• Xenforo Cloud is upgrading us to version 2.3.8 on Monday February 16th, 2026 at 12:00 AM PST. Expect a temporary downtime during this process. More info here

Elections Trump Indicted On 91 Counts

You can tell who the losers are because they don't believe in Trump's innocence they just want to delay the cases until after the election.

Here's what I don't understand...

People scream left, right, and center, that the election was rigged, and Trump did nothing wrong. Yet, they just delay and run interference when it comes to trials. Why not just take it to trial, win, then use that as fuel for the election since he's innocent?
 
Here's what I don't understand...

People scream left, right, and center, that the election was rigged, and Trump did nothing wrong. Yet, they just delay and run interference when it comes to trials. Why not just take it to trial, win, then use that as fuel for the election since he's innocent?
Because there's no excuse for the fraudulent electors and all the other chicanery Trump pulled after the election. It's fingers in their ears and lalalalalalaing "I can't hear you"...
 


Shay Moss and Lady Ruby get the NY condo AND the Florida condo!

"Where is Rudy Giuliani going to live?"

With any luck,
chris-farley-when-youre-livin-in-a-van-down-by-the-river.gif
 
Not sure if this has been posted yet, but there’s been some movement in the Jan 6 case. With the SCOTUS case decided, it’s now back in Judge Chutkan’s hands. She rejected Trump’s motion to dismiss, and set a hearing for Aug 16 for both sides to submit a proposed schedule for pretrial proceedings. At some point here along the way, Chutkan will have to make some decisions as to what constitutes official or unofficial acts.
 
Last edited:
Manhattan district attorney Alvin Bragg has conceded that it would be prudent for the state court to postpone the sentencing of Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump, which is currently scheduled to occur on September 18.

In a letter to Judge Juan Merchan, which was docketed by the court on Monday (though it is dated the prior Friday), Bragg acknowledged that some of the evidence introduced by his prosecutors at last spring’s trial was improperly admitted under the Supreme Court’s immunity ruling in United States v. Trump.


Just like we said... and that is only the tip of the iceberg for this case. That means those 34 counts are toast. Just like the docs case and Georgia Election case... Trump is walking as this was all pure lawfare.

In a years time the Democrats tried to bankrupt Trump, tried to imprison Trump, raided his home with "deadly force" order in place to scare him and his family, they imprisoned his associates on items not related to Trump, and they provided him terrible security to the point where he was almost assassinated.
 
0-91

Lawfare has been exposed. The Civil cases against Trump will be over turned as well.
 

Over the weekend, Donald Trump expressed in a speech his belief that public criticism of judges and Supreme Court justices who rule in Trump’s favor should be illegal.

Trump took this position expressly, twice, in his speech, albeit in a stream-of-consciousness riff. His basic point was that public critics of Trump-appointed judges who make rulings Trump approves of are “working the refs.”

Trump first claimed this is illegal. (“I really think it’s illegal what they do, with judges and justices. They’re playing the ref.”) Later in the speech, he said it ought to be illegal. (“Remember the term. Playing the ref with our judges and justices should be punishable by very serious fines and beyond that.”)

In the middle of these two statements, he managed, in typical Trumpian fashion, to strip away any pretense of intellectual consistency by (1) saying that “working the refs” is wonderful and brilliant, because it was done by his friend, Bobby Knight, the former Indiana basketball coach who endorsed him, leading to Trump winning Indiana by a landslide, and (2) immediately making his own criticism of judges who rule against him. “The New York court system is totally corrupt,” Trump said.

A law against criticizing judges would be highly problematic, of course, but that is obviously not what Trump wants, since he sandwiched his calls for such a law around criticism of judges who ruled against him. Trump wants to ban criticizing judges who rule the way Trump wants them to rule.
 
Only someone as incredibly Whimpy as Whimpy McGoof could see the Orange Fraudster-Rapist being given Immunity by the SC and still walk around crying that things are so unfair for him. Boo hoo, nobody has ever been treated so unfairly. Everybody says so. People come up to me with tears in their eyes. Sir, sir...
 
Back
Top