Trump to be arrested by NY DA Tuesday March 21,2023

So are we still set to overthrow the government and behead Mike Pence or is that delayed too
 
There is a lot more to rigging an election than just playing around with ballots.
The whole kerfuffle about the Biden laptop definitely counts as election malfeasance and there is a hell of a lot more shady shit that was done not the least of which includes the pushing for mail-in ballots.
 
It's gonna be funny when nothing happens and everyone starts coping by calling trump stupid for tweeting truthing that something was going to happen.

Not even Wednesday...


View attachment 4850496
 
  • Feels
Reactions: Vyse Inglebard

No clue if true (and probably not) but would be an interdasting twist.

Fr1kfklXsAEL-vF.jpeg
 
Ara Ara, imma sensing some cold fucking feet. They have finally arrived at the point of no return, the cliff if you will, and they are staring down a pit that they know not the bottom. It's getting spooky. Arresting a president, former or not is unprecedented. They may hate him, but they are pissing and shitting right now.

No clue if true (and probably not) but would be an interdasting twist.

View attachment 4850720
I swear, if true... holy fuck, did, did we just win boys?
 
I swear, if true... holy fuck, did, did we just win boys?

Looks like some talking heads on Fox were speculating. Bragg allegedly had hundreds of pages of documents, but only gave six to the grand jury.

I have no earthly clue whether that proves or disproves anything. Sounds a little too good of a stroke of luck to be true.

Then again, we all know the Trump Curse is real.
 

Looks like some talking heads on Fox were speculating. Bragg allegedly had hundreds of pages of documents, but only gave six to the grand jury.

I have no earthly clue whether that proves or disproves anything. Sounds a little too good of a stroke of luck to be true.

Then again, we all know the Trump Curse is real.
Arrogance and pride is one hell of a drug, especially when you mix it with blinding hatred. Causes fuck ups. Zelotry.
 
What I wanna know is, if they do go for it, how they intend on getting the square peg in the round hole of the expired Statute of Limitations. Are they trying to set landmark precedent for Cadaver Synods?
 
  • Thunk-Provoking
Reactions: Vyse Inglebard
So this Costello guy saw Cohen saying on TV he had testified to things before this grand jury that he had also testified to in 2018

And his 2018 testimony (Trump didn't do shit) contradicted his new testimony (Trump totally guilty guise)

That 2018 testimony is what is known as exculpatory evidence

Bragg tried to hide that from the grand jury (okay) and Trump's lawyers (not okay)

This is why Costello testified yesterday

It's ogre

Trump wins again

The prosecution's star witness that their entire case is built upon contradicted sworn testimony he previously gave with his new sworn testimony. Reasonable doubt is established on that alone. It's also ample reason to dismiss unless the state has compelling new evidence, which it would have presented to the grand jury if it did
 
Last edited:

No clue if true (and probably not) but would be an interdasting twist.

View attachment 4850720

This is clearly just a smoke screen cooked up by Costello. He knows it’s an open and shut case and Trump is going to lose, so can only try to subvert the process and fling as much shit around as he can.

Yeah, Cohen has been an unreliable witness in the past. He was under a ton of pressure when Trump made him the escapegoat.
But if the specific question he’s being asked is backed up by irrefutable evidence, that’s all that matters.

Yes, Costello can point to mountains of emails. Who gives a shit if it’s not relevant to the prosecution.

He can imply that the jury is biased. He can imply that the judge is black or the DA is a Demogorgon. Nobody should pay any attention to this sort of sideshow. We live in a society.
 
Source? Source? Source?

Do you have a source on that?

Source?

A source. I need a source.

Sorry, I mean I need a source that explicitly states your argument. This is just tangential to the discussion.

No, you can't make inferences and observations from the sources you've gathered. Any additional comments from you MUST be a subset of the information from the sources you've gathered.

You can't make normative statements from empirical evidence.

Do you have a degree in that field?

A college degree? In that field?

Then your arguments are invalid.

No, it doesn't matter how close those data points are correlated. Correlation does not equal causation.

Correlation does not equal causation.

CORRELATION. DOES. NOT. EQUAL. CAUSATION.

You still haven't provided me a valid source yet.

Nope, still haven't.

I just looked through all 308 pages of your user history, figures I'm debating a glormpf supporter. A moron.
It was revealed to me in a dream.
 
Back