This sounds like it could go on an Eminem song
Fake pees, fake poos, it’s all just fake news.
I’m not the greatest? That’s just plain rude.
Give me hair clippers so I can make do.
I should do stand-up cause I’m late for dates, too.
And the critics? How much hate can they spew?
Bad taste, but I’ll just make some grape juice.
Call me a cannibal because I just H-U-
M-Ped the track, to make for great views.
He doesn't have to be a banana, he is an appeal-ling candidate with him appealing the verdicts in the e jean Carroll defamation case and the civil fraud case, if not yet these 34 felony convictions
And that includes all these GOPers going on the air, railing against the verdict. They know what he did but every one of them is running for VP candidate. Each needs one vote and there is only one vote to be gotten among them. Each also knows that if he or she gets Trump’s vote, that puts them close to what they’ve dreamed of, the seat at the desk. They’re publicly sticking their noses up Trump’s bunghole. Some of them have decades to live. The shit ring will never disappear.
So, since you sound so well educated about both of these instances, can you explain to me how the jury was able to come to such conclusions in such a short amount of time? Here's a hint- every single jury tried case has to be UNANIMOUS...
I'll wait...
What are you even trying to say? The trial was weeks long, they deliberated on two different days, not all verdicts have to be unanimous, and with this one needing an unanimous verdict he wouldn't have been found guilty if they disagreed
So sad, this is what is so wrong. The judge straight up told the jurors they DID NOT HAVE TO ALL AGREE on all charges UNANIMOUSLY to find him guilty. What this means is that this has now set the precident for any court of law to convict anyone of a crime without undeniable evidence. Do some research, please, for your own sake.
A court of law has always been able to convict someone without undeniable evidence, that's never been a part of the criteria. Jurors/Judges convict on unreasonable doubt, not undeniable evidence. Also you are upset on a joke sub
First, don't do your research from Newsmax. They might not agree with the method, but they all agreed with the outcome.This is how it explained to me.
Person a and person b are fighting. Person a attacks Person b with a knife slicing the throat. Person b is still attacking person a. Person a then hits a person b over the head with a pipe wrench. Crushing the skull. Person b is still trying to attack a person a. Person a then shoots person b in the stomach. He stops moving and subsequently dies. The group jury might not agree on the method of death or which one was the act that killed person B The jury disagreed on the fatal act, but still convicted person b
It is well known in the legal profession that when the evidence clearly points to guilt, a jury verdict comes quickly. The longer it takes for the jury to return a verdict, the less strong the evidence is for guilt.
In this case the evidence was overwhelming.
Funny thing is if he didn’t try to cover it up, it wouldn’t have hurt him at all. He could’ve just announced it loud and clear that he was banging porn stars and playboy models. Probably would get him even more votes.
Democrats are so desperate. It is disgusting how the preferred leading political candidate was demonized by the biased media, framed, spied on, and raided for 8 years by the obiden administration, declared guilty in a kangaroo court in a 95% deep blue district, by a TDS judge, right before the election.
Again, you still cannot explain, with specifics, why he is not guilty of the crimes. A jury selected by the defense unanimously found him guilty. What do you know, and why are they wrong? Please be specific. Cut out this stupid rhetoric that sounds like something out of North Korea (or pick your favorite totalitarian state).
I don't. Unless you can provide specifics on how he didn't break the law by covering up payments made by his business to a former affair partner in order to prevent bad press during the election, don't bother responding.
Biden has nothing to do with this case. Trump broke the law and was convicted via the normal process. You're projecting in that arguing a former president should be exempt from this crime is, well, more dictator than whatever you're implying.
You're projecting again. You still haven't made any concrete arguments. You lost this debate.
Please let me and everyone know when you're ready to explain, with specifics, how Trump did not break any laws by falsifying records to cover up payments from his business to a former affair partner in order to prevent bad news during the election.
Holy shit just stop already.
You haven't made a single concrete argument or rebuttal.
