Liberal Forum

maineman » 02 Jun 2024, 12:25 pm » wrote: ↑

02 Jun 2024, 12:25 pm

I have no idea if there are Republican senators who hate Trump.  I do know that there are some Republican senators who thought the House Floor managers presented enough convincing evidence that Trump had indeed incited insurrection to vote to convict him of that specific offense.

And apparently, they were wrong, weren't they since Trump was acquitted.
So why do you insist on reliving the failure of your fervent hopes and prayers?
Trump still giving you nightmares?  Still wake up screaming and soaked in sweat?
Well, your worst fears will come true in November, so best you prepare yourself!
 

Zeets2 » 02 Jun 2024, 12:49 pm » wrote: ↑

02 Jun 2024, 12:49 pm

And apparently, they were wrong, weren't they since Trump was acquitted.
So why do you insist on reliving the failure of your fervent hopes and prayers?
Trump still giving you nightmares?  Still wake up screaming and soaked in sweat?
Well, your worst fears will come true in November, so best you prepare yourself!

It has nothing to do with senators being wrong and everything to do with senators being cowardly.

Trump doesn't give me nightmares at all. I will be just fine with whoever wins in November.  I will probably make out better financially if Trump wins as I expect Biden to probably raise my taxes some, but that's a wash since the only real financial uncertainty we have at this point in our lives is the size of the trust funds we set up for children and grandchildren.  Trump won't hurt me or my family in any substantial way.

maineman » 02 Jun 2024, 1:03 pm » wrote: ↑

02 Jun 2024, 1:03 pm

It has nothing to do with senators being wrong and everything to do with senators being cowardly.

Trump doesn't give me nightmares at all. I will be just fine with whoever wins in November.  I will probably make out better financially if Trump wins as I expect Biden to probably raise my taxes some, but that's a wash since the only real financial uncertainty we have at this point in our lives is the size of the trust funds we set up for children and grandchildren.  Trump won't hurt me or my family in any substantial way.

It has nothing to do with senators being wrong and everything to do with senators being cowardly.
Yeah, just like those 12 jurors on the Trump trial were cowardly, right? 
Trump doesn't give me nightmares at all. I will be just fine with whoever wins in November.  I will probably make out better financially if Trump wins as I expect Biden to probably raise my taxes some, but that's a wash since the only real financial uncertainty we have at this point in our lives is the size of the trust funds we set up for children and grandchildren.  Trump won't hurt me or my family in any substantial way.
I seriously doubt that!  As big a diehard Biden supporter as you are, I suspect you'll be crushed when Trump wins.
But apparently, you're ready to vote for an obviously senile nominee as Biden is, knowing full well he's going to raise your taxes, continue letting in millions of illegals who get free healthcare, free hotels, free food, free travel, free education, and free debit cards, all of which you're paying for, continue sending hundreds of billions to Ukraine, the most corrupt country in Europe, continued high inflation and interest rates, worsening high crime, gas prices over $4 a gallon, and a nation that gets humiliated ever time the idiot speaks to the world, huh?

You sir, are in desperate need of a lobotomy!

Zeets2 » 02 Jun 2024, 1:35 pm » wrote: ↑

02 Jun 2024, 1:35 pm

It has nothing to do with senators being wrong and everything to do with senators being cowardly.
Yeah, just like those 12 jurors on the Trump trial were cowardly, right? 
Trump doesn't give me nightmares at all. I will be just fine with whoever wins in November.  I will probably make out better financially if Trump wins as I expect Biden to probably raise my taxes some, but that's a wash since the only real financial uncertainty we have at this point in our lives is the size of the trust funds we set up for children and grandchildren.  Trump won't hurt me or my family in any substantial way.
I seriously doubt that!  As big a diehard Biden supporter as you are, I suspect you'll be crushed when Trump wins.
But apparently, you're ready to vote for an obviously senile nominee as Biden is, knowing full well he's going to raise your taxes, continue letting in millions of illegals who get free healthcare, free hotels, free food, free travel, free education, and free debit cards, all of which you're paying for, continue sending hundreds of billions to Ukraine, the most corrupt country in Europe, continued high inflation and interest rates, worsening high crime, gas prices over $4 a gallon, and a nation that gets humiliated ever time the idiot speaks to the world, huh?

You sir, are in desperate need of a lobotomy!

The twelve jurors who convicted Trump are very courageous.  They are getting death threats now because of their bravery.

I could give a **** what you doubt.  I certainly will be disappointed if Trump wins, but my life will cruise along quite nicely either way.

And you know what they say, "I'd rather have a bottle in front of me than a frontal lobotomy."  Speaking of that, it's just about cocktail hour!  Provecho!!!  AMF!  
 

maineman » 02 Jun 2024, 2:51 pm » wrote: ↑

02 Jun 2024, 2:51 pm

The twelve jurors who convicted Trump are very courageous.  They are getting death threats now because of their bravery.

