Trump admin cuts funding to Maine universities as state defies order to ban trans athletes from women's sports
Gay & Lesbian by HatetheSwamp     March 12, 2025 4:11 am (Rating: 0.0) Last comment by: meagain (4 comments) [36 views]

Putin wants direct White House talks before Ukraine ceasefire, but says he is open to deal in principle
International by HatetheSwamp     March 13, 2025 10:41 am (Rating: 0.0) Last comment by: oldedude (6 comments) [74 views]

NewsNation: Trump is lying about the trade deal that he initiated and negotiated
Government by Curt_Anderson     March 13, 2025 10:12 am (Rating: 0.0) Last comment by: oldedude (3 comments) [55 views]

EPA head says he’ll roll back dozens of environmental regulations, including rules on climate change
Government by HatetheSwamp     March 13, 2025 6:22 am (Rating: 0.0) Last comment by: meagain (5 comments) [67 views]

Dems’ own polling shows massive brand problem ahead of 2026
Politics by HatetheSwamp     March 13, 2025 9:06 am (Rating: 0.0) Last comment by: oldedude (1 comments) [51 views]

This helps explain why I like living in Oregon!
Religion by Curt_Anderson     March 12, 2025 3:39 pm (Rating: 5.0) Last comment by: HatetheSwamp (3 comments) [154 views]

Trump's right: Inflation rate hits 2.8% in February, less than expected
Opinion by HatetheSwamp     March 12, 2025 6:28 am (Rating: 0.0) Last comment by: oldedude (1 comments) [52 views]

Ukraine agrees to U.S.-led ceasefire plan if Russia accepts
International by HatetheSwamp     March 11, 2025 11:54 am (Rating: 0.0) Last comment by: oldedude (4 comments) [66 views]

9 Essential Items France Is Providing In Defense Of Ukraine
International by HatetheSwamp     March 11, 2025 6:55 am (Rating: 0.0) Last comment by: oldedude (8 comments) [91 views]

NEWSFLASH! Nobody Trusts the Dims! 😱
News by oldedude     March 11, 2025 7:30 pm (Rating: 0.0) Last comment by: meagain (8 comments) [158 views]

Have I got this right...? By Ponderer January 7, 2025 7:40 am Category: Crime (0.0 from 0 votes) Rules of the Post Write A New Article How To Post Here

Apparently, according to MAGA Hats...

It is supposed to be that no political figure of Party "A", for whom there is clear evidence discovered by investigative journalists of having committed one or more felonies, shall be criminally investigated, charged, tried, convicted, and/or sentenced to prison for any of said crimes, if Party "B" is in power.

Non-compliance with this unwritten law constitutes what is known as "lawfare".


Has anyone else got a better, more accurate definition of that term?

