find the full report, if you are inclined to read it. Or plenty of more lengthy Youtube videos that get into the grizzly details. It was an utter hoax.

And here is someone who went to jail over it. It is actually exhibit one regarding what's wrong with the entire "Get Trump" nonsense...

The Durham report was biased. There is an objective truth in reality which is facts based and thereby dictates to us what is true.

First allow me to point out a few fundamental facts, that can be proven about people, through examining the semantics in people's words and the state of mind they project:
1) A sound mind actually wants to know the Truth about what happened.
2) Those who actually want to know the Truth about what happened, do not reason upon bias as a foundation for logic.
3) Any reasoning based on falsehood ends in a contradiction.

Here is the factual account about how the "Russia Hoax" started built precept upon precept:
1) The DNC was reportedly hacked by someone, 2015-2016.
2) The DNC says it was the Russians. Logically, either the DNC was hacked by the Russians, or it wasn't (Yeah or nay, positive/negative).
3) The document dumps by WikiLeaks about Hillary, which Donald would read at his campaign rallies, were meant to hurt Hillary's chances which would in turn benefit Trump's campaign.
4) Whoever was behind the hacks, and the release of stolen documents would rather have Trump win than Hillary.
5) In 2015 Trump was posed a question by "Maria Butina" (proved later to be a Russian agent). She wanted to know about his position on Russia and specifically about removing sanctions against Russia for invading Crimea that had been imposed during the Obama administration. Trump replied: “I believe I would get along very nicely with Putin ... I don’t think you’d need the sanctions. I think we would get along very, very well.”

6) On June 9, 2016 the Trump Tower meeting took place where representatives of Russian interests met with the Trump Campaign. The public would not learn about this meeting until a year later, well after the election was over. We were told by Don junior that it was to discuss getting dirt on Hillary, and about reinstating an adoption program for Russian orphans. Note: The adoption program had been shut down as part of Putin's retaliation for the sanctions imposed by America and her allies because Putin had invaded Crimea.
7) On June 14, 2016 came the announcement that the DNC had been hacked and cyber security experts said that they believed it was the Russians.
8) On June 17, 2016 Fox News said this: Trump, for his part, isn’t buying the DNC explanation that this is the work of some nefarious outside hacker. He said, “We believe it was the DNC that did the ‘hacking’ as a way to distract from the many issues facing their deeply flawed candidate and failed party leader. Too bad the DNC doesn’t hack Crooked Hillary’s 33,000 missing emails.”

Now that sounds far-fetched as well. Not only is there nothing new here, but no one can absorb 200 pages at once. Why not dribble out the attacks, package them as talking points, put them in attack ads, rather than create a bogus hacking story and dump it all out there? Or dress it up with some narrative and release it as a report?
9) Please note above that on June 17,2016 Fox news was suggesting to the viewer's minds that the hacking story is Bogus (a hoax according to Trump). At the time Trump is saying, "We believe it was the DNC that did the 'hacking' as a way to distract from the many issues facing their deeply flawed candidate and failed party leader". What's important to note here is that the messaging is inferring that the suggestion that Russia hacked the DNC is a Hoax/Fake story invented by the Democratic party.

10) On the same day, June 17,2016, Putin says he does not have a preference for who wins U.S. election, though he welcomes Trump's pledge to restore U.S.-Russia ties. Putin says, "We never interfere in other countries’ internal politics, especially the U.S."

We can see that Putin's words present a contradiction in reasoning since "We never" is contradicted by "especially the U.S."... And we also can see a contradiction in claiming that he ‘welcomes’ Trump's "pledge" to restore U.S.- Russian ties while also claiming he has no preference.
11) June or July 2016, according to the indictment of Stone, Stone informs the Trump campaign about possible Wikileaks release of damaging Clinton documents. Stone would not give up his contact but did lie about who it was.

12) From July 24, 2016. Below is an interview with Jake Tapper. Please keep in mind when you read it, that Don junior is already aware that Russia is trying to help Trump win when he gives this interview, (because he has already had the meeting at Trump Tower and he has already read the email stating: "This is obviously very high level and sensitive information but is part of Russia and its government's support for Mr. Trump", June 3,2016).

