In America, when the two party system is criticized and people push for changes to the way we vote, we don't get put in prison or poisoned with nerve gas or radioactive tea.
I literally have no idea what you're talking about. Could you explain who has been a victim of this? Please don't say the former president who has worked hard to delay trials.
On a related note, look at the kinds of people who are going after Trump:
1. We have Fani Willis and her little boyfriend in Georgia using cash she pulled out of her campaign to evade accountability (that's a felony).
2. We have this little pr*ck filing lawsuits in every state to have Trump removed from their ballots, being arrested and charged with filing 17 sets of false tax documents to the IRS. [https://twitter.com/rickydoggin/status/1759623388509929853]
3. We have Letitia James whose sole campaign promise was to "get Trump at any cost" -- seems like they're willing to make up anything for a political win, even if it's a complete lie. Can't trust someone whose mission is clearly a witch hunt. Integrity doesn't matter to them.
...and they want to insinuate that Trump is corrupt? Talk about hypocrisy.
These are the people who are entrusted with "getting Trump", seriously? This should ruin your trust in anyone going after Trump and increase your scrutiny towards those who (apparently) have no integrity or basis for going after this guy. This is why conservatives rightly have a strong argument against this witch hunt, any why they feel justified in continuing to support Trump.
Find us someone whose record is clean, and then we can talk.
You said he will appeal his $450 million civil fraud trial and win, but most of what you said here does even have to do with that case.
1. We have Fani Willis2. We have this little prck filing lawsuits* 4. Kevin O'Leary condemns the ruling
You realize these people have nothing to do with this case right?
What do you think of the actual evidence of inflating values by 10x to 20x and that there were multiple findings - "Trump and his co-defendants committed fraud with his financial statements, found Trump liable on five of the six remaining claims in James’ lawsuit: falsifying business records, issuing false financial statements, conspiracy to commit insurance fraud and conspiracy to falsify business records."
You seem to write with talking points that just repeat the same claims over and over, but there was a real trial with real evidence that you are ignoring.
I provided plenty of points -- you just ignored most of them, the most important one being: the bank CEOs found nothing wrong or no indication of fraud. The loans are paid off. That testimony should have been enough to nullify the case, full stop.
That's enough :)
I listed the other semi-related facts as supporting details that ultimately ruin the credibility surrounding each simultaneous case involving Trump, which as I said before, should put into question all of these "indictments" and "charges" against Trump until someone with an actual problem comes forward, instead of playing games abusing the court systems. This is a conspiracy against him, period.
The point is: Trump is being attacked recklessly, and those who are attacking him are making huge mistakes that are going to bite them in the ass later. Thus, I do not view any of these cases as credible or plausible, regardless of what "evidence" has been presented.
Call it willfully blind, I don't care. The willfully blind are those who refuse to see this abuse of the justice system for what it is, and don't use common sense to see these are attacks, rather than real cases. Why were these not brought up many, many years ago? Why during an election year? Seems rather convenient, don't you think?
Trump admitted on the witness stand in November that his company did not always provide accurate estimates of the value of some of his trophy properties to banks. Trump said the discrepancies did not matter because his estimates bore disclaimers and that he had plenty of cash to back up his loans.
A former Trump banker at Deutsche Bank, David Williams, testified in November that conducting due diligence on information clients provided was standard practice. In one instance, the bank adjusted Trump's net worth down to $2.6 billion from the $4.9 billion he reported, Williams said, adding that such a revision was "not unusual or atypical."
The state's lawyers are expected during the appeal to offer the same arguments they presented to Engoron. They have said this law can be used to police the integrity of the market generally and does not require complaints from victims.
They are expected to emphasize Trump's "outrageous" conduct, including overstating his net worth by as much as $3.6 billion and lying about the size of his own apartment. They also may argue that Trump's case is unusual because few companies are accused of fraud on this scale, according to some legal experts.
Trump is being attacked recklessly,
Again, what do you think about the massive evidence against him in each case?
On the contrary: What you call "lawfare" is actually one of democracy's first lines of defense against Pied Piper wannabe dictators.
Just imagine: What if Hitler hadn't been on the German ballot in 1932 because of his failed 1923 Munich coup attempt. Instead, the weak-kneed Bavarian authorities did an Emily Litella and said, in effect, "Never mind" about his treason conviction and imprisonment (he was released after only nine months).
Verifiably false unless your source of information is Jesse Watters or similarly disingenuous ilk.
These trials have barely begun because the former president is desperate to get into power before a verdict can be handed down (classified documents and Georgia case).
He's already been found guilty of insurrection by a state court, and the SCOTUS hasn't argued against it. They are only deciding if a state is allowed to remove someone from the ballot on charges of insurrection.
The former president's attempt to evade prosecution by claiming total immunity (laughable in a democracy) has failed.
So no. Valid cases against the former president are not failing. They are taking place.
A valid source for millions of people, if you aren't politically motivated against him or related sources, of course — which is the case here.
This is not a democracy, despite what the silly Progressives want to believe. Playing pretend is commonplace, of course.
We are a Constitutional Republic and always have been. Democracy, as we're using it here, is an illusion of choice. Yes, we vote, but that doesn't define us as a democracy. We elect representatives to make informed choices on our behalf. You nor I have any direct impact on our laws or leadership — it's just the facts.
Burning, looting, rioting, and abuse of the legal system is how democracy is defined by Progressives because their policies can't be successful without some form of subversion, demoralization, and unfair play. Hence, democracy as declared here is synonymous with mob rule.
>(Jesse Watters) A valid source for millions of people
If a million people were to listen to someone who tells them the sky is red and Churchill was a Nazi, then a million people are wrong. Being wrong on the fact is not a matter of opinion. The man is a bad person because he lies, factually, constantly. He has no interest in the truth, or driving debate, or finding common ground.
Pardon me. We were talking about how the former president is the reason his trials keep getting delayed, not because they are without merit.
You went off on a tangent. I never discussed the imperfect nature of our government, the degree to which votes matter or translate into particular action. The moment I challenged your assertion that the former president is a victim, you pivoted to amorphous comments about democracy vs. republic, conflating political beliefs around Progressivism with methods you feel they deploy, and so on. What in the hell does that have to do with the discussion about Trump's numerous indictments?
What you've done is called the gish-gallop, FYI.
In case you wonder: I'm 35, live in Texas and work in cybersecurity. I'm a real person who got a degree, reads some news, and tries to think about the nature of problems and how they can be solved. Where common ground can be found. I value free speech, the rule of law and the idea that there is always work to do to make our society and government better. I like this country. I happen to be liberal.
I assume you too are real, and I hope you have similar values, if not the "liberal" part.
You realize he already owes 443 million dollars and improper behavior by a prosecutor doesn't exonerate him from his 91 indictments right? Arguing about this is a little silly, but what would actually be interesting is for you to link where you get your news.
Is the DWAC merger happening or not? There's no probable reason it wouldn't, so Trump stands to gain $4bn from his shares soon enough. I'm using "practically" effectively, in spite of whatever dismissive dialogue you're trying for here.
reply