Could you answer the question please?
Trump did it again in his latest Video post following the indictment calling the 2020 election "rigged".
Trump is the one providing all the evidence here because he can't stop talking..
that's not true
No parody could ever come close to the reality of this.
The sheer stupidity of the people who vote for this man never ceases to amaze and is an utter indictment of American (lack of) education
It's really pathetic seeing such easily disprovable untruths. 74 million voted for Trump last time. Less than a quarter of the US' population.
Yeh, yeh...but half of America is going to vote for him this time around. 🤣
something very "germany 1920's" about that Trump speech above.
'The country and its state instruments is out to get its citizens ....... im the one to make it all great again ........fighting a fight like never before'
deeply deeply worrying
Like I've said before - 2016 I can sort of understand.
He was an unknown promising the sun, moon and stars and promising to be "different" so a large cohort of disenfranchised people thought he was worth a shot.
It was a stupid choice , but I can see how some people made it.
2020 and beyond though , it's inexcusable.
A mixture of utter nonsense and hearsay. However, you're right that Trump is innocent until proven guilty. Having read the indictments, which I'll assume you haven't, it seems that Smith has built tight cases against Trump that are based on facts. Trump should get a fair trial, so we'll see the verdicts that are returned. I'm absolutely certain, though, that if guilty verdicts are returned then the next conspiracy theory will be that a hand-picked anti-Trump jury was selected personally by Smith. That's how it rolls.
If you think I didnt know who John Edwards is before Jack Smith was appointed then you are 100% incorrect.
Who is #6 on the indictment? Could it be Ginni Thomas??
Close to half the votes cast went to Trump. I don’t think a lot those trump voters care about trump crimes, they think Biden is corrupt.
Jason Miller
What is going to be key to this and Neal Katyal said it last night is that Justice Roberts must allow cameras in the court for the entirety of the case. If not, there will be a tonne of misinformation (both sides), but just look at the continued spouting from Trump after all of these indictments.
If they don't have cameras there is a very real possibility that even if he does get convicted his followers will continue to claim his innocence. Even when they state innocent until proven guilty.
I would find it alarming if Trump got more than 20% of the vote: his apparent polling which is well in excess of that is astonishing, super-alarming and I would like to think that such a clown would never poll like that anywhere in Europe.
I think it was RFK who said that 20% of people would appose just about any political measure, no matter how reasonable. That's why I referred to 20%;it's a sort of nutter threshold.
Trump got 74,222,958 votes in 2020 and there are 260,836,730 people eligible to vote in the USA so 28% and nowhere close to half.
Has Trump gained a single new vote since then? Probably not. Has he hemorrhaged votes since then? Definitely.
You said half of America. Your exact words.
I don't care what the MAGA brigade think at this point. They're some of the worst people currently living.
Or, and I may be jumping the shark here it's being prosecuted in the very same district as the offenses.
I see we’ve got to innocent until proven guilty but also he shouldn’t have to go to court.
You've received your talking points, I see.
So waffle it is, hoisted on your own petard
Well if you cant prove it then we will all just assume that you are lying through your teeth much like your hero.
Are you trying to tell me that if I commit a crime here in Ireland, that I would be tried here in Ireland where the crime took place? Or if I stole a sandwich from a shop in Loughrea that I would be tried in a Loughrea district court?
What if I preferred to be tried in the Seychelles or somewhere nicer?
They are described as a "Political Consultant" so it could be any of a number of people.
Ginni Thomas , Jason Miller , Roger Stone , Steve Bannon and so on.
The description of the actions attributed to them seem pretty low level though , it describes them as getting/confirming phone numbers for various senators to allow Conspirator #1 (Giuliani) to call them.
Could be any of Trumps campaign staff at all really.
Agreed - You could answer a simple question instead...
Ali Alexander perhaps?
Care to outline how Smith has acted in a biased or partial manner in this case? I'm not talking about past cases (you outline two he lost without mentioning how many he has won without any such criticisms, including his many trials at the Hague against war crimes committed in Kosovo), I'm talking about this actual case.
He is taking these trials to court in the state where the crimes occurred. That is standard legal practice. His indictments clearly demonstrate the evidence obtained and justifications for bringing forward the indictments, and were decided upon by grand juries. That is standard legal practice. He hasnt commented publicly on his opinion of Trump and has instead just stuck to the facts of the case. He is not demonstrating bias or impartiality by doing so.
So like a maths exam, show your workings out, as you might at least get half marks. What are you basing your assertation that Smith is neither unbiased nor impartial on?
You've also got people (Ramaswamy) promising to give Trump a pardon for a crime he hasn't been found guilty of yet.
You even have people (De Santis) being chastised for refusing to commit to giving him a pardon for a crime he hasn't been found guilt of.
The Hague are happy to have him prosecuting on war crimes. He had one case overturned by the supreme court but equally has had plenty of successful prosecutions of corruption. So he's pretty highly regarded on a global scale. We now even have trump's VP as a witness against him. Plus we're likely to see another indictment over his behaviour in Georgia. But you, the supposed centrist will label multiple strong cases as kangaroo courts.
The likelihood is by the time the election comes around, Trump is likely to have been convicted. You've said innocent until proven guilty but you've made it pretty clear that you won't accept any guilty verdict cause it's a "kangaroo court"....
hehe, I don't think there are too many people who wouldn't know who John Edwards is, lol.
However, the more pertinent point would be if you asked them who Jack Smith is and what relevance he has to JE.
You would most certainly get a lot of confused/funny looks. Strange timing that all of sudden, the connection is made now?
Anyways, I think this is where the hit piece on Jack Smith comes from
http://americafirstpolicy.com/latest/fact-sheet-jack-smith-a-record-that-speaks-for-itself