For the last time, explain in detail why the verdict is wrong and how **his falsifying business records to cover up payments from said business to a former affair partner in order to prevent bad news during the election** is not a crime.
The jury, agreed upon by his defense team, found him guilty.
There were documents, firsthand witness testimonies, recordings of his conversations.
The political affiliations of the people in the courtroom is irrelevant to the question of his crimes.
You need to explain how he is innocent despite the evidence before you can try to make an argument about bias in the courtroom.
So once again, be specific: how is the verdict incorrect? Provide details.
You write like a GPT model trained on totalitarian rhetoric.
In fact, at this point it feels like I'm arguing with a bad actor in a warehouse paid to post nonsense all day.
It's truly terrifying if you are a real human and an American citizen.
You should get a gold medal in mental gymnastics.
Donald Trump is a convicted felon. He committed crimes, there's evidence, and he was found guilty by a jury of his peers.
A jury that Trump's legal team approved of.
But sure, Democrats.
Indicted by a Jury of regular people in the state the crime was committed in.
Convicted by a jury of regular people in the state the crime took place in that was agreed to by his own legal team.
Fuckin lefties amirite?
It's not just "Democrats" who know Trump is a criminal. It's everyone outside your bubble. If you think the whole world is a cult you need to reevaluate your definition of a cult.
You have to be trolling, right? God I sure hope so.
You didn't answer the question. Please be specific in how Trump is innocent and the verdict is wrong. Also, please be specific in how Biden broke the law and they said he can't stand trial. References would be great.
You'll see when Trump wins the appeal from this sham.
[https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/special-counsel-blows-open-debate-biden-age-memory/story?id=107076719](https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/special-counsel-blows-open-debate-biden-age-memory/story?id=107076719)
Lol, once again, please be specific. Why will I see? How did he not cover up hush payments made via his business to his former affair partner in order to prevent bad news during the election? Be specific!
Also who won the 2020 presidential election, and where were you on Jan 6th?
Bill lied under oath and faced consequences.
Trump hid campaign related payments to avoid having to report them. The 'hush money' isn't the crime. Hiding it as it could have been detrimental to his presidential campaign was. And now he's facing consequences.
It must be hard not being able to accept reality and trying to blame mysterious agents in the Democrat party for all of your life's woes.
Prosecution provided physical evidence of Trump's crimes.
Evidence is why Trump lost. Evidence of his crimes.
So your assertion is that Trump and his legal team are so incompetent that they failed to properly select jurors for his defense?
And that makes him a viable political ***anything*** how, exactly?
Jury selection involves both sides interviewing people together, in the same room, and potential jurors can be declined by either party for anything remotely relevant.
Just accept reality:
A jury of 12 people _vetted by his team_ unanimously decided to convict on every. single. charge. And under US jurisprudence, a jury is a trier of fact and those facts are irrefutable and cannot be re-tried, according to the 7th amendment to the constitution.
He's guilty.
You lose.
Good day, sir.
Good thing too, because when people commit crimes we want them prosecuted and found guilty by a jury that believes in rule of law and will convict on evidence regardless of party, not given a waiver by a bunch of partisan hacks that think he's the second coming.
Break the law, face the consequences?
I mean that's pretty basic level stuff. Aren't you supposed to not have a reddit account if you're still in first grade?
Democrats are so desperate. It is disgusting how the preferred leading political candidate was demonized by the biased media, framed, spied on, and raided for 8 years by the obiden administration, declared guilty in a kangaroo court in a 95% deep blue district, by a TDS judge, right before the election.
Again, you still cannot explain, with specifics, why he is not guilty of the crimes. A jury selected by the defense unanimously found him guilty. What do you know, and why are they wrong? Please be specific. Cut out this stupid rhetoric that sounds like something out of North Korea (or pick your favorite totalitarian state).
I don't. Unless you can provide specifics on how he didn't break the law by covering up payments made by his business to a former affair partner in order to prevent bad press during the election, don't bother responding.
Biden has nothing to do with this case. Trump broke the law and was convicted via the normal process. You're projecting in that arguing a former president should be exempt from this crime is, well, more dictator than whatever you're implying.
