Could Trump do anything to make you stop supporting him?

  • Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.

    If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!

    To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.

cv5

Well-known member
Nov 20, 2018
22,884
8,344
113

ZNP

Well-known member
Sep 14, 2020
36,486
6,680
113
@WendellHusebo

Unhinged! Hunter Biden’s wife, Melissa Cohen-Biden, verbally assaults
@MarcoPolo501c3
founder Garrett Ziegler at Hunter's trial
@MarcoPolo501c3
is responsible for publishing a dossier on the Biden Crime Family that has yet to have one fact unproven Melissa got close to him, pointed her finger at him, and shouted: “You have no right to be here, you Nazi piece of s---” and then walked away. Ziegler did not respond to her Ziegler told NBC News: “For the record, I’m not a Nazi, I’m a believer in the U.S. Constitution. I haven’t said one thing to them.”
This doesn't make any sense. I would think Hunter's trial is exactly where a piece of s--- belongs.
 
N

Niki7

Guest
On what grounds do you judge all those people? Heresay from talk radio djs whose job it is to make you angry so they can reap ad revenue?

And he was convicted by a jury of his peers. That he selected. That he approved.

Not by a judge. Not by the white house. Not by a prosecutor. Not by vague axillaries. But by the evidence presented in court.
most definately not at all a jury of 'his peers'....

the term 'jury of his peers' has lost all actual meaning. Following is the actual meaning of the term, from the Legal Dictionary Site


jury of one's peers
n. a guaranteed right of criminal defendants, in which "peer" means an "equal." This has been interpreted by courts to mean that the available jurors include a broad spectrum of the population, particularly of race, national origin and gender. Jury selection may include no process which excludes those of a particular race or intentionally narrows the spectrum of possible jurors. It does not mean that women are to be tried by women, Asians by Asians, or African Americans by African Americans.

source

'he' picked them? from the ones offered? LOL!

oh yeah. that happened :rolleyes:
 
N

Niki7

Guest
The same now: if Trump won his case, you'd say the justice system works. Since he lost, you say it's a deep state conspiracy. You found him innocent before any evidence was ever entered into the record: you found him innocent because he is Trump.

The court of manipulated public opinion is not justice. It is not where truth is found.
The left found him guilty before any trial occurred. Tell us please; how do you turn a state case that was never a case and never bothered with by any other person in the legal system in NYC, into a Federal case?

And having performed that magic trick, how do you then try said case when it is past its statue of limitations?

what is a statue of limitations? This is a criminal statute of limitations. The main purpose of this criminal law is to ensure that evidence leading to a conviction has not deteriorated over a period of time. After a specified amount of time passes, the criminal case can no longer go to trial. oops

the only manipulations are those engendered by Bragg, and the judge who played to his audience

do you not consider the facts? don't bother trying to say Trump this or that. the entire LEGAL point is that a case was fabricated....should not have been brought...was never Federal and to top it off, Bragg does not have the legal right to try a Federal case whether or not he manufactured it

you do not even have to ask the question if Trump is guilty or not. The actual trial itself was unlawful
 
N

Niki7

Guest
Why didnt he testify in court?

Because he is famous the world over for blatantly lying, and that works great at his rallies, but in court it damns him.

He hired very clever, very expensive lawyers - not fools - and they knew that if they had any chance of preventing him from being condemned by his sin, the last thing they want him to do in a court of law is open his mouth.
You were not paying very good attention it seems. Most people do not testify at their own trial and while Trump said he would, he was advised not to by legal minds better than yours or mine

A criminal defendant is allowed to testify in their own defense in a criminal trial. But most criminal defendants do not. As part of their defense strategy, most criminal defense lawyers will recommend that you not testify in your own defense and instead let your lawyer present your case source

I have known for some time now that you are extremely prejudiced against Trump and I am not a MAGA person myself...I'm not even American...I would tend to lean Libertarian if anything....however, your neglect of facts and twisting of the same just really seems you either are angry that no one really is listening to what you say or you are doing your part for the Democrats which means you are not helping out this country in the least

Four more years of Biden and you can kiss this country good bye. I'll leave because I can.
 

cv5

Well-known member
Nov 20, 2018
22,884
8,344
113
The left found him guilty before any trial occurred. Tell us please; how do you turn a state case that was never a case and never bothered with by any other person in the legal system in NYC, into a Federal case?

