Bluffs and projection

[Dave's Not Here Man]

www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-13272023/trump-biden-state-union-drug-tests-presidential-debates.html

Off.
His.
Fucking.
Rocker.

Joe just needs to go on tv and say he won't debate an illegitimate loser with 91 pending felony charges, was found guilty of fraud in multiple schemes not only recently but with TrumpU and his own charity, among others. He should say he refuses to share a stage with a rapist and serial sexual predator. It should also be stated clearly that he (Biden) has nothing to gain by debating a traitor who tried to overturn the previous election by many means including inciting an insurrection, coercion, and conspiracy. And finally, that he will not be party to the nonsensical spectacle that defendant Trump puts on daily.

Obviously he could say a lot more or a lot less and be 100% within justification in my opinion.

[minx]

He has nothing to gain from debating him and everything to lose.

I say that he should simply say that he refuses to share a stage with a man who has been indicted on 91 charges, including endangering our national security.

Then talk about what he has done and plans to do going forward to help the American People.

[Dave's Not Here Man]

A man of fewer words is fine but I'd like to see him empty the full magazine to be honest, figuratively and literally.

[k9krap]

It’s only 88 charges now.

[Dave's Not Here Man]

Yeah but who's counting?

[minx]

Trial one starts Monday!

[k9krap]

One of the bricks being shit at MAL.

[Dave's Not Here Man]

Is it the Stormy Daniels one? Again, I can't keep track. Will be same shit regardless. If y'all think he's going to be convicted of anything give me a call because I have deal on a bridge you won't want to miss out on.

[k9krap]

It’s the one they’re calling “the hush money case”but it’s actually election interference. And yes, it’s Stormy and the National Enquirer and the other woman (can’t remember her name right now - I’m going on about 3 hours sleep today.)

[k9krap]

Oh, and there’s also the bond hearing next week to determine if the repo man can cover the $175m bond he put up even though he isn’t qualified to operate in New York.

ETA:  Karen McDougal.  I remembered her name!  

[minx]

The problem with this case is that it's being portrayed as a payout to keep a prostitute quiet. Most people don't realize how serious this was or the repercussions. As you noted Pam, it's 100% election interference and fraud.

[Dave's Not Here Man]

Apr 11, 2024 11:14:24 GMT -5 minx said:

Trial one starts Monday!

Jury selection...... not the trial. 


Good luck finding an impartial jury at this point. Even the Pygmies in New Guinea have their minds made up.

[minx]

Well, the WaPo had an article yesterday where they interviewed 12 random people and asked if they had heard about the case and if they felt they could be an impartial juror.

Sadly enough there were 2 who had never heard of the charges at all. Out of the 12, only 4 said they couldn't be impartial - one was a Trump fan and the other 3 hated his guts.

I applaud the 4 honest people in the group. The one who hadn't heard of the charges sounded brain-dead, so impartial maybe, but intelligent enough to decided anything, no. The other one said he could be impartial, but when asked if he had an opinion of Trump, he said no then added that he liked that he spoke his mind on things.

It's 100% NOT RIGHT, but I'm kind of at the point where each juror who's seated should divulge who they voted for in 2020. That way the prosecutor can show that the panel is politically balanced between his voters and others. And yeah, not voting at all counts too. Just so that it can be shown that it's truly a jury of his peers.

Not that any of it matters - he'll buy time until the election and if he wins then everyone who tried to get justice will get none themselves

[Dave's Not Here Man]

This is my shocked face.

I have no doubt there are people out there, somewhere, that are completely "out of the loop" as we say. Those are the ones you see stumped when asked random questions about the country they live in. They might know who the president is but 50/50 on the VP and the numbers just go down from there if asked to name any current representative all the way down to governor of their state. Anyone from there on down to their congresscritters is probably below 20%, which merely by coincidence I'm sure is the %of people that show up to help select their democratic representation. No, that's not who I would choose to decide the future of our democracy any more than people that would be partial.

[k9krap]

I definitely couldn’t be impartial. They dismissed 400+ jurors is morning because of this.

[Dave's Not Here Man]

Which furthers my prediction that he'll never be convicted of any crimes.

Watch.

Anyone that sits on any jury in these yet to be seen trials will be targeted and exploited by the Clinton corruption machine.

[minx]

I worry about the jurors. Their names will be kept concealed in the courtroom for fear of reprisal against them. But who's to say that Trump won't announce them anyway? He hasn't abided by any gag rule yet and hasn't faced any consequences for it.

And given the actions of his loyal followers, you bet your ass that I'd say I loathe the man and couldn't be impartial. Why risk my life and potentially the lives of my family?

[Dave's Not Here Man]

That is 100% what I meant in my previous post... obviously the Clinton reference was sarcasm.