Search results

How many years after the fact?

Interservice rivalries also help break up the sort of solidarity that protects corruption from being investigated.

The facts were in dispute. Trumps entire case was him disputing the facts, and the Judge ignoring him and performing an illegal summary judgement.

No, it was a pretty blatant violation of due process. Trump was denied the right to a trial. It should be overturned by any honest appellate court.

LOL, really stretching it here. First, he mocks Hamas by calling the hummus, its a decent joke. I don't really see what is wrong here. Then he calls hamas smart, it is incredibly disingenuous to describe acknowledging the strength of an enemy as praise. The last one, I don't know the context of...

On what grounds? Being Trump's legal council?

Trump is not a conservative, he has always been a centrist, the overton window just moved around him to the point he decided to run Republican. This isn't really a problem. In fact, the reason we know he is real is that he burned a ton of bridges with the left when he became president, and they...

The problem is they haven't convicted him of rebellion or treason, and the amendment does not provide an exception to due process.

I'd prefer "innocent with prosecutor malice" as a jury verdict. If the jury finds a person innocent on a charge, and they find that the prosecutor knew that the accused was innocent prior to trial, then the persecutor shall be stripped of immunity and made vulnerable to both civil and criminal...

Even if you theoretically have a right to an appeal, the higher court can just ignore it. There is also the problem of punishment through process, there the whole point of the case is the waste of time and money (easily above a normal person's life savings) that needs to be expended to defend...

Elections being a government function, holding a politician to their campeign promises is just as much of a stretch or less than what they are going after Trump for.

The more broad interpritation of "Fraud" you are arguing for would open every politician ever elected up to liability for failed campaign promises.

Given the level of intimidation leveled against legal teams involved with Trump, he might not have been able to get better.

Except that would be a more accurate analogy for Biden, with his Chinese connections.

I disagree. Et Tu as a legal argument is the only way to effectively fight selective enforcement.

Hmm, if it sticks, I'd say it falls under the jurisdiction of the JAG corp. That means summery executions are fair game when they really fuck up outside US soil.

If it does do what you say it does, Trump still did nothing wrong because what you are describing is a blatant violation of the first amendment.

Here's the thing about the law... if you don't enforce it, it does not exist. He's probably going in at this like they are bluffing, and its a gamble he has an uncomfortable chance at winning.

Remember, the one substantial complain the Left has raised about Trump is exactly the thing that allowed him to succeed. Trump needed one hundred percent of that bluster. Normally statesmen who would do anything at all get the mushroom treatment, see Ron/Rand Paul. Trump did something, even if...

I think the biggest potential impact is they managed to give DeSantis a chance to bury the hatchet with Trump. The infighting Trump's ego created was a huge benefit for them.