Trump indicted again in federal election interference case following Supreme Court immunity ruling

originally posted by: Boomer1947

originally posted by: ColeYounger2
It's worth noting, AGAIN, that the Democrats are always screaming about how Trump will go after his foes. He'll jail people and incarcerate them in concentration camps.
Yet, AGAIN, they are the ones relentlessly trying to put him in jail.

.....

The difference is that there are witnesses and documentary evidence that Trump actually did the stuff he's being accused of.

Witnesses and "documentary evidence" with no proof of anything. Just standard 2nd and 3rd hand hearsay 🤣🤣

originally posted by: frogs453
Some things had to be changed due to the immunity ruling, so he had to go back to a grand jury after removing certain references to any conversations with certain officials, etc. Just including conversations with those within his campaign regarding certain things,etc. Stuff like that.

. . . . stuff that's all hearsay and lie-conjecture 😀

This still dont change the facts that Trump did nto call for a riot. the transcripts clearly say peacefully and loudly. they didnt say riot and burn and assault police.

Once again DC is a unfair trial Venue and the SC should step in and declare it so and force a move to a better locality with a better mix of peers. Like texas.

a reply to: xuenchen

Remember that time the Leftists used bogus documents to convince people Trump was involved with Russia and incontinent hookers?

And that time they used Facebook to suppress what that perverted addict of a First Son was up to?

Then there was that rotund Ukrainian American military dude that lied under oath?

And that lying porn lawyer?

Bunch of fkn clowns.

originally posted by: frogs453
Some things had to be changed due to the immunity ruling, so he had to go back to a grand jury after removing certain references to any conversations with certain officials, etc. Just including conversations with those within his campaign regarding certain things,etc. Stuff like that.

Smith removed some conversations Trump had with his staff but they totally failed in the new indictment because they completely ignored two recent Supreme Court rulings…
Presidential immunity and Fischer.
Smith is trying to question Trump’s intent.
The Court told them they cannot do that.
Presidents are immune as far as what they intended.

The Fischer felony should not have been in there either.
There was no document tampering.
There will be new discovery and Trump’s team gets to see every last piece of evidence.
Smith is known for not giving the defense all the evidence.
I wonder if he’ll get caught again.
He’s going to get rung up with sanctions when this thing gets kicked.
Fun times ahead.

I've lost interest in these cases a long time ago.

I thought the judge ruled Jack Smith's appointment was not proper?

originally posted by: Daughter2v2
I've lost interest in these cases a long time ago.

I thought the judge ruled Jack Smith's appointment was not proper?

Only in Florida it’s not proper.
DC circuit is special, like the short bus.

originally posted by: frogs453
a reply to: Lumenari

Sure. The orginal pdf here


The superceding indictment pdf is here

You'll have to compare/contrast the orginal and superseding.

/facepalm

a reply to: WeMustCare

Not too long ago, law courts were considered to be where the accused were judged, and judgements were considered as sufficient and legally binding determinant of guilt, but prior to conviction, there should be a general presumption of innocence until proven guilty.

But now, it is a politically motivated and 'opinion' free-for-all where judgements are less trusted than the opinions of the pundits.

How about we all wait for a judgement?

a reply to: chr0naut

If the defendants were given fair trials by their actual peers instead of biased municipalities sure.

originally posted by: yuppa
a reply to: chr0naut

If the defendants were given fair trials by their actual peers instead of biased municipalities sure.

There's a whole process of jury selection designed to get a panel of jurors acceptable to both the prosecution and the defence. The idea is to get people who will evaluate the evidence without bias or prejudice.

Wait a sec.

This is trying to “trump” the news that Zuck just let out the bag concerning suppression of the laptop the week before last election….

Okay got it. No interference there.

Not even when 51 assets discredit a true story with signatures, speculation, and obfuscation.

OMB and Bidens are a family of saints by omission.

