| CURRENT EVENTS Dr. Gad Saad: The Indictment of Donald Trump (video.)

[PurlJam]

I donate cats.

Ah.... Mongolian Beef?

 

[TerryP]

The indictment isn’t just for the Daniels payment, there’s other business book cooking that happened that isn’t beyond the statute of limitations.

It must be hard for all of you to continuously defend that corrupt piece of shit

For me to defend the rule of law is something I'll continue to do regardless of you feeling it's a piece of shit. This is not about Trump, it's about a reckless DA choosing to operate outside the established boundaries of the law.

This is a politically motivated prosecution.

You say there's something else, to which Bragg was questioned as to why it wasn't cited in the indictment with a response of "didn't have to?" What's the crime?

It's my understanding this is 34 counts, all related to one thing. The one thing outside of the statute of limitations.

I do find it ironic there's a suggestion this isn't all about Trump, but he's the only one who gets charged with something outside of the statutes.

What I find that is on the opposite side of the fence with irony, and it certainly isn't coincidental, is we're talking about a statute—explicitly stated in the law—and your stance of choice is to ignore the law. It's no different than the law against the intimidation of a member of SCOTUS.

 

[TerryP]

Who’s been the loudest about the damn laptop?

That's funny. Shall we discuss how the story was censored as well as the 50+ "insiders" who said "Russia?" Shall we discuss how many media outlets repeated, continuously, "Russia?"

Who was the loudest about the laptop? Those being censored or those lying to the American public?

 

[ElephantStomp]

That's funny. Shall we discuss how the story was censored as well as the 50+ "insiders" who said "Russia?" Shall we discuss how many media outlets repeated, continuously, "Russia?"

Who was the loudest about the laptop? Those being censored or those lying to the American public?

You guys and your continuous need to play the victim. The so called being “censored” and those lying to the American public are the same “grand ol party”

 

[ElephantStomp]

For me to defend the rule of law is something I'll continue to do regardless of you feeling it's a piece of shit. This is not about Trump, it's about a reckless DA choosing to operate outside the established boundaries of the law.

This is a politically motivated prosecution.

You say there's something else, to which Bragg was questioned as to why it wasn't cited in the indictment with a response of "didn't have to?" What's the crime?

It's my understanding this is 34 counts, all related to one thing. The one thing outside of the statute of limitations.

I do find it ironic there's a suggestion this isn't all about Trump, but he's the only one who gets charged with something outside of the statutes.

What I find that is on the opposite side of the fence with irony, and it certainly isn't coincidental, is we're talking about a statute—explicitly stated in the law—and your stance of choice is to ignore the law. It's no different than the law against the intimidation of a member of SCOTUS.

It’s not a politically motivated prosecution, he’s accused of breaking the law and if it’s outside the statutes then the judge will toss it, but if the DA presents the case to the grand jury and the decide to indict let me guess the grand jury is out get poor little Trump too?

I didn’t say to ignore the law not one bit, if not all 34 counts are past the statute of limitations then he damn well should be held accountable if he’s guilty. For being the party of “law and order” y’all sure do have a tough ass time grasping it. You wanted the people that protested in front of a SCOTUS’ house held accountable for intimidating his soft ass, but refuse to acknowledge that Velveeta Voldemort should be held accountable if he’s guilty, it’s honestly mind numbingly ludicrous

 

[TerryP]

You guys and your continuous need to play the victim. The so called being “censored” and those lying to the American public are the same “grand ol party”

How am I playing a victim here? Who are "you guys?"

How is a story, proven censored on the Internet, "so called censored?"

How are the "Intelligence Officials," who claimed the story that was being censored was "Russia," affiliated with the GOP? How are the media outlets that repeated that lie, members of the GOP?

The very same media who claimed it wasn't a story are now saying it's true. But I'm a victim because I didn't believe they were telling the truth in the first place.

It'll take a "head in the clouds" to justify what you're saying. But, with your proclaimed "14 years of academia," shouldn't be a problem for you to answer one question.