Comments Start Below

by HatetheSwamp on January 7, 2025 7:52 am "...discovered by investigative journalists..." Y'mean, like the Weekly World News? by Ponderer on January 7, 2025 9:06 am No. by HatetheSwamp on January 7, 2025 9:19 am Okay. Who are the investigative journalists? What is the evidence? by Ponderer on January 7, 2025 9:35 am Okay. So Hate has no idea what the hell "lawfare" is supposed to mean. Does anyone else here have any idea of what "lawfare" actually means? by HatetheSwamp on January 7, 2025 9:38 am Lawfare is the use of legal systems and institutions to damage or delegitimize an opponent, or to deter an individual's usage of their legal rights. It can also refer to the use of the law by a country against its enemies, especially by challenging the legality of military or foreign policy. The term was coined by retired Maj Gen Charles Dunlap, USAF, in 2001. Although the study of lawfare as a concept is relatively new in the United States, states have employed lawfare for centuries. by Curt_Anderson on January 7, 2025 10:10 am Thanks, HtS. I am glad to know Trump is not a victim of lawfare. Trump's damage was and is self-inflicted. He implicated himself by recording his crimes on audio- and videotape. He delegitimizing himself in the eyes of law respecting citizens. He was not accused or charged with any "unique" crime. Anybody else would be in jail if they tried committing any of Trump's crimes. Nobody limited Trump's usage of his legal rights. I cannot think of a single person who used more stalling tactics and appeals than Trump. He's employed an army of lawyers. by Indy! on January 7, 2025 10:12 am No that the Brown Shorts are in control - there is no law. by HatetheSwamp on January 7, 2025 10:15 am Curt, Unlike po... and you, I'm not a former Supreme Court clerk, nor am I a prof at a first-rate law school. I'm just a simple geezer who has three Legal Goobers. Your argument is with them. I merely report. by Ponderer on January 7, 2025 3:59 pm And Curt, as far as the 34 felony convictions go, he was easily found guilty by the jury on all counts. The evidence was absolutely plain and simple, obvious and undeniable. As evidenced by the fact that neither Trump nor his attorneys ever launched anything vaguely resembling a defense. The attorneys even had to concede that the documentary evidence was not incorrect or forged. He flat-out broke the law. It was obvious for the jury to conclude pretty quickly. There was not only no doubt about it, but his lawyers couldn't ever construct anything like one. by Curt_Anderson on January 7, 2025 4:35 pm "As evidenced by the fact that neither Trump nor his attorneys ever launched anything vaguely resembling a defense." ---Ponderer Quite right. To your point, the only "defense" offered is the lame argument that ex-president Trump should be protected by presidential immunity for his non-official (mis)behavior, which they argued unsuccessfully and repeatedly including today. by Ponderer on January 7, 2025 4:50 pm Yup. They even had to admit that it was in actual fact Donald J. Trump's signature on all those felonious documents, made so by his signature on them. by HatetheSwamp on January 7, 2025 4:56 pm "neither Trump nor his attorneys ever launched anything vaguely resembling a defense." Let me guess. You got that from Rachel??? by Curt_Anderson on January 7, 2025 5:07 pm OK, HtS, what defense in the hush money case did Trump offer? Presidential immunity, statue of limitations, other people do it too, etc. is not a substantive defense. by HatetheSwamp on January 8, 2025 3:31 am Curt, Holy freakin friggin EFFINcow! How you could think Trump's lawyers didn't offer a vigorous defense in that Stalinesque fiasco is beyond me... (how po could makes sense.) See link: abcnews.go.com by HatetheSwamp on January 8, 2025 4:06 am po, Re: "The evidence was absolutely plain and simple, obvious and undeniable. As evidenced by the fact that neither Trump nor his attorneys ever launched anything vaguely resembling a defense." Bahahahahahahahahahaha baha haha ha! You're a hoot. I continue, after all these years, to be amazed how organically you assume that the preferences and prejudices that you bring with you to every moment of your life are indisputable, objective fact (which it ain't.) And, as I've noted, I used to admire it until you made plain how loathesomely your subjectivity includes vicious antisemitism. It's not amusing, nor adorable, n'more. See link: abcnews.go.com by Ponderer on January 8, 2025 7:02 am "Presidential immunity, statute of limitations, other people do it too, etc. is not a substantive defense." -Curt No kidding, right? There are some people whose grasp of our justice system wallows in so much willful ignorance that they can't understand the basic simplicity of how none of that constitutes an actual defense. None of us here are legal experts by any means. But some of us at least understand the elementary basics of how the legal system in this country works. It certainly doesn't take a doctorate in law to comprehend that much. Some people apparently think that if some subject is too complex for them to understand, it is therefore too complicated for anyone lacking anything short of a PhD in the subject to understand. If Trump's attorneys had gotten up before the jury and read Green Eggs and Ham, willfully stupid people like Hate would argue that it constituted a legitimate and unassailable defense, because they are in point of fact totally ignorant of what one