| | | Inode, Anyone can plainly see that these trials were designed from the ground up to interfere with his re-election bid. Oh give me a break. There's an election cycle every four years.
What you're telling me is that political candidates should be immune from prosecution during campaign season, because any charges filed against said candidates are automatically assumed to be "politically motivated."
Not one of the trials against Trump to date has been a fair trial. Then prove it. Show me an example of how Trump lost a case that any other person would have won.
In the EGC case there was zero evidence and the creeps had to modify the long-held statute of limitations to even charge the man? The E. Jean Carroll case was determined by a preponderance of the evidence. zErO eViDeNcE would have failed that standard, so no, what you are saying is inaccurate.
And before you tell me that it was a "he said she said" circus, the available evidence that was admitted during the first trial supported Carroll's claims and contradicted Trump's claims.
Furthermore, if any doubt remained as to Trump's credibility in the first trial, that doubt should have been wiped out when Trump doubled down on his attacks against Carroll, thereby turning a $5M judgement into an $88M combined judgement.
Trump could have easily STFU, paid the original $5M, and let the Carroll case fade from memory, but no. He kept harping on and on about fAkE cHaRgEs, pOlItIcAlLy mOtIvAtEd jUdGeS, and wItCh hUnTs.
Like I said, he complains about the politics of the case while simultaneously supercharging the politics thereof, especially with his childish insults and his late-night social media benders.
He is indeed trying to sabotage the entire judicial system with his bombast and his hyper-politicization of the cases.
Change my mind.
Tenchusatsu |
|