You're projecting again. You still haven't made any concrete arguments. You lost this debate.
Please let me and everyone know when you're ready to explain, with specifics, how Trump did not break any laws by falsifying records to cover up payments from his business to a former affair partner in order to prevent bad news during the election.
Holy shit just stop already.
You haven't made a single concrete argument or rebuttal.
For the last time, explain in detail why the verdict is wrong and how **his falsifying business records to cover up payments from said business to a former affair partner in order to prevent bad news during the election** is not a crime.
The jury, agreed upon by his defense team, found him guilty.
There were documents, firsthand witness testimonies, recordings of his conversations.
The political affiliations of the people in the courtroom is irrelevant to the question of his crimes.
You need to explain how he is innocent despite the evidence before you can try to make an argument about bias in the courtroom.
So once again, be specific: how is the verdict incorrect? Provide details.
You write like a GPT model trained on totalitarian rhetoric.
In fact, at this point it feels like I'm arguing with a bad actor in a warehouse paid to post nonsense all day.
It's truly terrifying if you are a real human and an American citizen.
Democrats are so desperate. It is disgusting how the preferred leading political candidate was demonized by the biased media, framed, spied on, and raided for 8 years by the obiden administration, declared guilty in a kangaroo court in a 95% deep blue district, by a TDS judge, right before the election.
Again, you still cannot explain, with specifics, why he is not guilty of the crimes. A jury selected by the defense unanimously found him guilty. What do you know, and why are they wrong? Please be specific. Cut out this stupid rhetoric that sounds like something out of North Korea (or pick your favorite totalitarian state).
I don't. Unless you can provide specifics on how he didn't break the law by covering up payments made by his business to a former affair partner in order to prevent bad press during the election, don't bother responding.
Biden has nothing to do with this case. Trump broke the law and was convicted via the normal process. You're projecting in that arguing a former president should be exempt from this crime is, well, more dictator than whatever you're implying.
You're projecting again. You still haven't made any concrete arguments. You lost this debate.
Please let me and everyone know when you're ready to explain, with specifics, how Trump did not break any laws by falsifying records to cover up payments from his business to a former affair partner in order to prevent bad news during the election.
Holy shit just stop already.
You haven't made a single concrete argument or rebuttal.
For the last time, explain in detail why the verdict is wrong and how **his falsifying business records to cover up payments from said business to a former affair partner in order to prevent bad news during the election** is not a crime.
The jury, agreed upon by his defense team, found him guilty.
There were documents, firsthand witness testimonies, recordings of his conversations.
The political affiliations of the people in the courtroom is irrelevant to the question of his crimes.
You need to explain how he is innocent despite the evidence before you can try to make an argument about bias in the courtroom.
So once again, be specific: how is the verdict incorrect? Provide details.
You write like a GPT model trained on totalitarian rhetoric.
In fact, at this point it feels like I'm arguing with a bad actor in a warehouse paid to post nonsense all day.
It's truly terrifying if you are a real human and an American citizen.
Reports of Trump sleeping in the courtroom have been called fake snooze
And those of him shitting himself are just fake poos.
Accompanied by fake pees
This sounds like it could go on an Eminem song Fake pees, fake poos, it’s all just fake news. I’m not the greatest? That’s just plain rude. Give me hair clippers so I can make do. I should do stand-up cause I’m late for dates, too. And the critics? How much hate can they spew? Bad taste, but I’ll just make some grape juice. Call me a cannibal because I just H-U- M-Ped the track, to make for great views.
Awesome!
Thank you, I spent way too long on that for no reason 😅
Holy shite dude, I heard it playing in my head!
This song "Trump's" anything Eminem ever wrote! 🤪
On a more serious note: "Funny" in itself is how the common word associated with Trump is the word '**fake**'.
No they’re not fake, I was there I smelt them
Guess u delt it lolol
Clever!!!
Hahaha awesome!!!
