971–980 of 1001 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> some legal experts who were definitely not Trump fans argue that it was not a case they would've brought Legal experts or not, unless they have seen the evidence (incl witness testimony) and charges their speculation is as good as any internet commenter. I read a headline that there are 34 charges in the indictment, could be many unique ones or it could be one of those things like 34 wire fraud charges because ther…
[flagged]
Earlier quoted context omitted.
How does it protect the rest of us if "well defended people" means "those able to afford better lawyers"?
Admittedly, I thought I was being concise, but edited my post into a real head-scratcher. I was thinking along the lines of protections such as presumption of innocence, and burden of proof, as making it hard to convict people. But it does require competent defense to enforce those things. An example of easy to convict is countries where prominent dissidents are arrested for nebulous "corruption," and basically stand…
I love common law but one aspect that seems inescapably (though perhaps not wholly) negative is the different levels of access to justice that come with different levels of wealth.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
[flagged]
Americans have insurrections all the time. For example, there was an insurrection in Tennessee today. It's an american tradition. Literally no American is going to stand to have any politician indicted for having passionate voters. This is surprising to many non-americans, but America does not like stifling speech. It's simply a small minority of prominent Americans that are calling for Trump to face any charges for…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
All good points. A small note though I believe the Queen started paying taxes in exchange for the state’s help rebuilding Windsor caste after the 92 fire. So seems more quid pro quo than something she felt was the right thing to do. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/1992_Windsor_Castle_fire
Still didn’t pay inheritance tax on her personal wealth though There are also all the laws the monarch / monarch’s lawyers interfered with e.g. police can’t enter Sandringham Estate without an invite, leaseholders on the Duchy of Cornwall are excluded from buying their freehold
Earlier quoted context omitted.
All good points. A small note though I believe the Queen started paying taxes in exchange for the state’s help rebuilding Windsor caste after the 92 fire. So seems more quid pro quo than something she felt was the right thing to do. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/1992_Windsor_Castle_fire
Still didn’t pay inheritance tax on her personal wealth though There are also all the laws the monarch / monarch’s lawyers interfered with e.g. police can’t enter Sandringham Estate without an invite, leaseholders on the Duchy of Cornwall are excluded from buying their freehold
Earlier quoted context omitted.
What I've been wondering about is: can he be prosecuted for multiple things in different courts? Can he be prosecuted for this, the Georgia election, and the classified documents, at the same time? Or is there a law against that because it's hard to defend yourself against 3 cases simultaneously?
This is why you should only break one law at a time.
1. The FEC/DOJ elected not to pursue the case in 2018. 2. Cohen's attorneys produced a letter saying Cohen was not reimbursed for the $130K 3. Stormy Daniels attorneys produced a letter denying that an affair ever occurred. 4. North Carolina failed to convict John Edwards in 2012 of a similar charge, though with actual campaign funds. 5. Bill Clinton settled Paula Jones sexual harassment lawsuit in 1998, while a pres…
I find it humorous how a simple list of factual statements can be down voted by some people here.
https://apnews.com/article/fact-check-stormy-daniels-2018-st...
> AP’S ASSESSMENT: Missing context. The signed statement with the denial was publicly released on Jan. 30, 2018. Not long after, Daniels recanted the statement and said that an affair had occurred. She said her denials were due to a non-disclosure agreement and that she signed the statement because parties involved “made it sound like I had no choice.”
And yes, misinformation includes statements that are technically true by themselves, but intentionally leave out crucial details to create a narrative.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
No, because that does not violate campaign finance laws.
Oh I see. I wonder if he will be allowed to settle, as Hillary Clinton's team did for "intentionally obscuring their payments through Perkins Coie and failing to publicly disclose the true purpose of those payments" with the Steele Dossier. https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2022/mar/31/hillary-clin...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't think this is the case for grand juries...
Which is why they don't have the final say; the verdict is made by the trial jury after hearing from both sides.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
[flagged]
Source? I haven't seen anything that makes me believe biden isn't mentally acute. I guess he's not very physically acute, but neither are half the people in this country, including Trump.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3bWM1zsnTJc
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9ssNav3MnBg
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_59agcnLAj4
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gsIxP-c83ok
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8uFNyWYcVpc
https://www.youtube.com/shorts/zhnUE5UBufw
I don't understand why my comment was flagged, these are some examples, amongst many others that ratify what I said. This man holds the highest office in the worlds most powerful democracy, and it really does instill fear and mistrust in his ability and mental acuity. I am not pulling this out of my ass, I am not American, neither do I really care about Trump, was just saying what videographic evidence clearly points to.