[arista]

Dr. Janette Nesheiwat, to be the next U.S. surgeon general.

[Crimson Dynamo]

Charlie Kirk @charliekirk11


BREAKING: Jack Smith has filed a motion to dismiss ALL charges against President Trump.

The lawfare lost. America won.

[bots]

The AG was deliberately incompetent

[Alf]

Originally Posted by arista

Dr. Janette Nesheiwat, to be the next U.S. surgeon general.

Picking a lot of Women for top jobs.

He's not doing a very good job at being a misogynist.

[Zizu]

Originally Posted by Crimson Dynamo

Charlie Kirk @charliekirk11


BREAKING: Jack Smith has filed a motion to dismiss ALL charges against President Trump.

The lawfare lost. America won.

Isn’t that immoral or illegal or both ??

Just sounds kinda dodgy


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

[Zizu]

Originally Posted by Alf

Picking a lot of Women for top jobs.

He's not doing a very good job at being a misogynist.

At the same time sooooo predictable

Hope she has a personal bodyguard when Donald is in her vicinity !!




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

[Zizu]

Originally Posted by Zizu

I don’t know of her but she ticks his usual check boxes … young / good looking / female


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

[Alf]

Originally Posted by Zizu

At the same time sooooo predictable

Hope she has a personal bodyguard when Donald is in her vicinity !!




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

Not as predictable as that foul Holly Willoughby, turning a blind eye to dirty Phil's antics. What an evil cow.

[Zizu]

Originally Posted by Alf

Not as predictable as that foul Holly Willoughby, turning a blind eye to dirty Phil's antics. What an evil cow.

I just think she’s misunderstood .


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

[Alf]

Originally Posted by crimson dynamo

charlie kirk @charliekirk11


breaking: Jack smith has filed a motion to dismiss all charges against president trump.

the lawfare lost. America won.

[Maru]

Originally Posted by Zizu

Isn’t that immoral or illegal or both ??

Just sounds kinda dodgy


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

It's just not practical. They'd have to hold off on a trial for 4 years. A new case would have be drawn up and complicated by a number of factors, such as he will have been President for 4 years and have likely nominated new people to the courts that obviously have implications on whether a proper verdict could even be rendered...

The original counsel probably won't want to be in charge of it for a good number of reasons (many of those are sane ones). So if it were the same case (it wouldn't be), they would have to restart with new counsel and that resets the clock and pushes the process out longer. So it would likely take well in excess of the 4 years it would take for it to resume. All on the taxpayer's dime and the defendant would likely have to continue to retain counsel in that period. We are owed a speedy trial and that's one reason, is that cost...

So that's just some of the hurdles that are predictable... In that time frame, other doors may open for appeal which will lengthen the process even more and create openings for the Justice system to be politicized or it becoming unfeasible for a fair verdict to be rendered. It's just not worth it.

We are each owed a speedy trial as a right and that is how our system is meant to be run. A drawn out court cases create unforeseen circumstances inevitably the longer they go on. The resetting of the clock is normal, and DAs do it all the time for silly **** to screw regular people out of their individual rights and to force them to take plea deals since they're carrying the expense of keeping an attorney and having a felony indictment on their record, which can screw them out of jobs and even make them homeless. They may not be able to move due to bail restrictions obviously blocks them from pursuing opportunities elsewhere as well as they can't pass background checks. So finding places to rent is harder and they likely won't be able to get a mortgage... That's the complication of allowing a trial to sit for that long is that it violates rights, since an indictment, not even a guilty verdict, has real world consequences for the defendant that create undue stress, financial burden and inevitably puts most people's lives on hold...

So I think a normal judge, even if it not compelled by law, will consider all those factors, whether the process can be run fairly, won't appear to be politically motivated and without dysfunction. They may even consider Trump's age. It's unlikely a DA/Prosecutor, or even the taxpayer, would have an appetite for it. It'd be a bit of Pyrrhic victory anyway even with a positive conviction since the process will have been tainted by all the lead up and be stuck in appeals afterwards. Trump will probably go to his grave while in Appeals court ... this is why they have immunity because it's not worth it as all the obstacles to navigate in order to reach a fair conviction would not only be complicated by his status, but would obviously appear tainted in the eyes of the Public...

[Zizu]

Originally Posted by Maru

It's just not practical. They'd have to hold off on a trial for 4 years. A new case would have be drawn up and complicated by a number of factors, such as he will have been President for 4 years and have likely nominated new people to the courts that obviously have implications on whether a proper verdict could even be rendered...

The original counsel probably won't want to be in charge of it for a good number of reasons (many of those are sane ones). So if it were the same case (it wouldn't be), they would have to restart with new counsel and that resets the clock and pushes the process out longer. So it would likely take well in excess of the 4 years it would take for it to resume. All on the taxpayer's dime and the defendant would likely have to continue to retain counsel in that period. We are owed a speedy trial and that's one reason, is that cost...

