he's definitely packin

The point of running for President for Donald Trump was to get attention and to sell his products.

If you remember during his primary rallies they would sell Trump Water, Trump steaks, Trump everything. Books probably.

Mostly though its for the attention.

The other thing to note is that Donald Trump has been getting a free pass from the Justice system his whole life. By suing or being sued on a constant basis Trump was able to pay like 30% of his Atlantic City construction and redesign costs. When he went bankrupt the judge ruled he could have $400,000/month from his "bankrupt" business assets. People are always settling for less with Trump because of the time it takes to get through all of the appeals. Until Jean Carrol. Where Trump is still trying to avoid having to pay the $485 million after appeal and appeal.

He cleverly bought Mar-a-Lago for like $25 million during the bankruptcy hearings (I think it was then) so that if he lost everything they couldn't take his house (Florida law).

If you remember the 60+ election trials that Trump's lawyers filed for not once did they present any evidence of election theft. But they did publicly talk about it all the time. And now having lost all but one of those trials (the one Trump won didn't allow an extension of like 4 days for people to correct their write in ballots in Philadelphia) roughly 70% of the remaining Republican party believes the election was stolen.

vigilante requires flagrance lol, actual violent crime being committed at that very moment.

and violent crimes are very clearly definable unlike "white collar crimes" which in many cases shouldn't exist to begin with

I know how juries are selected and I know that if it was a private individual, having a strong opinion about him before the trial started would have been ground for disqualification.

So all Pablo Escobar had to do was buy billboards all across America with his name and photo, saying "god hates America" and "my coke will kill you all", then claim he couldn't get a fair trial anywhere in the US. Ez game.

Or just maybe, we could apply common sense and say that if the defendant's own conduct caused his negative public image, tough titties, you reap what you sow.

Which white collar crimes shouldn't be crimes?

Only the white collar crimes committed by right wing conservatives....

Oddly enough, most of the crimes Trump is accused of committing are not white collar crimes.

rudoco, why didn't you do a better job in jury selection for you client?

This guy jury selects.

Going to go take a bleach bath...NSFL
Stormy Daniels testifies that Trump said she reminded him of his daughter: ‘Smart, blonde and beautiful’

Quite the DILF.

Insider trading was nominated and clearly shouldn't be a crime.

Corporate taxation crimes, accounting related crimes shouldn't exist as corporate taxation shouldnt exist.

Money laundering shouldn't be a crime unless related to financing of state enemies/terrorists, because there shouldn't be any money to launder to begin with and there wouldn't be if the state couldn't make it illegal to sell stuff people want and so on (and taxes weren't based on income to begin with)

We know but in this case they are

I want this guy on my next jury.

Or maybe create the possibility of not having a jury in those cases.

Basically when it's impossible to guarantee the "impartial jury" clause of the 6th amendment , special provisions should exist to use professionals trained to be impartial.

Btw it's not only about negative image.

What I am saying includes the fact that trump might very well commit any state crime he wants in Alabama and run away with it as well, I don't think that would be acceptable either

you don't think he'd be biased against you as a leftist?

I actually quite like the idea of professional juries in general. Certainly seems better than entrusting life or liberty decisions to 12 people too dumb or apathetic to duck jury service.

DILF Stormy on the stand today lmao reap, you orange disgrace

lol.
I’m sad for him , he was born in the wrong century .
He should of been born in 1850 .
Society was so much better then ….

Juries work when they can exist as intended.

1) as a check on prosecution 2) by actual peers (same status people, who live in the shoes of the defendant, same income and education range!!!!) 3) for crimes that aren't too technical (like they weren't in 1650) and abstract 4) when they can be impartial (IE they don't know the defendant or plaintiff nor are involved in the topic being judged personally)

But for ex presidents or anyway bigwig national politicians, tv, cinema, music personalities and the like, it's a joke to think you can have impartial juries

You're going to need a pre-trial trial just to decide whether the actual trial fits your criteria for jury suitability.

A motion from defense or prosecution easily dismissed by the judge in 99.9% of cases, given the applicability will be very limited.

Then jurisprudence will develop setting somewhat precise boundaries for the application of the waiver of random-civilian jury trials on case of exceptional notoriety.

And it could be easy the case that the easiest solution would be to have a 3 judges panel selected from the state or the federal district as jury.

But unfortunately for the USA you would need to amend the constitution for that to happen

So in actually , u don’t believe in government creating a society with equal of opportunity is a goood thing .

If u did you obviously see that only the most privileged have access to insider trading and money laundering….

And why corporations shouldn’t pays taxes ?
Aren’t they being protected by the police , laws , judicial system , profiting from good infrastructure, etc ?
Who will be pay for all of this ?

Maybe u should go try to open in business in countries where the rule of law isn’t an important factor , like Haiti -> good luck …