He's soooooo misunderstood.

[southsport]

Oh dear, justice died today...........kangaroo court.
.

 

[captainsutto]

He’ll get off on appeal I would suspect. It was a nonsense political trial

 

[Kent Brockman]

He can run the country from the Big House instead of the Whitehouse lol.

Would he be able to pardon himself?

 

[captainsutto]

I can imagine the riots which are about to take place. Jan 6 and the BLM stuff will pale by comparison

 

[southsport]

Would he be able to pardon himself?

Actually I think he could.
.

 

[southsport]

 

[captainsutto]

She’s spot on in everything she said. She’s one of the few politicians over there with integrity

 

[andyrabbit]

Hahaha, what a load of ****ing shit.
Poor Trumpie cultists. The **** is guilty.

 

[Kent Brockman]

She’s spot on in everything she said. She’s one of the few politicians over there with integrity

As my old man used to say, what a load of frog shit.
She's against the fact that, apparently, the Democrats are behind this whole legal case, to bring Donald Trump down in the courts, rather than at the ballet box. No mention of the technicalities of the case. I wonder why?
Don't know what she had to say about the old "Biden's laptop" episode, but I can guess.
And with regards to the political motivation behind the charges, real or imagined, here's an idea Donald, don't break the law buddy. Then it will all be sweet.
And for all those who think this is just a roundabout way to bring someone to account legally, how many of you would have criticised the jailing of Al Capone back in the day, because it was on tax offences...

 

[captainsutto]

Technicalities of the case

As I said, it will be hurled out on appeal

 

[Kent Brockman]

Technicalities of the case

OK, whatever, but I'm just saying that the lady in the video, doesn't spend any time debunking the case, just goes on the attack regarding the politicising of court cases. And it might be a good argument, but she spends no time, NO TIME, saying why the case is purely political and not legal. Hope I explained it, I respect your views Sutto, but on this one I think Tulsi's argument is lacking.

 

[captainsutto]

You’re right she hasn’t gone into detail on that but it’s well documented as to what has gone in so she’s just given a summary on the actual verdict.

Trump is a dodgy businessman no doubt. I even doubt he’s a decent bloke but this was pure a political weaponisation to eliminate a political opponent.
Just like the other case that have been thrown out previously
You see this stuff in 3rd world regimes or North Korea

This actual court case was a beat up from the jurisdiction it’s held in, to the judge and then the jury.
The actual charges were a joke

 

[Kent Brockman]

You’re right she hasn’t gone into detail on that but it’s well documented as to what has gone in so she’s just given a summary on the actual verdict.

Trump is a dodgy businessman no doubt. I even doubt he’s a decent bloke but this was pure a political weaponisation to eliminate a political opponent.
Just like the other case that have been thrown out previously
You see this stuff in 3rd world regimes or North Korea

This actual court case was a beat up from the jurisdiction it’s held in, to the judge and then the jury.
The actual charges were a joke

I don't know enough about them to debate it with you, but I'll concede, and even back you up, that beat up court cases to attack politicians is Putin and North Korea stuff.

 

[captainsutto]

Either way kent, neither of us really know or are really affected. Its like hating or loving the roosters or storm

 

[Kent Brockman]

Either way kent, neither of us really know or are really affected. Its like hating or loving the roosters or storm

I want to agree, but you just used loving, roosters, and storm in the same sentence.
Go and wash your keyboard mate