I could give a **** what you doubt.  I certainly will be disappointed if Trump wins, but my life will cruise along quite nicely either way.

And you know what they say, "I'd rather have a bottle in front of me than a frontal lobotomy."  Speaking of that, it's just about cocktail hour!  Provecho!!!  AMF!

They better move out of the country... along with marchan, bragg and any other soros funded da's

maineman » 02 Jun 2024, 8:53 am » wrote: ↑

02 Jun 2024, 8:53 am

While all the jurors must agree on the first and second crimes—that Trump falsified business records in order to cover up the election crime—for him to be convicted, they can differ on the third crime, or the “unlawful means” to influence an election. Some jurors could think campaign finance laws were broken and others could think there were tax violations, for instance.

A FULL VIOLATION of the UNANIMITY REQUIRMENTS!!

Andres v. United States, 333 U.S. 740, 748 (1948) ( “Unanimity in jury verdicts is required where the Sixth and Seventh Amendments apply. In criminal cases this requirement of unanimity extends to all issues—character or degree of the crime, guilt and punishment—which are left to the jury.” );Andres v. United States, 333 U.S. 740, 748 (1948) ( “Unanimity in jury verdicts is required where the Sixth and Seventh Amendments apply. In criminal cases this requirement of unanimity extends to all issues—character or degree of the crime, guilt and punishment—which are left to the jury.” );

A FULL AND PERFECT APPEAL IN THAT ONE STATEMENT ALONE, ****!!!

I guess you would LOVE having 4 "possible" violations, and NONE of them PROVEN IN COURT, and a JURY still convict your NAZI *** for a "crime", even though there was no UNANIMOUS AGREEMENT ON WHICH ONE, huh??>?

Wonder how **** fast you would be whining "APPEAL"???

Beekeeper » 02 Jun 2024, 3:39 pm » wrote: ↑

02 Jun 2024, 3:39 pm

A FULL VIOLATION of the UNANIMITY REQUIRMENTS!!

Andres v. United States, 333 U.S. 740, 748 (1948) ( “Unanimity in jury verdicts is required where the Sixth and Seventh Amendments apply. In criminal cases this requirement of unanimity extends to all issues—character or degree of the crime, guilt and punishment—which are left to the jury.” );Andres v. United States, 333 U.S. 740, 748 (1948) ( “Unanimity in jury verdicts is required where the Sixth and Seventh Amendments apply. In criminal cases this requirement of unanimity extends to all issues—character or degree of the crime, guilt and punishment—which are left to the jury.” );

A FULL AND PERFECT APPEAL IN THAT ONE STATEMENT ALONE, ****!!!

I guess you would LOVE having 4 "possible" violations, and NONE of them PROVEN IN COURT, and a JURY still convict your NAZI *** for a "crime", even though there was no UNANIMOUS AGREEMENT ON WHICH ONE, huh??>?

Wonder how **** fast you would be whining "APPEAL"???

and when the appeal fails, will you crawl away in shame?  

Beekeeper » 02 Jun 2024, 3:39 pm » wrote: ↑

02 Jun 2024, 3:39 pm

A FULL VIOLATION of the UNANIMITY REQUIRMENTS!!

Andres v. United States, 333 U.S. 740, 748 (1948) ( “Unanimity in jury verdicts is required where the Sixth and Seventh Amendments apply. In criminal cases this requirement of unanimity extends to all issues—character or degree of the crime, guilt and punishment—which are left to the jury.” );Andres v. United States, 333 U.S. 740, 748 (1948) ( “Unanimity in jury verdicts is required where the Sixth and Seventh Amendments apply. In criminal cases this requirement of unanimity extends to all issues—character or degree of the crime, guilt and punishment—which are left to the jury.” );

A FULL AND PERFECT APPEAL IN THAT ONE STATEMENT ALONE, ****!!!

I guess you would LOVE having 4 "possible" violations, and NONE of them PROVEN IN COURT, and a JURY still convict your NAZI *** for a "crime", even though there was no UNANIMOUS AGREEMENT ON WHICH ONE, huh??>?

Wonder how **** fast you would be whining "APPEAL"???

