Trump now held in contempt of court

[Destroyer]

Originally Posted by bgreene

Judge lifts Trump contempt of court ruling - with contingencies .

https://www.cnn.com/2022/05/11/polit...mpt/index.html

Yep. one of them being that Trump has to pay $110,000 in accumulated fines. Personally it smacks of legal extorsion by the court to me, but that's just my opinion. Time will tell as this witch hunt plays out.

.

[bgreene]

Originally Posted by Destroyer

Yep. one of them being that Trump has to pay $110,000 in accumulated fines. Personally it smacks of legal extorsion by the court to me, but that's just my opinion. Time will tell as this witch hunt plays out.

.

Of course the key document are “ not available “ from Trump .

[bgreene]

Now trying to get the documents Trump took to Florida.
Good luck - likely he had all cheating related paperwork shredded.


https://www.cnn.com/2022/05/12/polit...ago/index.html

[Destroyer]

Originally Posted by bgreene

Now trying to get the documents Trump took to Florida.
Good luck - likely he had all cheating related paperwork shredded.


https://www.cnn.com/2022/05/12/polit...ago/index.html

More opinion with zero factual evidence. What IS factual is that Trump has already provided over one million pages of documents to that kangaroo court. I would tend to think if he had the documents (whatever they are) he would have provided them also. If the court thinks that the National Archives has the documents why didn't they just subpoena them in the beginning instead of making Trump look for them and pay that fine? (or maybe the whole idea was to make trump look bad and pay money?)

.

[bgreene]

Originally Posted by Destroyer

More opinion with zero factual evidence. What IS factual is that Trump has already provided over one million pages of documents to that kangaroo court. I would tend to think if he had the documents (whatever they are) he would have provided them also. If the court thinks that the National Archives has the documents why didn't they just subpoena them in the beginning instead of making Trump look for them and pay that fine? (or maybe the whole idea was to make trump look bad and pay money?)

.

That’s your opinion - the law and the judge says otherwise

[scook]

The “law” doesn’t “say” anything. It’s something judges or juries “apply” in decisions.

If you had any actual experience with the court system, you would know that judges and juries often err. Sometimes, it’s due to incompetence, prejudice or outright dishonesty of the judge, sometimes due to buying the lies of a clever lawyer - I’m this case, it seems likely that the judge is prejudiced. In any case, you claim certainty, heavily imputing guilt to Trump, when you are probably 100% ignorant of the facts of the case.

[bgreene]

Originally Posted by scook

The “law” doesn’t “say” anything. It’s something judges or juries “apply” in decisions.

If you had any actual experience with the court system, you would know that judges and juries often err. Sometimes, it’s due to incompetence, prejudice or outright dishonesty of the judge, sometimes due to buying the lies of a clever lawyer - I’m this case, it seems likely that the judge is prejudiced. In any case, you claim certainty, heavily imputing guilt to Trump, when you are probably 100% ignorant of the facts of the case.

You claim all legal challenges to trump are either biased or unfair .
You claim I’m probably 100 % ignorant to the facts.
And you write about “ bias”. That’s ……funny !