In each case, it's all up the judge. If the judge wants to delay the trial, then Trump surely will be able to offer up reasons to do so. If the judge is hellbent on getting the trial started before the election, there won't be much that Trump can do to prevent it.

I was thinking more about this. I suspect that the next riggie fantasy will be that the Obamas are secretly controlling the government right now.

It's still Dick Cheney

I have not given $$$ to a single politician in my life until recently: LizCheney. She has bigger balls than any of the men in the current GOP.

Holy crap.

You realize that she's a war mongering neocon right?

I think the most important thing for the judge is having a result in this case that will hold up to appeal. If the defense is requesting additional time in their case and present a clear record and reasonable argument as to why and the judge denies that request then a conviction could be overturned. That's probably the most important factor in the court's analysis. So I am thinking they get more time.


Again, I am not a federal attorney. Just a humble country lawyer. So a federal attorney could come in and say that it's standard operating procedure to move cases through like beef through a meat packing plant. I would change my opinion then.

Bolded may be correct. But trial courts get enormous deference from appellate courts on case management issues, Trump has been "preparing" for these indictments ever since he left office, and Trump has unlimited resources.

The risk of a reversal on the ground that Trump wasn't given enough time to prepare his defense should be vanishingly small.

I think the defense could reasonably say that their client is innocent and could not prepare for a defense against crimes he never committed. The clock should start upon filing of charges, not a second before.

So at most people (likely those at risk) could have had 5, but you snarkily said to others to go get their 7th with the standard implication that they were sheeple, and your way of explaining that it was "accurate" is by some wonky math that maybe some people could maybe have a 7th booster (which, no) by next year. That is exactly the type of stuff I was talking about - you misrepresent stuff all the time, but I think you put little thought in your lies, and some times you believe what you are saying, while others, like this - you were just having a bit of a hissy fit and this is your go to routine. Still, it is basically lying/misrepresenting.

Thing is - I comment directly on your sources - where they come from, if they are opinion pieces etc. I have never suggested you read Nazi sites for instance, because you never posted material from them, and I would not put it on you to read them, so I would not suggest it even as a form of insult. Fortunately, your sources tend to be pretty derpy and often times just very biased opinion pieces, so I can work with what you provide.

In contrast, the only one who ever mentioned the View was you. I doubt any other poster ever made a comment about that show (no shock given its demographic), but it was another way you tried to hurl an insult by lying about someone, in this case suggesting I was a show that is watched by nearly all women. That fits with your dabbling with misogyny at times here that you would use that as a tactic, but again, while it was a nonsensical nothingburger that made you look strange, it was an example of how you lie/misrepresent things.

You get corrected all the time when you consume and spew some alt-right talking point about the context and the way it is misrepresenting reality. Happened today with the judge appointing thing for instance. In these cases I doubt you even bother to fact check before you regurgitate the stuff (because - Trudeau bad), but you toss out intentionally misrepresenting material all the time, and the makers of that target you because of just that. They know their business model.

You can whine about Trudeau all you like, and you are entitled to do that. You do lie and misrepresent information a lot, so up to you if you want to bother changing that or not. There are other posters here who do not care in the slightest if what they are saying is true or not, but I think you still have a sliver of wanting to be accurate left in you, so take that as a relative compliment, and consider this - a lot of people, not just obsessed Trudeau haters like you - are looking for a change. If you go full alt-right derp - you will have Trudeau to be upset about for many more years. Keep it going with Hunter/Trump, but maybe re-think that strategy a bit for the Canadian elections in the future if winning them matters to you.

One thing I noticed was you did not give a single example of how I lie even after saying I lie all the time. Obviously I predicted that, so safe to say that is another example of how you emotionally misrepresent reality. Maybe do that less moving forward.

He is higher than 0% so the answer to your question is yes. However, it is close enough to 0% that I think it is fair to say that the odds trump goes to prison before the election is about the same odds as the non-crackhead biden going to prison before the election.

No, trump is a repub.

The last right leaning riot in the US involved hundreds of people entering the capitol, a million or so in damages and one person dead. The last left leaning riot in the US involved hundreds of thousands if not millions of people, billions of dollars in damages and many people dead.

You forgot the "trying to subvert democracy and overturn a lawful election" bit. You're welcome.

They probably all jaywalked which is why nobody caught them. Your version of "reality" is pretty comical, do you have an update on when the Pope will be arrested?

All the best.

Yeah, a few hundred people could totally "subvert democracy and overturn a lawful election" in the most powerful country in the history of the world. I am sure there are thousands of people from both sides that would love to overturn an election over the last 30 years, but none of them have ever come close. The idea that a group of less than 1k people could overturn the will of the people by breaking into a building is complete nonsense - any attempt to suggest this could happen should be met with laughter.

All they had to do was have the shaman swear in a new president-- they were almost there.

I guess you've never heard of inchoate offences. Hint: attempted murder is a crime. "Your honour, but I'm such a bad shot I was sure to have missed" is probably not going to cut it.

And you're kind of missing all the other stuff that was going on alongside your little jaywalking friends. You know, all the stuff for which your little orange friend just got indicted.

There is no doubt what they did was a crime. However, the question was will there be riots if trump goes to jail. That should have no bearing on if those people or trump should be in jail for what they did.

yeah, that absolutely could.

Interesting that democrats deny the 2020 election was stolen yet they are already openly attempting to steal 2024 with all the Trump indictments.

They are not even trying to hide it this time. Just brazenly flaunting it and who can blame them.

Pro tip: you might want to avoid posting on days when it's not your turn to use the family brain cell.

It’s not like republicans don’t deny the 2020 results. Presidential candidates fit the republican nomination are saying so.

Telling voters the election is rigged is a fantastic strategy; I encourage all Republicans to tell their friends and family that the game is rigged and they can just sit at home instead of voting.

Yeah, sorry I forgot. Cousin Goober is using it today.

Inbreeding is a bitch.

I just broke my neck cringing. I am now a paraplegic. thanks a lot.

If you say so. She recognizes that the threat is Trump. Everything else is just window-dressing.

Fortunately you're misguided and just dead wrong, in spite of being oblivious to it. Just like you think that breaking one's neck makes one a paraplegic.