The claims from Republicans appear to stem from a misinterpretation of an instruction the judge gave to the jurors.In New York, falsifying business records is only a felony if it’s done as part of another crime. Prosecutors said that crime was, essentially, election interference. To be considered election interference, Trump’s actions had to meet one of a few different criteria. Judge Juan Merchan gave the jurors three possible “unlawful means” that they can apply to Trump’s charges: falsifying other business records, breaking the Federal Election Campaign Act or submitting false information on a tax return.
For a conviction, each juror would have to find that at least one of those three things happened, but they don’t have to agree unanimously on which it was.“It is well settled in the law that there are various ways in which somebody could commit a crime,” Bloch said. “A jury does not need to be unanimous as to the ways somebody committed the crime, as long as they are unanimous that he had the intent to commit that crime.”  In other words, Bloch said, “If somebody breaks and enters into a home, and six people on a jury think that that person did so with the intent to steal money, and the other half of the jury thinks that that person did so with the intent to commit an assault inside the building, that person is still guilty of burglary, and the jury has unanimously concluded that that person committed each of the elements of burglary, even though the jury may differ as to the intent of the specific crime that that person intended to commit inside the dwelling.”

https://www.kgw.com/article/news/verify ... e627235e36
 

https://i.postimg.cc/xjMrqvmB/Screensho ... 155618.png

 

maineman » 02 Jun 2024, 3:52 pm » wrote: ↑

02 Jun 2024, 3:52 pm

The claims from Republicans appear to stem from a misinterpretation of an instruction the judge gave to the jurors.In New York, falsifying business records is only a felony if it’s done as part of another crime. Prosecutors said that crime was, essentially, election interference. To be considered election interference, Trump’s actions had to meet one of a few different criteria. Judge Juan Merchan gave the jurors three possible “unlawful means” that they can apply to Trump’s charges: falsifying other business records, breaking the Federal Election Campaign Act or submitting false information on a tax return.
For a conviction, each juror would have to find that at least one of those three things happened, but they don’t have to agree unanimously on which it was.“It is well settled in the law that there are various ways in which somebody could commit a crime,” Bloch said. “A jury does not need to be unanimous as to the ways somebody committed the crime, as long as they are unanimous that he had the intent to commit that crime.”  In other words, Bloch said, “If somebody breaks and enters into a home, and six people on a jury think that that person did so with the intent to steal money, and the other half of the jury thinks that that person did so with the intent to commit an assault inside the building, that person is still guilty of burglary, and the jury has unanimously concluded that that person committed each of the elements of burglary, even though the jury may differ as to the intent of the specific crime that that person intended to commit inside the dwelling.”

https://www.kgw.com/article/news/verify ... e627235e36

What you are SAYING is that 2 REPORTERS without any LAW DEGREE in any form has more sway over your DUMBASSERY than a SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES RULING that REQUIRES UNANIMITY ON ALL ASPECTS BEFORE YOU CAN CONVICT??

Damn, BOY STUPID, you are ONE MASSIVELY *** KICKED PIECE OF NAZI **** and that alone PROVES you are willing to COMPLETELY TRASH THIS NATION'S CONSTITUTION to get a "conviction" regardless of how UNCONSTITUTIONAL it might be to do so!!

Trust me, ASSHOLE, YOU LOST and did so on EVERY **** POINT YOU ATTEMPTED TO MAKE!! ANY first-year law student will tell you, a BURGLARY, regardless of why they did it, is still a BURGLARY and you don't need any "underlying intent": to make it a BURGLARY!!! PERIOD!!! So, your little "REPORTERS" analogy is PURE **** and a complete invention of how A UNANIMOUS VERDICT WORKS!!! Hell, UNLESS you KNOW WHAT YOUR "crime" IS, YOU HAVE NO WAY TO PREPARE ANY DEFENSE and that is a DIREST VIOLATION OF THE 6th AMENDMENT NO MATTER HOW **** HARD YOU TRY TO SLICE THAT ONE UP!!!

YOU LOST. SHUT THE **** UP NOW AND RUN ALONG WITH YOUR TAIL TUCKED UNDER THAT BLOODY *** OF YOURS!!
 

maineman » 02 Jun 2024, 3:45 pm » wrote: ↑

02 Jun 2024, 3:45 pm

and when the appeal fails, will you crawl away in shame?

Psssst. **** NAZI TURD, the SCOTUS will prevail, and Trump WILL be exonerated of ALL CHARGES. NO MATTER HOW LONG IT MIGHT TAKE!!!

PERIOD!!!

There are so many CONSTITUTIONAL VIOLATIONS, it would take a week to list them all!!

Beekeeper » 02 Jun 2024, 7:02 pm » wrote: ↑

02 Jun 2024, 7:02 pm

Psssst. **** NAZI TURD, the SCOTUS will prevail, and Trump WILL be exonerated of ALL CHARGES. NO MATTER HOW LONG IT MIGHT TAKE!!!

PERIOD!!!

There are so many CONSTITUTIONAL VIOLATIONS, it would take a week to list them all!!

MAGA tears. Love it. Keep it coming. 
 