*Yawn. So f’ing predictable.

a reply to: chr0naut

do you think the charges against Trump should be brought again? One of two outcomes is about to happen. Trump wins, and his new DOJ tells Smith to go away and the charges are dropped. Or, Trump looses, and won't be president again ever, and there is no longer any appetite for spending resources trying to prosecute him, when he is no longer a political threat. Both ways seem pointless, and there are "rules" about prosecuting a political opponent within such a tight window to the election, though it wouldn't surprise me if they ignored that, as they have all the other previous norms about prosecuting political rivals.

Can you imagine what kind of world we might be in had Trump not been prosecuted for his lawyers making those journal entries calling payments to his lawyer "legal fees"? My GOD, (said in an angry Joe Biden voice) Plus Trump called NAZI's very fine people, not kidding, it's what he said.

eta:
If Trump was to be found guilty of being angry he was flucked out of the 2020 election, and he is given jail time, do you think he will learn his lesson so he won't repeat that crime when he runs for his third term in 2028?

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: yuppa
a reply to: chr0naut

If the defendants were given fair trials by their actual peers instead of biased municipalities sure.

There's a whole process of jury selection designed to get a panel of jurors acceptable to both the prosecution and the defence. The idea is to get people who will evaluate the evidence without bias or prejudice.

Yes we know the idea thanks.

Evidence shows that prosecutors in DC have a 90% conviction rate normally.
For some odd reason the DC prosecutors are now at an impressive 100% conviction rate as far as January 6ers.
All this despite prosecutors charging less people for crimes…

“As of March 2024, the prosecution rate for all crimes in Washington, D.C. was around 55%, which includes misdemeanors and felonies. This means that roughly 60% of people are charged on the day of their arrest. However, this rate is still lower than it was before the pandemic, when the office charged between 64% and 77% of cases on the day of arrest from 2010 to 2018.”

www.uscourts.gov...#:~:text=More%20than%2090%20percent%20of,judge%20will%20schedule%20a%20trial.< br />
You’re probably smart enough to see that there’s some funny business going on.

a reply to: Vermilion

Well I mean in the J6 cases, 99% of them were identified on video and or photos. When you have video of people committing a crime, and like the guy just sentenced yesterday, who also had social media posts of them thrilled with their actions of that day along with video/photos, the high percentage rate makes sense. Kind of hard to claim you are innocent and be found innocent.

In the case of the Seditious Conspiracy crew, some were found not guilty of some charges, while guilty of others. So it's not just a blanket of all being convicted on all charges.

a reply to: Vermilion

Planned fail just like the other cases. 100% political - election interference.

Interesting strategy as they keep blaming Trump for interference as they do it anyway lol 🤣

a reply to: frogs453

Yet they say they will not prosecute Gaza supporters who storm Federal Buildings breaking barriers and have a TON of Social Media presence.

There was no insurrection. 1/6 was a failure of Congress to act appropriately which is why they passed legislation to make it almost impossible to question an election. An innocent person was shot and murdered. No police died that is a lie also. Everything is a lie.

This is straight up election interference and to call it anything else is simply bull#.

a reply to: WeMustCare

Jack's other case against Trump was dismissed because Jack was NOT legally appointed. Since that case's dismissal Jack has not been nominated by Biden and confirmed by the Senate, so why isn't this case getting tossed immediately?

a reply to: TheSemiskepticII

It will. But it makes a nice headline. I mean, how can you be indicted for the same thing twice especially when one is dismissed. It is fishing for a conviction.

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: yuppa
a reply to: chr0naut

If the defendants were given fair trials by their actual peers instead of biased municipalities sure.

There's a whole process of jury selection designed to get a panel of jurors acceptable to both the prosecution and the defence. The idea is to get people who will evaluate the evidence without bias or prejudice.

And THAT didnt happen in NY did it?
No you got a Democrat judge,and a majority Democrat jury and mostly those districts are RINOS. No you need a non partisan judge,and non voting jurors. Thats the most fair.
Charges are brought in certain places because they have a almost 100 percent conviction rate.