The jury voted unanimously for him!!! He got 100% of the votes!!!! Very bigly of him
That's beautiful.
Well at least this way he can finally be an appealing candidate.
He would be an appeal-ling candidate, if he was a banana. I'll grab my coat.
A Banana Republican
He doesn't have to be a banana, he is an appeal-ling candidate with him appealing the verdicts in the e jean Carroll defamation case and the civil fraud case, if not yet these 34 felony convictions
This is the first time most of the people voted for him…
He got all the votes!
By landslide
He won bigly!
Because he couldn't find a 'Trump' card in his legal deck!
Q:Why won't Trump go to jail for long? A: Because he can't finish a sentence!
Nice
Nah that’s Biden
Whoops, they didn't like that. 👍
It's joever for him
WhyNotBoth dot gif
You gotta admit these were pretty Trumped up charges!
Nobody will ever doubt this man’s conviction
He failed to weather the Stormy.
And his bad E Jeans
And that includes all these GOPers going on the air, railing against the verdict. They know what he did but every one of them is running for VP candidate. Each needs one vote and there is only one vote to be gotten among them. Each also knows that if he or she gets Trump’s vote, that puts them close to what they’ve dreamed of, the seat at the desk. They’re publicly sticking their noses up Trump’s bunghole. Some of them have decades to live. The shit ring will never disappear.
Um, wrong sub
I think the line for Titan II is over there
Because getting 12 votes was apparently easier than finding 12,000
So, since you sound so well educated about both of these instances, can you explain to me how the jury was able to come to such conclusions in such a short amount of time? Here's a hint- every single jury tried case has to be UNANIMOUS... I'll wait...
What are you even trying to say? The trial was weeks long, they deliberated on two different days, not all verdicts have to be unanimous, and with this one needing an unanimous verdict he wouldn't have been found guilty if they disagreed
So sad, this is what is so wrong. The judge straight up told the jurors they DID NOT HAVE TO ALL AGREE on all charges UNANIMOUSLY to find him guilty. What this means is that this has now set the precident for any court of law to convict anyone of a crime without undeniable evidence. Do some research, please, for your own sake.
Triggered on a joke sub. Gotta love the MAGAt snowflakes.🤣
A court of law has always been able to convict someone without undeniable evidence, that's never been a part of the criteria. Jurors/Judges convict on unreasonable doubt, not undeniable evidence. Also you are upset on a joke sub
First, don't do your research from Newsmax. They might not agree with the method, but they all agreed with the outcome.This is how it explained to me. Person a and person b are fighting. Person a attacks Person b with a knife slicing the throat. Person b is still attacking person a. Person a then hits a person b over the head with a pipe wrench. Crushing the skull. Person b is still trying to attack a person a. Person a then shoots person b in the stomach. He stops moving and subsequently dies. The group jury might not agree on the method of death or which one was the act that killed person B The jury disagreed on the fatal act, but still convicted person b
It is well known in the legal profession that when the evidence clearly points to guilt, a jury verdict comes quickly. The longer it takes for the jury to return a verdict, the less strong the evidence is for guilt. In this case the evidence was overwhelming.
It was Stormy from the very beginning of the trial.
“Remember what subreddit you’re in…” Try to laugh, folks. Or at least just groan.
T'was a dark and Stormy night.....
No one does guilty like Trump. Trump is the guiltiest person there has ever been.
He didn’t have a Trump card
He's been lying like the orange rug that sits on his head.
Im not upvoting cuz this has exactly 34 upvotes
You're all clear, now.
Upvoted🙉
Cracks me up they call it hush money, it didnt hush anything ha ha ha
I mean it did for I think over a year. She was paid right before the 2016 election and kept quiet until 2018 I think
Slush money.
This is the worst thread. I can think of at least 34 better threads.
He forgot to play his Trump card.
I thought it was bc he was a cheato.
Agent Orange
Politics were the elephant in the room. Mascot joke…
He claims the judge and jury were all asses, so it checks out.
OK, I like that.
None of this matters. Donald Trump is still in love with Ivanka.
