Principles?
It'd be grand if any of these snakes had some principles in the first place.
I've said it before and I'll say it again. Thank God for the Atlantic Ocean.
So are we getting a mugshot?
Indeed.
Some day before the 25th August
At the risk of being crude enough to criticise (women) peoples' appearances, I really don't get why conservative American women often try their level best to look identical to each other, with that harsh, peroxided & over-produced look. It's so regularly lampooned but I don't get the appeal; it's too much and just makes their faces look harsh & angular, while completely removing any natural beauty that might be there.
If they had "evidence" they'd be going to court, not holding a press conference.
They don't have Evidence though, they have lies and convoluted conjecture.
As Kemp said in his tweet , Not once has anyone stood in a court and provided evidence of fraud , in fact they have gone out of their way to say it wasn't about Fraud when standing in front of a Judge despite being on TV before and after the court appearances claiming that they could prove it was Fraud.
Ty Cobb the former WH Lawyer under Trump says that the report could actually end up being as evidence against him as it would be further proof of him pushing lies and attempting to poison the jury pool.
In related news , Mark Meadows is trying to get his case moved to Federal Court and looks like he's going for the "I was only following orders" defence.
Meadows filed his motion in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia, where his request was assigned to Judge Steve Jones, an Obama appointee.
Good luck with that Mark...
Regardless of how any decent person feels about HRC, you could not deny her the schadenfreude of seeing someone who threatened her with jail both on stage in the debates and made it in fact, a core part of his election campaign, now under federal indictment.
Christ, even the Tin Man from the Wizard of Oz would have experienced a warm fuzzy feeling.
And his (real) height and weight...
He will absolutely lose it.
And preferably without the layers of fake tan.
Possibly not. At least not according to what I read on the BBC earlier. In the other trials they forewent the mug-shot since Trump is already photographed so much in the public domain.
I think the Sheriff in charge said no special cases in his jurisdiction
Trump would just use it to scam more money from his acolytes.
They already use a mocked up mug-shot in their begging emails , why give them a real one to use?
Happy for them to process him fully and for them to confirm that he is not 6'3" nor is he only 240 lbs , but don't give him another marketing tool to grift money.
As someone already opined, Trump IS getting special treatment 'cos he's the former US President and a rich, powerful man; he has already been treated in a much more different & deferential manner than you or I would receive had we been charged with the same offences. He was given, 10 days right to appear in Georgia right? I guarantee if he doesn't do so there'll be no cops or Marshalls chasing him.
Point being: authorities would be acutely aware of the political and social impact that might come from a mugshot photo of Donald J. Trump. It would function as a rallying cry for all the Ultras out there, every cult member or conservative with a persecution complex would use that picture to bolster their support. I'd be shocked if they allow anything like that to become public.
F*** it, I don't care if he gets a bump in his money.
Tag him and bag him, like everyone else.
I dunno if he thinks flouting the arrest would do him any good. Dunno how the secret service would address that, they’re not there to help him break the law.
Elon/Twitter/X indeed took active steps to undermine the special counsel and tipped off a suspect they were under investigation and their account was being subpoenaed
https://www.politico.com/news/2023/08/15/special-counsel-obtained-trump-twitter-howell-00111410
I agree , by all means process him like any other suspect , just don't make the photograph public.
Time for an example to made of Elmo. If anyone who wasn't a billionaire broke a court order directing no notice or detail of a search warrant or other similar court order for record seizure? They'd likely face action for contempt as well as probable cause argument for inclusion in any conspiracy case moving forward.
The example here sadly is a slap of $350k. The only example making would have to be for whoever is left on twitter to leave.
To be fair , they didn't break the court order , but they fought tooth and nail in court to get it over-turned.
Something I don't see them doing for anyone other than Trump.
"What about the victims of their crimes and their families?
There is far too much concern for the perpetrators of crime rather than the victims who never get a second thought." - Rapidash_2023
You cannot compare Donald Trump's case to the treatment of murderers and rapists in jail in the US.
To compare the two is beyond ridiculous, and doesn't merit any further discussion from me.
Donald Trump IS A RAPIST, yes they will be compared, yes we can.
And your insistence that he is somehow elevated and special only evidences you absolutely believe he should get his own tier of justice. I don't care what you think is meritable.
Oh, don't get me wrong: I have not gone to The Dark Side and fully expect the same: That it will be rebranding of existing lies (Which, let us not forget, they ALL were. Proven). But, just on the off chance that it actually IS new information, I am interested.
I think it's fair to say though that if it is (as we suspect) simply a rebrand/repackaging of all previous intentional lies and manufactured fraud (I keep repeating this as it's worth remembering that these were not mistakes or accidental misinterpretation. These were all manufactured, designed, failed attempts to deceive. EVERYONE knows for FACT that this is the case, even trumpists). Anyway, if it is a simple repackaging then this has got to be the last ditch effort at pitching the same PROVEN LIES. There are only so many ways you can polish a turd.
So either they ACTUALLY come up with new evidence which I would be interested to see, or we can simply ignore each and every mention of Monday's presentation. Can simply ignore every mention of it on this thread or elsewhere as a waste of keyboard strokes.
One will simply have to state once: "As Expected" and never refer again
I'll be surprised if it's anything more than hearsay based on random Twitter accounts or "This one person who works for a voting machine company once attended a Democrat rally, AND THEREFORE HE MANIPULATED EVERY VOTING MACHINE TO SWITCH VOTES FOR BIDEN!"
Translation: I am no longer able to defend the obvious double standards and hypocrisy in my defence of Donald Trump.
Hoist on your own petard.
Another instance of your "hear no evil, see no evil, speak no evil" posting when it comes to Trump.
Trump has been legally judged as a rapist, this is an irrefutable fact. He is a rapist, the comparison isn't just apt, it's accurate. Only that it was a civil trial(?) has prevented sentencing and the potential of a jail term; your continued attempts to ignore this pertinent piece of reality goes noticed by those attempting to engage with your logic. And if you think his power and wealth hasn't factored in his ability to escape a sentence, then you're also naive.
No, it's not accurate.
In the state in question, the judge spoke in accordance with their state laws; or at least their own interpretation of it.
If it were another US state, Trump would not have been labelled as such. He certainly wasn't tarred with that word when found guilty at the original trial.
Furthermore, you clarified my point yourself when you said that Trump is a "legally judged rapist".
In what other case of calling someone a rapist do we qualify it with the term, "legally judged"?
We don't. And there's a good reason for that.
Was the judge quoting the law, in the state the offence occurred?
Yes.
Therefore, it is absolutely irrelevant what another state might interpret the law to mean.
"If it were another US state..." = if my aunt had balls, she would be my uncle.
If it were another US state, Trump would not have been labelled as such.
Another thing you didn't read: what the judge actually said
Contrary to exactly what you have said, if it were in another US state, he would have absolutely been found liable for Rape.
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://w6.vanillicon.com/v2/664b698b11ec85b4b0b9273f0c981eb9.svg)
