Bonus question…

@shavixmir said
Uhhhh… has the case been decided?
It looks like the prosecution thinks there’s a felony.

Personally? trump altering a weather map would be enough for me to send the man to the US to cause stupidity.
But he was already there. And Americans are seemingly the dumbest fukking creatures on Earth.

Best warch out, before Wayoma comes raping you. If he could find the US on a map, that is.

Now Shav has moved us closer. He says it ‘looks like the prosecution thinks there is a felony.”
I ‘think’ it will be cloudy at sunset,,,,but, maybe not.
You would convict Trump for altering a weather map? That is not very freedom-loving of you. Oh wait, you don’t know freedom.

@no1marauder said
Which stupid thing do you believe;

A) That a corporate check isn't a "business record";

B) That specifying the exact business record(s) defendant is accused of falsifying doesn't give him sufficient notice?

keep digging little man 😂

@mott-the-hoople said
Trump has a constitutional right to know exactly what the charges are...he has not been afforded that

He's been afforded all the constitutional rights any criminal defendant in New York has at this stage of the proceedings.

He's not entitled to anything more just because right wing dupes love him.

The post that was quoted here has been removed

Easy Mott, no need for that. Let the others do that.

@averagejoe1 said
Easy Mott, no need for that. Let the others do that.

that is what got us where we are at now…I am not shy

@mott-the-hoople said
that is what got us where we are at now…I am not shy

No, you're an ignorant, bigoted a**hole.

@no1marauder said
No, you're an ignorant, bigoted a**hole.

dont be around me if you dont want the truth lille man

@no1marauder said
No, you're an ignorant, bigoted a**hole.

No wonder this guy more than likely sucks as a lawyer.😀

The post that was quoted here has been removed

There is nothing in the US Constitution or anywhere else saying that the Grand Jury must list predicate crimes. There are ample provisions in NY and every other State's law for that information to be given to defendants well before trial.

The Sixth Amendment largely refers to trial rights; defendants don't get to "confront the witnesses against them" in a Grand Jury proceeding for example.

And you really should be banned for your constant homophobic attacks on other posters. From the Posting Guidelines:

"Hate speech is not permitted."

@no1marauder said
There is nothing in the US Constitution or anywhere else saying that the Grand Jury must list predicate crimes. There are ample provisions in NY and every other State's law for that information to be given to defendants well before trial.

The Sixth Amendment largely refers to trial rights; defendants don't get to "confront the witnesses against them" in a Grand Jury pr ...[text shortened]... homophobic attacks on other posters. From the Posting Guidelines:

"Hate speech is not permitted."

Marauder, libs are not too keen on the Constitution when it does not suit them. Here you use the Constitution to make your point?
Help me Rhonda.
This is a good example of why your being often conflicted is hard to debate with. At least you did not smother us with links.
Please see this one for me , to prove MY point.

https://www.thecrimson.com/article/2011/1/19/constitution-congress-government-liberals/

@averagejoe1 said
Marauder, libs are not too keen on the Constitution when it does not suit them. Here you use the Constitution to make your point?
Help me Rhonda.
This is a good example of why your being often conflicted is hard to debate with. At least you did not smother us with links.
Please see this one for me , to prove MY point.

https://www.thecrimson.com/article/2011/1/19/constitution-congress-government-liberals/

I've read such tripe before.

Few right wingers will admit that: A) The Constitution was a vast expansion of Federal power as opposed to the prior, ineffectual Articles of Confederation and Perpetual Union; and B) That the commerce clause was meant to give the US Congress considerable latitude in managing the country's economy (the failure of Federal power to do so was the main cause of the economic crisis that led to the Constitutional Convention).

@no1marauder said
I've read such tripe before.

Few right wingers will admit that: A) The Constitution was a vast expansion of Federal power as opposed to the prior, ineffectual Articles of Confederation and Perpetual Union; and B) That the commerce clause was meant to give the US Congress considerable latitude in managing the country's economy (the failure of Federal power to do so was the main cause of the economic crisis that led to the Constitutional Convention).

Wow , what a segue. Anyway, I do not blame you for shirking on this one, I am as clear as a bell. I am not writing about the Convention, nor Federal Power, nor perpetual union, nor the economy.
Or, are you actually saying that the Constitution should not be followed?

@averagejoe1 said
Wow , what a segue. Anyway, I do not blame you for shirking on this one, I am as clear as a bell. I am not writing about the Convention, nor Federal Power, nor perpetual union, nor the economy.
Or, are you actually saying that the Constitution should not be followed?

Then I don't know WTF you are talking about.

I'm saying the Constitution was meant to give broad powers to the Federal government and that attempts by right wingers to read it in a cramped way (like the article you cited to) are historically unjustified.

@no1marauder said
Then I don't know WTF you are talking about.

I'm saying the Constitution was meant to give broad powers to the Federal government and that attempts by right wingers to read it in a cramped way (like the article you cited to) are historically unjustified.

oh my...the constitution is to give RIGHTS TO THE PEOPLE

how ignorant can you be