WrestlingRasta

What I know about the trial has nothing to do with media hot takes or what pundits want to make you think. You’ve been very transparent in your time here, on how you fall in line there. And this never works out well for you.

It’s both. It’s a ‘talking point’ because it has absolutely nothing to do with the facts and evidence that were presented to grand and trial juries. It’s talking points to rub people’s emotions. Guliani ran on a platform of going after and getting specific criminals. Does his success in that effort make it any more or less….matters of law?

Pretty interesting article here that addresses a number of the things mentioned in this thread. Debunking 12 Myths About Trump's Conviction (msn.com)

More talking points that speak nothing to the undebatable facts of a grand jury hearing evidence and indicting, and members of a trial jury convicting, unanimously, 34-0, rather quickly……….in an environment where no media pundits were heard.

We haven't heard that from Fox or Newsmax or anything like that at all. What about a collective of opinions from law people inside the courtroom? Where do those opinions fall in the category of holding weight?

That’s all great, basically just repeating, but still doesn’t answer or address anything I asked. I don’t disagree at all that there are people, major players in the law profession, who are saying this is a sham. What I’m saying is there are also people, major players in the law profession, saying just the opposite. So my main question/point is being that, and I think we can both agree on these: A) you and I are in no way experts in law B) you and I have not intricate details what so ever in the case, because we weren’t involved in the investigations, we didn’t sit on the grand jury that indicted, and we weren’t in the courtroom or reading transcripts thereof C) you and I both know that at least 90% of the media we watch/read is agenda driven. How can any of us take such a hard stance on this, over the people who were in fact intricately involved, most notably members of the grand and trial juries? Is it the reporting and who you believe is and is not bias?

What about all those, with strong professions and reputations in law, who disagree with the above, however? Honest question. Are they just simply politically motivated?

Fair enough

And so that’s a case by case, real time real life decision that has to be judged, calculating a whole lot of other things besides just *that moment*, in real time and cannot possibly be expected to be answered with any logic what so ever, on an anonymous message board, especially if after answered you want to add to the scenario to make it more favorable for your point. So my question to you is, what exactly is it you’re trying to achieve here by digging in and digging in and digging in, talking in the same circles, thread after thread? I’m just curious.

To play devils advocate….if we let that one terrorist live, how many innocent lives are lost later? Probably more than 7.

That question has been answered in this very discussion, and I don't believe you truly have to ask it, you know exactly who we is.

It needs no rain, it already swims in the intestines.

I’m not saying I’m against term limits at all, I’m not. I’m saying we have the power and we don’t use it.

You had me until the part where you inferred that it is a President…and not YOU…that makes you ‘wealthy’.