So that's just some of the hurdles that are predictable... In that time frame, other doors may open for appeal which will lengthen the process even more and create openings for the Justice system to be politicized or it becoming unfeasible for a fair verdict to be rendered. It's just not worth it.

We are each owed a speedy trial as a right and that is how our system is meant to be run. A drawn out court cases create unforeseen circumstances inevitably the longer they go on. The resetting of the clock is normal, and DAs do it all the time for silly **** to screw regular people out of their individual rights and to force them to take plea deals since they're carrying the expense of keeping an attorney and having a felony indictment on their record, which can screw them out of jobs and even make them homeless. They may not be able to move due to bail restrictions obviously blocks them from pursuing opportunities elsewhere as well as they can't pass background checks. So finding places to rent is harder and they likely won't be able to get a mortgage... That's the complication of allowing a trial to sit for that long is that it violates rights, since an indictment, not even a guilty verdict, has real world consequences for the defendant that create undue stress, financial burden and inevitably puts most people's lives on hold...

So I think a normal judge, even if it not compelled by law, will consider all those factors, whether the process can be run fairly, won't appear to be politically motivated and without dysfunction. They may even consider Trump's age. It's unlikely a DA/Prosecutor, or even the taxpayer, would have an appetite for it. It'd be a bit of Pyrrhic victory anyway even with a positive conviction since the process will have been tainted by all the lead up and be stuck in appeals afterwards. Trump will probably go to his grave while in Appeals court ... this is why they have immunity because it's not worth it as all the obstacles to navigate in order to reach a fair conviction would not only be complicated by his status, but would obviously appear tainted in the eyes of the Public...

Ahhhh !


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

[thesheriff443]

The old saying,
Only in America

[bots]

it's very rare that powerful people pay for their crimes. That's just a fact wherever you go around the world. The next time we point the finger at others, look to our own country and the people who we know have got away with all sorts and still do

[Maru]

Originally Posted by thesheriff443

The old saying,
Only in America

Sheriff , that's a major compliment for most people here... we like being special and especially unpredictable. Saying we should be like everyone else is like "Pah!"... not the way the average American thinks, at all, especially culturally...

[thesheriff443]

Originally Posted by Maru

Sheriff , that's a major compliment for most people here... we like being special and especially unpredictable. Saying we should be like everyone else is like "Pah!"... not the way the average American thinks, at all, especially culturally...

Americans are without doubt the most boastful/ bragging people on the planet
When it comes to being different to any other country

But lots of Americans are as thick as to short planks that’s not an insult that’s the truth

That doesn’t include your lovely self by the way

I rarely comment in these type of threads because it’s not my country

Hope you take this post as it’s intended

[thesheriff443]

My great grand daddy
My grandpa my daddy all died on this very spot and one day I’m gonna do the same
How did they die?

Smoking dynamite

[Maru]

Originally Posted by thesheriff443

Americans are without doubt the most boastful/ bragging people on the planet
When it comes to being different to any other country

But lots of Americans are as thick as to short planks that’s not an insult that’s the truth

That doesn’t include your lovely self by the way

I rarely comment in these type of threads because it’s not my country

Hope you take this post as it’s intended

I rarely take it seriously so you don't have to worry, sheriff. But maybe others don't know what may seem like a detriment can be seen very differently underneath that cultural lens, so worth pointing out in this case.

The good news is we do seem to be more or less resonating with the idea that maybe just maybe unchecked narcissism can be a bad thing. Ironically it led to a Trump win here but in the end I really think we really will we start to see major shifts towards rebuking that mentality. I have already noticed it in my own life that people are more self-aware of it and it is changing how people process conflict... whereas before everyone took things more personally.

[Gusto Brunt]

I was just thinking yesterday, I'll be 47 in 2029 when Trump leaves office. But he'll be 83.

[bots]

Obviously, opponents of trump are going to highlight his bad points, but so many times throughout history, people have done things expecting a particular outcome and the actual result has been completely different

The USA political system needs reform, but i think they are years away from having a system that is acceptable to the majority

[Crimson Dynamo]

Harris posted a video, ranting about power and talking bollocks

Is she drunk too?

https://x.com/GoodwinMJ/status/1861752006118965390

[arista]

Yes could be at the wine.


She needs to bugger off

[bots]

thats the way she always talks

[Maru]

Originally Posted by Crimson Dynamo

Harris posted a video, ranting about power and talking bollocks

Is she drunk too?

https://x.com/GoodwinMJ/status/1861752006118965390

I really dislike the baby therapy talk that some people do now. Like they're not self-sufficient or something.

Hearing it from a politician is even more ick.

[Crimson Dynamo]

In Scotland we call it

Birthday card pish