JAKE TAPPER: So, I don't know if you were hearing earlier, but Robby Mook, the campaign manager for Secretary of State Hillary Clinton — I asked him about the DNC leak. And he suggested that experts are saying that Russians were behind both the leak — the hacking of the DNC emails and their release. He seemed to be suggesting that this is part of a plot to help Donald Trump and hurt Hillary Clinton. Your response?

TRUMP JR.: Well, it just goes to show you their exact moral compass. I mean, they will say anything to be able to win this. I mean, this is time and time again, lie after lie. You notice he won't say, well, I say this. We hear experts. You know, here's (INAUDIBLE) at home once said that this is what's happening with the Russians. It's disgusting. It's so phony. I watched him bumble through the interview, I was able to hear it on audio a little bit. I mean, I can't think of bigger lies, but that exactly goes to show you what the DNC and what the Clinton camp will do. They will lie and do anything to win.

13) Please note that in the first of the following tweets the "fake news" must be referring to help from Russia to help Trump win. It therefore cannot be referring to a fake story about "collusion", since that would have nothing to do with an excuse for why Hillary lost. However, the second tweet changes the original context for "Fake story/Hoax" from helping Trump win, to "collusion". Here is where we see Trump changing the original narrative and metaphorically "moving the goal posts". And this change in context in the second tweet, works to actually contradict the first tweet and expose it as a lie, since collusion with Russia could not even be possible unless it was Russia that was actually behind the hack to begin with.

Feb. 16, 2017 Trump tweet:

The Democrats had to come up with a story as to why they lost the election, and so badly (306), so they made up a story - RUSSIA. Fake news!

Feb. 18, 2018 Trump tweet:

I never said Russia did not meddle in the election, I said “it may be Russia, or China or another country or group, or it may be a 400 pound genius sitting in bed and playing with his computer.” The Russian “hoax” was that the Trump campaign colluded with Russia - it never did!

So, in summation, we can clearly see in hindsight that Putin had motive in wanting a foreign policy change in America towards Russia that would get rid of the sanctions for invading Crimea imposed during the Obama administration. We also see that Trump had voiced being open to that.

We see that Trump first claimed, that the DNC was not hacked by Russia, but by the DNC itself. We then see from an indictment that Trump was allegedly being told by Roger Stone that WikiLeaks will be releasing bad things about Hillary. And we know Trump loved the releases by Wikileaks even though he claimed the DNC hacked its own self to somehow hurt him. We then see Don junior saying that the Hillary campaign is making up lies about the Russians trying to hurt Hillary and help Trump win, even though he knows at the time that Russia is doing exactly that according to the emails that were released by the free press.

We also see Trump after the election claiming that no one knows who hacked the DNC which contradicts the claim that the suspicion that Russia was trying to help him win was a fake story made up by the Democrats who had hacked themselves as an excuse for losing, which in turn is not possible because the story began spreading five months before the election was even lost.

And finally, after the election, we see Trump conveniently changing the meaning of "fake story" claiming that when he said, "Russian hoax", he was referring to "colluding" with Russia, not Russia meddling to help him win, which contradicted his earlier statement that it was a fake story (Hoax) that Russia was trying to help him win to begin with. For both instances, the facts show it was Trump who pushed the Russian hoax narrative, not the Democrats.

The Mueller investigation also was called a "witch hunt" by Trump. The Mueller investigation looking into interference by Russia in the 2016 elections, was started by Rosenstein, a Republican, who took over after the Trump appointed AG Jeff Sessions recused himself. Rosenstein said that he turned to a Special Counsel because Trump had fired FBI director Comey and Trump had tried to get him to lie and say it was Rosenstein's own idea. None of this was started by the Democrats. There were two additional investigations conducted by the house and the senate both controlled by the Republicans.

All three independent investigations concluded definitively that Russia was indeed trying to hurt Hillary and Help Trump. The term collude means to cooperate in a secret or unlawful way in order to deceive or gain an advantage over others. To meet that definition, all the Trump campaign had to do to cooperate was to keep it a secret that they knew Russia was helping them.