 

Beekeeper » 02 Jun 2024, 6:59 pm » wrote: ↑

02 Jun 2024, 6:59 pm

What you are SAYING is that 2 REPORTERS without any LAW DEGREE in any form has more sway over your DUMBASSERY than a SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES RULING that REQUIRES UNANIMITY ON ALL ASPECTS BEFORE YOU CAN CONVICT??

Damn, BOY STUPID, you are ONE MASSIVELY *** KICKED PIECE OF NAZI **** and that alone PROVES you are willing to COMPLETELY TRASH THIS NATION'S CONSTITUTION to get a "conviction" regardless of how UNCONSTITUTIONAL it might be to do so!!

Trust me, ASSHOLE, YOU LOST and did so on EVERY **** POINT YOU ATTEMPTED TO MAKE!! ANY first-year law student will tell you, a BURGLARY, regardless of why they did it, is still a BURGLARY and you don't need any "underlying intent": to make it a BURGLARY!!! PERIOD!!! So, your little "REPORTERS" analogy is PURE **** and a complete invention of how A UNANIMOUS VERDICT WORKS!!! Hell, UNLESS you KNOW WHAT YOUR "crime" IS, YOU HAVE NO WAY TO PREPARE ANY DEFENSE and that is a DIREST VIOLATION OF THE 6th AMENDMENT NO MATTER HOW **** HARD YOU TRY TO SLICE THAT ONE UP!!!

YOU LOST. SHUT THE **** UP NOW AND RUN ALONG WITH YOUR TAIL TUCKED UNDER THAT BLOODY *** OF YOURS!!

Only pussies claim victory as unilaterally and as frequently as you do.  You do amuse me.

Beekeeper » 02 Jun 2024, 7:02 pm » wrote: ↑

02 Jun 2024, 7:02 pm

Psssst. **** NAZI TURD, the SCOTUS will prevail, and Trump WILL be exonerated of ALL CHARGES. NO MATTER HOW LONG IT MIGHT TAKE!!!

PERIOD!!!

There are so many CONSTITUTIONAL VIOLATIONS, it would take a week to list them all!!

again..what do you use?

tea leave, crystal ball or goat entrails?  

maineman » 02 Jun 2024, 7:17 pm » wrote: ↑

02 Jun 2024, 7:17 pm

Only pussies claim victory as unilaterally and as frequently as you do.  You do amuse me.

When a LWNJ IDIOT like you shreds the Constitution and the rights it protects, WINNING is easy on my part, DICKBREATH!!

 

maineman » 02 Jun 2024, 7:19 pm » wrote: ↑

02 Jun 2024, 7:19 pm

again..what do you use?

tea leave, crystal ball or goat entrails?

Common Sense. Something you have none of.
 
 

https://youtube.com/shorts/BXb6EJ9JIaA? ... zVy8P3vN1U

Beekeeper » 03 Jun 2024, 6:15 am » wrote: ↑

03 Jun 2024, 6:15 am

Common Sense. Something you have none of.

Your common sense allows you to see the future and state the events that will occur then with certainty?

cool

maineman » 02 Jun 2024, 2:51 pm » wrote: ↑

02 Jun 2024, 2:51 pm

The twelve jurors who convicted Trump are very courageous.  They are getting death threats now because of their bravery.

I could give a **** what you doubt.  I certainly will be disappointed if Trump wins, but my life will cruise along quite nicely either way.

And you know what they say, "I'd rather have a bottle in front of me than a frontal lobotomy."  Speaking of that, it's just about cocktail hour!  Provecho!!!  AMF!

Oh yeah, it takes SO much courage to go along with the 90% of Trump haters in NY, a corrupt judge and jury, and the creation of new laws and ignoring existing ones specifically to convict someone you don't want to see beat your own corrupt and demented idol and to vote along with the crowd.


 

maineman » 03 Jun 2024, 7:33 am » wrote: ↑

03 Jun 2024, 7:33 am

Your common sense allows you to see the future and state the events that will occur then with certainty?

cool

WITH CERTAINTY I know an APPEAL will happen. PERIOD!!

WITH CERTAINTY I can say that there are MAJOR VIOLATIONS of the 6th Amendment in this case.

WITH CERTAINY I can say that the APPEAL IS LIKELY TO SUCCEED AT SOME LEVEL OF AN APPEALS COURT.

WITH CERTAINTY I can say that Merchan VIOLATED THE LAW where JUDGES ARE PROHIBITED FROM DONATING TO CAMPAIGNS and that ALONE is more than enough justification for an APPEAL TO SUCCEED. PERIOD!! I CROOKED JUDGE overseeing a TRIAL of someone he made conations AGAINST is a DIRECT VIOLATION OF ETHICS AND LAW in NY STATE!!

!!