How am I a victim to a DA who is overstepping the boundaries of the law to prosecute someone?

 

[TerryP]

It’s not a politically motivated prosecution

The majority doesn't believe this to be the case. You do, and that's granted.

But how do you justify a guy who ran for a political office with a platform including "prosecute Trump" and say it's not political?

I didn’t say to ignore the law not one bit, if not all 34 counts are past the statute of limitations then he damn well should be held accountable if he’s guilty.

34 counts, on one charge, that's outside limitations. He (Bragg) says it's pointing to another crime which he wont say what said crime is.

If you're saying he should be charged on something outside limitations, you're also saying ignore the law.

 

[ElephantStomp]

How am I playing a victim here? Who are "you guys?"

How is a story, proven censored on the Internet, "so called censored?"

How are the "Intelligence Officials," who claimed the story that was being censored was "Russia," affiliated with the GOP? How are the media outlets that repeated that lie, members of the GOP?

The very same media who claimed it wasn't a story are now saying it's true. But I'm a victim because I didn't believe they were telling the truth in the first place.

It'll take a "head in the clouds" to justify what you're saying. But, with your proclaimed "14 years of academia," shouldn't be a problem for you to answer one question.

How am I a victim to a DA who is overstepping the boundaries of the law to prosecute someone?

They haven’t found anything on Hunter or his laptop, but here’s the difference between me and my side and you and your side- accountability, if Hunter did anything illegal then he should be charged and held accountable. If the President or anything politician that I agree with does something illegal they should be held accountable

As for the victim thing I misunderstood your comment

 

[TerryP]

As for the victim thing I misunderstood your comment

 

[ElephantStomp]

The majority doesn't believe this to be the case. You do, and that's granted.

But how do you justify a guy who ran for a political office with a platform including "prosecute Trump" and say it's not political?

34 counts, on one charge, that's outside limitations. He (Bragg) says it's pointing to another crime which he wont say what said crime is.

If you're saying he should be charged on something outside limitations, you're also saying ignore the law.

A majority you say, so would say 60% of those polled be a majority? Because this poll CNN Poll: Majority of Americans approve of Trump indictment says 60% agree with the indictment.

Bragg investigated and brought the charges, but the grand jury (you know of Trump’s peers) chose to indict, I don’t need to justify Bragg because irregardless of what he ran on the grand jury chose to indict.

Again I’ll reiterate for a party of “law and order” you guys have an adverse reaction to being held accountable

 

[TerryP]

They haven’t found anything on Hunter or his laptop, but here’s the difference between me and my side and you and your side- accountability, if Hunter did anything illegal then he should be charged and held accountable. If the President or anything politician that I agree with does something illegal they should be held accountable

What do you mean they haven't found anything?

Which side am I on here? What's reported by a network? Even the media outlets falling under "MSM" are reporting the contents are true.

---

---

You, offhandedly, bring up a good point: accountability. There is no law that says you can't make money off of your last name. There are questions, not addressed, by the "spirit of the law" on donations to influence.

They haven’t found anything on Hunter or his laptop

Enough to make me wonder what the crack was cut with. I can't blame him for the high.

Threesome's? Don't knock it...

 

[TerryP]

Bragg investigated and brought the charges, but the grand jury (you know of Trump’s peers) chose to indict, I don’t need to justify Bragg because irregardless of what he ran on the grand jury chose to indict

How are the grand jury members peers in a political prosecution?

How do you see the difference in agencies investigating this and saying "there's no law broken," and how we have charges? What's it being called? "A unique theory?"
Let's make a misdemeanor, out of its statute of limitations, into a felony crime from a state level on a federal charge.

You haven't seen the shit pool yet?

 

[ElephantStomp]

How are the grand jury members peers in a political prosecution?

How do you see the difference in agencies investigating this and saying "there's no law broken," and how we have charges? What's it being called? "A unique theory?"
Let's make a misdemeanor, out of its statute of limitations, into a felony crime from a state level on a federal charge.

You haven't seen the shit pool yet?