And having performed that magic trick, how do you then try said case when it is past its statue of limitations?

what is a statue of limitations? This is a criminal statute of limitations. The main purpose of this criminal law is to ensure that evidence leading to a conviction has not deteriorated over a period of time. After a specified amount of time passes, the criminal case can no longer go to trial. oops

the only manipulations are those engendered by Bragg, and the judge who played to his audience

do you not consider the facts? don't bother trying to say Trump this or that. the entire LEGAL point is that a case was fabricated....should not have been brought...was never Federal and to top it off, Bragg does not have the legal right to try a Federal case whether or not he manufactured it

you do not even have to ask the question if Trump is guilty or not. The actual trial itself was unlawful
None of them should have been brought. It all was a political hit job from day one....premeditated, brazen, in your face, contemptuous.
 
N

Niki7

Guest
The intent of attempting to hide his sin was to influence his potential election.

It was a key part of the testimony and prosecution.

It is the same reason he now spreads all these lies about the trial being a sham.
Really? You sound like you are carrying water for the left and have lost the ability to think for yourself.

Anyway, you shall have ample time to pontificate on Baby Boy Biden's escapades. Should be interesting. He is accusing the FBI of changing the form he signed. Poor little druggie
 

cv5

Well-known member
Nov 20, 2018
22,884
8,344
113
Four more years of Biden and you can kiss this country good bye.
Nobody knows if the USD is going to last four more months.
Once that goes, it all goes. Banana republic here we come.
 
N

Niki7

Guest
Nobody knows if the USD is going to last four more months.
Once that goes, it all goes. Banana republic here we come.
Oh I think it will...in its current form of course

The age of Biden must be ushered in once again because, as we all know, this is a country of laws and the left would never do anything illegal or lie or cheat or let millions flow over the border or run interference for an old man who thinks he is playing some
kind of compurter generated game with 3D action.

Once the pretender is positioned once again, then the real initiative can begin. Something about totally transforming the country I believe? There is still some of America left to deal with....doggone those NRA advocates

Should death or complete breakdown and inability to speak even while pumped full of juice to animate him occur, then another shall take his place and it will not be the current vp. Of course the left may opt out of putting him on the ballot anyway.....but be sure they have no intention of a fair vote.

As they proved last time

The thing with bananas is that they ripen very quickly. And get mushy
 

ZNP

Well-known member
Sep 14, 2020
36,486
6,680
113
Really? You sound like you are carrying water for the left and have lost the ability to think for yourself.

Anyway, you shall have ample time to pontificate on Baby Boy Biden's escapades. Should be interesting. He is accusing the FBI of changing the form he signed. Poor little druggie
Somebody is going to have to take the fall for this, so either it is going to be Hunter or the FBI. Let's see how entitled Hunter really is.
 

PennEd

Senior Member
Apr 22, 2013
13,578
9,094
113
This woman sounds like the leftists here that hate Trump, and refuse to admit that this is all politically motivated attacks against not only a former, but soon to be again president, and a pure display of how fascist/communist countries operate.

May all the shame that can be mustered pour down on them and their dark hearts:

https://x.com/CitizenFreePres/status/1798082014526238782
 

Susanna

Well-known member
Apr 14, 2023
1,599
520
113
48
Galveston and Houston
It’s getting more and more obvious that Trump’s game is spreading fear to get people support him. He’s going on about how terrible everything is, but how likely is his predictions? The economy is going up and down regardless of presidents, the wars are going on no matter what a one termed president is saying, and quite frankly, everything is cyclical, just like the climate.
 