is. by Ponderer on January 8, 2025 7:22 am "Thanks, HtS. I am glad to know Trump is not a victim of lawfare." -Curt Exactly. He absolutely isn't. According to Trump's "poorly educated" like Hate, if a politician is a member of the party that isn't in power, they should be shielded from any legal responsibility even if they blatantly commit crimes. That's likely one of the reasons that he "loves" them. I'm not talking about bullshit nonsense that the Republicans always try to make up and accuse Democrats of without a single shred of actual, legitimate evidence. I'm talking about crimes actually committed by politicians where loads of indictable evidence actually exist, and juries even find the defendant guilty of in a court of law. Funny how GQP accusations never even get to the indictment phase. Even when they are the party in power and had full power to do so if there was an actual case. . by HatetheSwamp on January 8, 2025 7:29 am Curt/po, Re: "Presidential immunity, statute of limitations, other people do it too, etc. is not a substantive defense." Trust ole pb on this: The presidential immunity thing came in late, after the Supreme Court decision... But, the rest of the defense case was IMO brilliant. H€ck, as po'd say, EFFINbrilliant. Clearly, Trump was not going to get a fair trial. Trump's team did little to achieve a fair jury... New York's s justice system has been politicized since Tammany Hall. Stalin could have taken lessons from it. Everyone who reasons knows that. Check the timeline in the ABC article. What Trump's team was put Judge Merchan in the position to have to make numerous appealable errors, which he did consistently throughout the trial. Merchan gave Trump another gift, according to the Legal Goobers, in providing highly flawed instructions to the jury. pb's Legal Goober #2 notes consistently that Judge Merchan's rulings are "riddled with error." That was the Trump strategy from the beginning. Bottom line: If, after sentencing, Trump appeals... eventually, when a court that dispenses justice gets the case, two things will happen. 1. Trump's conviction will be overturned. 2. Judge Merchan will be a hero and a martyr to every citizen of the woke Swampcult in the land. Mark pb's word. by Ponderer on January 8, 2025 7:45 am "But, the rest of the defense case was IMO brilliant. H€ck, as po'd say, EFFINbrilliant." -Hate The Prosecution rests. See how willfully ignorant he is? He doesn't understand at all just how stupid that statement was in the face of what actually happened. Trump told him and the rest of MAGAdom that he presented a "brilliant" defense, and so faithful and brainless MAGA Hats like Hate accept it as reality. by HatetheSwamp on January 8, 2025 8:31 am po, I've noted frequently that I wish I had your advantages. I'm not a former Supreme Court clerk nor am I on the faculty of a prestigious Ivy League law school. I only know what my highly accurate Legal Goobers tell me. by HatetheSwamp on January 8, 2025 8:39 am Jury Instructions Are Very Favorable To Donald Trump Prosecutors The jury instructions in former President Donald Trump's hush money trial are very favorable to the prosecutor, an attorney has said. Greg Germain, a professor at Syracuse University College of Law in New York, said Judge Juan Merchan's instructions to the jury, before they began deliberations on Wednesday, did not explain that the falsified documents at the center of the case related to crimes that Trump allegedly committed. "The judge let the prosecution have multiple theories: tax fraud, campaign finance violation, or another document falsified, and didn't make it clear how the fraud and separate crime must relate to the documents charge," Germain told Newsweek. "The jurors asked to hear the jury instructions again. The jury instructions are so favorable to the prosecution, and so unclear about what the jurors have to find to convict, that I expect they are very confused about what the case is about," Germain said. Germain said that the judge has let the prosecution offer far too many theories on why there are falsified documents in the case. "The jurors are trying in good faith to do their job, but the judge didn't help by making the prosecution clarify the issues. We're going to get a jury verdict that doesn't specify what the jurors found. We're not going to know why the jury decided whatever they decide," he said. Among Merchan's instructions to the jury was that for Trump to be convicted, all jurors must agree he falsified business documents to cover up a crime. However, they do not have to agree on what the crime he was trying to cover up was, Merchan said. Apparently, po, NEWSWEEK's expert doesn't have your advantages, either. Yet, everyone I know who's familiar with you wishes they could be smart like you, baha. newsweek.com by Ponderer on January 8, 2025 8:39 am And another problem with stupid people like Hate is that they are too stupid to know that the crap they are being fed by their so called experts is malarkey. But they are telling them what they want to hear, so that's fine with them. by HatetheSwamp on January 8, 2025 8:52 am I wish, for one mere fleeting moment, I could be smart just like po!!!!! Yet, alas... by meagain on January 8, 2025 9:30 am The case was really a rather simple one and Trump is as guilty as sin. Of course, his team of expensive lawyers could drag it out and raise all manner of technicalities and hope that something would stick like the issue they have based their objection