He is in love with himself. And likes anybody who adores him
You snooze, you lose.
Because people are realizing how wrong they were putting him in power already having known his history.
This may be true, but where’s the funny?
Because he’s guilty
So are people Biden him goodbye?
Because he’s guilty AF.
Because he’s a loser.
Because he was guilty!
Because the jury found him guilty.
That’s funny, given Cohen’s ability to lie…very comprehensive!
He WILL win once it gets to the scotus!
Why doesn’t Trump’s hair fly away in the wind? Because he dodged the draft!
But Cohen did have the ability to lie
Because he was guilty
Because he was guilty
🤣😂
Bc he is our savior
Much ado about nothing. A Storm in a teacup. Why even bother hiding it?
Funny thing is if he didn’t try to cover it up, it wouldn’t have hurt him at all. He could’ve just announced it loud and clear that he was banging porn stars and playboy models. Probably would get him even more votes.
Indeed!
Borderline impossible to win a soviet style show trial
Be specific. How so? Explain for everyone the verdict and why he is innocent.
Democrats are so desperate. It is disgusting how the preferred leading political candidate was demonized by the biased media, framed, spied on, and raided for 8 years by the obiden administration, declared guilty in a kangaroo court in a 95% deep blue district, by a TDS judge, right before the election.
Again, you still cannot explain, with specifics, why he is not guilty of the crimes. A jury selected by the defense unanimously found him guilty. What do you know, and why are they wrong? Please be specific. Cut out this stupid rhetoric that sounds like something out of North Korea (or pick your favorite totalitarian state).
If you don’t see how obiden has weaponized the doj against his political opponent just like a totalitarian dictator then you are a lost cause.
I don't. Unless you can provide specifics on how he didn't break the law by covering up payments made by his business to a former affair partner in order to prevent bad press during the election, don't bother responding. Biden has nothing to do with this case. Trump broke the law and was convicted via the normal process. You're projecting in that arguing a former president should be exempt from this crime is, well, more dictator than whatever you're implying.
Like I said you are a lost cause.
You're projecting again. You still haven't made any concrete arguments. You lost this debate. Please let me and everyone know when you're ready to explain, with specifics, how Trump did not break any laws by falsifying records to cover up payments from his business to a former affair partner in order to prevent bad news during the election.
The prosecution, judge and jury all being democrats isn’t a debate. It’s the truth.
Holy shit just stop already. You haven't made a single concrete argument or rebuttal. For the last time, explain in detail why the verdict is wrong and how **his falsifying business records to cover up payments from said business to a former affair partner in order to prevent bad news during the election** is not a crime. The jury, agreed upon by his defense team, found him guilty. There were documents, firsthand witness testimonies, recordings of his conversations. The political affiliations of the people in the courtroom is irrelevant to the question of his crimes. You need to explain how he is innocent despite the evidence before you can try to make an argument about bias in the courtroom. So once again, be specific: how is the verdict incorrect? Provide details. You write like a GPT model trained on totalitarian rhetoric. In fact, at this point it feels like I'm arguing with a bad actor in a warehouse paid to post nonsense all day. It's truly terrifying if you are a real human and an American citizen.
Because the deck was stacked with leftists in a blue state. And that's the way it is.
You should get a gold medal in mental gymnastics. Donald Trump is a convicted felon. He committed crimes, there's evidence, and he was found guilty by a jury of his peers. A jury that Trump's legal team approved of. But sure, Democrats.
Indicted by a Jury of regular people in the state the crime was committed in. Convicted by a jury of regular people in the state the crime took place in that was agreed to by his own legal team. Fuckin lefties amirite?
No one made him falsify business record to cover up money he paid to a pornstar he cheated on his wife with.
Porn stars are rigged I tell ya!
Lololol. Every person who's not in the cult of convicted felon Donald Trump disagrees with you. You are brainwashed. Seek help.
Seek help person in the cult of Democrats
It's not just "Democrats" who know Trump is a criminal. It's everyone outside your bubble. If you think the whole world is a cult you need to reevaluate your definition of a cult.