Susanna

Well-known member
Apr 14, 2023
1,599
520
113
48
Galveston and Houston
most definately not at all a jury of 'his peers'....

the term 'jury of his peers' has lost all actual meaning. Following is the actual meaning of the term, from the Legal Dictionary Site


jury of one's peers
n. a guaranteed right of criminal defendants, in which "peer" means an "equal." This has been interpreted by courts to mean that the available jurors include a broad spectrum of the population, particularly of race, national origin and gender. Jury selection may include no process which excludes those of a particular race or intentionally narrows the spectrum of possible jurors. It does not mean that women are to be tried by women, Asians by Asians, or African Americans by African Americans.

source

'he' picked them? from the ones offered? LOL!

oh yeah. that happened :rolleyes:
I don’t get this. In most states both the prosecution and the defense have an equal right to dismiss jurors they don’t want to be part of the jury.
 

ZNP

Well-known member
Sep 14, 2020
36,486
6,680
113
Here is what I don't get, the laptop from hell has just been entered into evidence in this Hunter Biden trial. This is the same laptop that Joe Biden lied about to the entire country when he said it was Russia disinformation. He tried to slander the business partners of Hunter who were testifying about it. For 3 1/2 years they accused slandered people who referred to it. You weren't allowed to reference this in the last election because of this lie that it was Russian disinformation. That laptop is not simply evidence of Hunter's crimes, or of the Secret Service covering up his crimes, it is also evidence of the FBI's crimes (by law when you have evidence that a minor is in danger you must act within 24 hours, they sat on this for years). It is also evidence against Joe Biden on multiple crimes, real ones, not the phony make believe crimes they are now prosecuting presidents with, but real crimes. So what I don't get is why is Joe Biden still running as the Democratic nominee for President?
 

cv5

Well-known member
Nov 20, 2018
22,884
8,344
113
Simon Ateba

@simonateba

Subscribe

BREAKING - MUST WATCH: This was perhaps the most EXPLOSIVE exchange today between Dr. Anthony Fauci and Congressman Rich McCormick (
@RepMcCormick
), a medical doctor who treated patients during COVID but was censored for pointing out the science.

MD: ‘Despite my education and my training and my experience, my opinions were relegated to conspiracy and misinformation by so-called healthcare experts who had never treated a patient throughout the entire pandemic’

https://x.com/simonateba/status/1797722146296184977
 

HeIsHere

Well-known member
May 21, 2022
5,830
2,269
113
The intent of attempting to hide his sin was to influence his potential election.

It was a key part of the testimony and prosecution.

It is the same reason he now spreads all these lies about the trial being a sham.

I think it is important to separate out what is unethical, immoral and what is illegal.

His desire to hide his money probably was two fold, keep himself in a positive light in the eyes in the evangelicals who are his supporters for the most part and avoid Melania knowing about it.

Agree, probably best he let his lawyers speak on his behalf, however he needs to keep people agitated on his behalf.

Having stated this, I do think these there are many problems when lawyers go to trial and they themselves are not clear on what law was broken.

You must admit the timing of this was so the Democrats could immediately after the trial start with label of "convicted felon."
Even if you hate Trump, I think it is obvious that this was a political move presented with a facade of illegality.
 

HeIsHere

Well-known member
May 21, 2022
5,830
2,269
113
did you not follow the trial?
did you only follow the propaganda steering you away from the most basic facts of the case?

The prosecution alleged the falsifications were made to conceal Trump’s violation of New York state election law, which makes it a crime to promote the election of any person to office through unlawful means.
Prosecutors argued, in part, that those unlawful means were the $130,000 payment to Daniels, which was in effect an illegal campaign contribution, because it was done for the benefit of his 2016 campaign and exceeded the $2,700 individual contribution cap.

This trial is about the application of the law and not about individual testimonies, I think on appeal it will become much clearer if the law was correctly applied.