on. However, the central question is a simple one and, unless Merchan did make some error in instructing the jury, Trump should be for the high jump. by HatetheSwamp on January 8, 2025 9:37 am meagain, There are two sets of problems for the trial. Merchan's ridiculous jury instructions is, indeed, one of them. T'other is his many questionable rulings during the course of the trial. by Ponderer on January 8, 2025 9:39 am Right, meagain. The basic facts are that Donald Trump committed crimes, was indicted for actual crimes, tried for those crimes, and was found guilty by a jury of having committed those crimes. MAGA Hats, like Hate, simply refuse to accept that it's a simple and officially proven fact that he committed all the felonies that he was tried for. It's his own signatures that condemned him. His signatures on those fraudulently constructed documents made him guilty of fraud. Plain and simple. by HatetheSwamp on January 8, 2025 11:10 am Y'know, po. I think Trump did stuff. But, I think that a court that executes justice under the law will determine that he's not guilty of legitimate felonies... ... but, I'm stoopid. And, you're smart. Still, you were wrong about a lot recently. And, my Legal Goobers were bang on. by Curt_Anderson on January 8, 2025 11:39 am “ How you could think Trump's lawyers didn't offer a vigorous defense in that Stalinesque fiasco is beyond me...” —-HtS Read your own link. I did. Quote where you think Trump’s defense made a substantive defense arguing Trump’s innocence. Spoiler alert: They didn’t. by HatetheSwamp on January 8, 2025 12:11 pm Hey, gang, pb's Legal Goober #3 will be on that gay Guy Curt never heard of's radio program today at 4:35 EST. He'll set y'nes straight. by Curt_Anderson on January 8, 2025 12:16 pm That’s not going to happen, HtS. If you, a cult member in good standing, cannot point to substantive Trump defense argument made in court, nobody can. by HatetheSwamp on January 8, 2025 12:21 pm "That’s not going to happen, HtS." I think it will work. Perhaps you can think of Trump's defense as the MY COUSIN VINNY defense. Vinny picked apart the prosecutor's case witness by witness. by Curt_Anderson on January 8, 2025 12:36 pm HtS, There never was a Mona Lisa Vito Pontiac Trans Am transferential moment in the Trump court case. The court case has already happened, and it was widely reported, including on Fox News. If I am wrong, show me where Trump‘s Legal team made a Substantive defense worthy of my cousin Vinny. by HatetheSwamp on January 8, 2025 12:58 pm The court case has already happened, and it was widely reported, including on Fox News. Nuh uh. H€ck, Trump has an appeal in front of the US Court at this moment! by Curt_Anderson on January 8, 2025 1:06 pm So? Trump isn't presenting a defense in front of SCOTUS. He's arguing that being labeled a formally sentenced felon would be a hindrance in his job as president. by HatetheSwamp on January 8, 2025 1:33 pm Link? by Curt_Anderson on January 8, 2025 1:48 pm "This court should enter an immediate stay of further proceedings in the New York trial court to prevent grave injustice and harm to the institution of the presidency and the operations of the federal government" ---Trump's lawyers reuters.com by HatetheSwamp on January 8, 2025 2:06 pm "Trump isn't presenting a defense in front of SCOTUS. He's arguing that being labeled a formally sentenced felon would be a hindrance in his job as president." That's not a fair representation of what Trump is saying, according to my Legal Goobers #s 2 and 3. Ultimately, Trump's saying that he cannot be sentenced while his appeals are pending. Now, I'm not po. But, I think he's making a good point. by Curt_Anderson on January 8, 2025 2:19 pm If that’s true, Trump and his legal sycophants have it ass-backwards. In most jurisdictions, an appeal cannot be made before a defendant is sentenced, as an appeal typically only applies to a final judgment, which is usually entered after sentencing is complete. by HatetheSwamp on January 8, 2025 3:12 pm pb's Legal Goober #1: Trump is not a felon--no matter what the NY courts rule bingo View Video by Ponderer on January 9, 2025 6:49 am Give it up, Curt. When it comes to the point that someone like Hate is actually spouting nonsense from a "legal expert" who says that a person who was found guilty of multiple felonies is not a felon, he's simply gone. There's nothing really left there to argue with any longer. His derangement over Trump is complete and total. by meagain on January 9, 2025 11:49 am I read an interesting article today in which it was pointed out that Trump may not be allowed to attend the coming meeting of the G7 since a convicted criminal is not allowed to enter the country until their sentence is served and a pardon is obtained. Or, a couple of other procedures. Most countries have similar provisions and Britain as well as Europe has recently adopted a need to obtain permission to enter the country in advance of travel. Normally, I would have expected the requirements to be waived for a foreign leader but given trump's behaviour and his interference in the affairs of other countries, I wonder. by HatetheSwamp on January 9, 2025 12:01 pm Oh, I hope he's banned. That'd be a tribute to Dem corruption! Yeehee ha! Go To Top

Find old posts & articles

Show Most Recent Articles Articles by category: Politics+ Religion+ Law & Crime Military News Media History Health Sports+ Humor Entertainment Misc.

Report spam & abuse SelectSmart.com home page