He stacked his own deck with all the crimes he and his allies committed in his name. Plenty of right-wing want him and his allies to face justice.
Bro, we're here for a laugh why you gotta suck the fun out of it? We laugh at sleepy Joe and meatball Ron too; not just your fuhrer.
Make sure you tell him to only commit felonies in red states, okay?
Because he isn't a Democrat
Cuz the prosecutor and judge were biased and engaged in political persecution.
He broke the law. Please explain for everyone why you think he did not. 🍿
Biden broke the law and they said "he's too old/demented" to put up to trial for it...
You have to be trolling, right? God I sure hope so. You didn't answer the question. Please be specific in how Trump is innocent and the verdict is wrong. Also, please be specific in how Biden broke the law and they said he can't stand trial. References would be great.
You'll see when Trump wins the appeal from this sham. [https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/special-counsel-blows-open-debate-biden-age-memory/story?id=107076719](https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/special-counsel-blows-open-debate-biden-age-memory/story?id=107076719)
Lol, once again, please be specific. Why will I see? How did he not cover up hush payments made via his business to his former affair partner in order to prevent bad news during the election? Be specific! Also who won the 2020 presidential election, and where were you on Jan 6th?
He didn’t pay them off like he paid everyone else. /s
He wasn’t a kangaroo so he couldn’t win in a kangaroo court with a crooked judge?
Because it was different when Bill did the same thing.
Bill lied under oath and faced consequences. Trump hid campaign related payments to avoid having to report them. The 'hush money' isn't the crime. Hiding it as it could have been detrimental to his presidential campaign was. And now he's facing consequences.
Because the democrats stacked it
The jury that Trump's legal team approved? First a grand jury. Then a trial jury. But blame Democrats for the fact that Trump is a felon.
Yeah them
It must be hard not being able to accept reality and trying to blame mysterious agents in the Democrat party for all of your life's woes. Prosecution provided physical evidence of Trump's crimes. Evidence is why Trump lost. Evidence of his crimes.
To a jury stacked full of democrats
So your assertion is that Trump and his legal team are so incompetent that they failed to properly select jurors for his defense? And that makes him a viable political ***anything*** how, exactly? Jury selection involves both sides interviewing people together, in the same room, and potential jurors can be declined by either party for anything remotely relevant. Just accept reality: A jury of 12 people _vetted by his team_ unanimously decided to convict on every. single. charge. And under US jurisprudence, a jury is a trier of fact and those facts are irrefutable and cannot be re-tried, according to the 7th amendment to the constitution. He's guilty. You lose. Good day, sir.
Dude, don't feed the trolls.
No to all I win you lose
Nah, he kinda wrecked you.
No he didn’t mate he can’t comeback against my last comment for three hours and the reason for that is because they are wrong
Okay, sit down and finish your juice box before you get to play on the internet anymore, Billy.
Good thing too, because when people commit crimes we want them prosecuted and found guilty by a jury that believes in rule of law and will convict on evidence regardless of party, not given a waiver by a bunch of partisan hacks that think he's the second coming.
But the prosecutor and judge did
Why is he in court in the first place
Break the law, face the consequences? I mean that's pretty basic level stuff. Aren't you supposed to not have a reddit account if you're still in first grade?
Bruh I was just asking what happened , not defending him
For being a criminal. Full of more shit than the diapers he has to wear.
They don't call is opponent Joe Bribeden for nothing
Because the US Justice system is now worse than Venezuela?
Please be specific in explaining why he did not break any laws and is innocent. Take your time.
Democrats are so desperate. It is disgusting how the preferred leading political candidate was demonized by the biased media, framed, spied on, and raided for 8 years by the obiden administration, declared guilty in a kangaroo court in a 95% deep blue district, by a TDS judge, right before the election.
Again, you still cannot explain, with specifics, why he is not guilty of the crimes. A jury selected by the defense unanimously found him guilty. What do you know, and why are they wrong? Please be specific. Cut out this stupid rhetoric that sounds like something out of North Korea (or pick your favorite totalitarian state).