The grand jury are his peers, normal citizens chose to indict, that’s not political

 

[ElephantStomp]

What do you mean they haven't found anything?

Which side am I on here? What's reported by a network? Even the media outlets falling under "MSM" are reporting the contents are true.

---

---

You, offhandedly, bring up a good point: accountability. There is no law that says you can't make money off of your last name. There are questions, not addressed, by the "spirit of the law" on donations to influence.


Enough to make me wonder what the crack was cut with. I can't blame him for the high.

Threesome's? Don't knock it...

So, they found all sorts on Hunter, but he hasn’t been charged? Again I’ll reiterate if there’s a crime he should be held accountable plain and simple.

There is a law against “cooking the books” and that’s some of the charges

 

[TerryP]

So, they found all sorts on Hunter, but he hasn’t been charged? Again I’ll reiterate if there’s a crime he should be held accountable plain and simple.

You said there was nothing on the laptop. Now it's "all sorts." What are we talking about now?

There is no crime using your last name to make money. Crack, hookers...I don't give a fuck.

10% to the big guy? Yeah, now I'm having a pause.

There is a law against “cooking the books” and that’s some of the charges

Outside of the statutes, 34 counts on one action referring to what crime as it's elevation?

I

 

[ElephantStomp]

You said there was nothing on the laptop. Now it's "all sorts." What are we talking about now?

There is no crime using your last name to make money. Crack, hookers...I don't give a fuck.

10% to the big guy? Yeah, now I'm having a pause.

Outside of the statutes, 34 counts on one action referring to what crime as it's elevation?

I

He’s not in trouble for using his last damn name man, he’s in trouble because the crooked bastard cooked the books, falsified things, was fraudulent hence the fraud charge. He’s crooked as hell and people defending his stupid ass is about the dumbest shit I’ve seen

 

[TerryP]

He’s not in trouble for using his last damn name man, he’s in trouble because the crooked bastard cooked the books, falsified things, was fraudulent hence the fraud charge. He’s crooked as hell and people defending his stupid ass is about the dumbest shit I’ve seen

If the point slapped you in the face, you'd turn your cheek and claim you're Southern Baptist.

You can't have a fraud charge without a fraudulent crime. It's not cited.

It's not about defending the individual with my asking for a pause here. It's not the motivation of a charge. It's the legality.

 

[TerryP]

He’s not in trouble for using his last damn name man,

A reference to Hunter.

 

[rocknthefreeworld]

If Trump did something illegally and it is now outside of the statute of limitations this manta of "needs to be held accountable" isn't right. No matter who, it's against their rights. And that's where the "difficulty of acceptance" is born: a violation of his rights.

The statute of limitations being expired or not is a legal argument that the court will have to rule on. NY law allows it to be extended (or more precisely put on pause) if the person is not living in the state or if the Governor orders a general suspension/toll. Both apply in this case. Trump officially lived in Washington, DC and Florida over most of the time. NY Governor Cuomo issued a toll of the statute of limitations during Covid that eventually went from March 20, 2020 to November 3, 2020 that would extend all statute of limitations in effect during it for 228 days. Courts ruled that it was a toll of the limitations and not a suspension and therefore added 228 days to all Statute of Limitations started but not yet expired as of March 20, 2020. As the indictment was made on March 30, 2023 that would mean any felony crimes within 5 years and 228 days prior to that date would definitely be subject to the Statute of Limitations in NY. So any felony crimes from June 15, 2017 forward would be chargeable. The crimes in the indictment range from February 14, 2017 to December 5, 2017. Count 9, 10 , and all from 14-34 inclusive are after June 15, 2017.

Just for the record, this is 100% political in nature. And he probably is guilty as many politicians would be if charged with similar.

 

[ElephantStomp]

If the point slapped you in the face, you'd turn your cheek and claim you're Southern Baptist.

You can't have a fraud charge without a fraudulent crime. It's not cited.

It's not about defending the individual with my asking for a pause here. It's not the motivation of a charge. It's the legality.

Cooking the books is a fraudulent crime