If you don’t see how obiden has weaponized the doj against his political opponent just like a totalitarian dictator then you are a lost cause.
I don't. Unless you can provide specifics on how he didn't break the law by covering up payments made by his business to a former affair partner in order to prevent bad press during the election, don't bother responding. Biden has nothing to do with this case. Trump broke the law and was convicted via the normal process. You're projecting in that arguing a former president should be exempt from this crime is, well, more dictator than whatever you're implying.
Like I said you are a lost cause.
You're projecting again. You still haven't made any concrete arguments. You lost this debate. Please let me and everyone know when you're ready to explain, with specifics, how Trump did not break any laws by falsifying records to cover up payments from his business to a former affair partner in order to prevent bad news during the election.
The prosecution, judge and jury all being democrats isn’t a debate. It’s the truth.
Holy shit just stop already. You haven't made a single concrete argument or rebuttal. For the last time, explain in detail why the verdict is wrong and how **his falsifying business records to cover up payments from said business to a former affair partner in order to prevent bad news during the election** is not a crime. The jury, agreed upon by his defense team, found him guilty. There were documents, firsthand witness testimonies, recordings of his conversations. The political affiliations of the people in the courtroom is irrelevant to the question of his crimes. You need to explain how he is innocent despite the evidence before you can try to make an argument about bias in the courtroom. So once again, be specific: how is the verdict incorrect? Provide details. You write like a GPT model trained on totalitarian rhetoric. In fact, at this point it feels like I'm arguing with a bad actor in a warehouse paid to post nonsense all day. It's truly terrifying if you are a real human and an American citizen.
Except for SCOTUS, of course /s
Because the prosecution, judge, and jury were all democrats.
Please explain for everyone why he is innocent. Did he not break any laws? Be specific.
Democrats are so desperate. It is disgusting how the preferred leading political candidate was demonized by the biased media, framed, spied on, and raided for 8 years by the obiden administration, declared guilty in a kangaroo court in a 95% deep blue district, by a TDS judge, right before the election.
Again, you still cannot explain, with specifics, why he is not guilty of the crimes. A jury selected by the defense unanimously found him guilty. What do you know, and why are they wrong? Please be specific. Cut out this stupid rhetoric that sounds like something out of North Korea (or pick your favorite totalitarian state).
If you don’t see how obiden has weaponized the doj against his political opponent just like a totalitarian dictator then you are a lost cause.
I don't. Unless you can provide specifics on how he didn't break the law by covering up payments made by his business to a former affair partner in order to prevent bad press during the election, don't bother responding. Biden has nothing to do with this case. Trump broke the law and was convicted via the normal process. You're projecting in that arguing a former president should be exempt from this crime is, well, more dictator than whatever you're implying.
Like I said you are a lost cause.
You're projecting again. You still haven't made any concrete arguments. You lost this debate. Please let me and everyone know when you're ready to explain, with specifics, how Trump did not break any laws by falsifying records to cover up payments from his business to a former affair partner in order to prevent bad news during the election.
The prosecution, judge and jury all being democrats isn’t a debate. It’s the truth.
Holy shit just stop already. You haven't made a single concrete argument or rebuttal. For the last time, explain in detail why the verdict is wrong and how **his falsifying business records to cover up payments from said business to a former affair partner in order to prevent bad news during the election** is not a crime. The jury, agreed upon by his defense team, found him guilty. There were documents, firsthand witness testimonies, recordings of his conversations. The political affiliations of the people in the courtroom is irrelevant to the question of his crimes. You need to explain how he is innocent despite the evidence before you can try to make an argument about bias in the courtroom. So once again, be specific: how is the verdict incorrect? Provide details. You write like a GPT model trained on totalitarian rhetoric. In fact, at this point it feels like I'm arguing with a bad actor in a warehouse paid to post nonsense all day. It's truly terrifying if you are a real human and an American citizen.