Jacksonville Jaguars Fan Forums

(08-15-2023, 06:15 AM)homebiscuit Wrote: [ -> ]

(08-15-2023, 02:29 AM)p_rushing Wrote: [ -> ]So it was a fake published on their website? Right, sure we will go with that.

It was either incompetence or done on purpose.

If you have ever been in a government building in Fulton County, you can understand that incompetence would be the initial thought. The few times I had to go to this building or one of the others, I tried to interact as little as possible with the employees or I wouldn't get whatever I needed done. I almost lost it once and asked the head of the tax department if him or any of his employees knew how to add and subtract. (Don't buy a car out of state and register it in GA or at least don't prepay any taxes as they don't do math).

The indictment shouldn't have been sent to be published before the grand jury had deliberated and released their verdict. Legally this shows bias, prejudice, and malicious prosecution. The grand jury was sealed and this was unsealed without a verdict being reached. Courts throw out cases for paperwork errors and this is a huge issue for someone who is presumed innocent. The indictment should easily be nullified and sanctions placed on the DA. Courts take that very serious and if Trump wants to push it he could.

Sent from my SM-T970 using Tapatalk

Good question. Here’s a couple of news article, rather than a tweet from some random person who echoes an ideological view, which addresses that question. The answer? There is none. It was deflected by the DA. 

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/...r-AA1fhGKT

https://www.cbsnews.com/atlanta/news/ful...nst-trump/

We all know they weren't hacked and someone sent the file to be entered to the clerk. The clerks generally just do what the paperwork says, they don't usually have to think in their job. They have to deal with jury duty and other stuff, so they follow procedures and don't deviate. Someone leaked and sent it. For a sealed grand jury, there is very limited access. The DA or one of the other attorneys on the team would have had to leak it.

Which the DA should face the consequences for the leak of a sealed case.

(08-15-2023, 12:26 PM)NYC4jags Wrote: [ -> ]

(08-15-2023, 12:17 PM)Sneakers Wrote: [ -> ]You forgot one rather important word (assuming you believe in all that fair and impartial trial nonsense).

The primary function of the Secret Service is to protect him, which could not be done effectively if he was incarcerated.

A mountain of evidence is already public knowledge. 
I didn't forget to add that word. 
It's just a matter of prosecutors doing their jobs at this point.

Mountain of evidence of no wrongdoing. Read through this mess of charges and tell us where the actual crime was because you can't have RICO charges without an actual crime.

Sent from my SM-T970 using Tapatalk

(08-15-2023, 01:10 PM)p_rushing Wrote: [ -> ]

(08-15-2023, 06:15 AM)homebiscuit Wrote: [ -> ]Good question. Here’s a couple of news article, rather than a tweet from some random person who echoes an ideological view, which addresses that question. The answer? There is none. It was deflected by the DA. 

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/...r-AA1fhGKT

https://www.cbsnews.com/atlanta/news/ful...nst-trump/

We all know they weren't hacked and someone sent the file to be entered to the clerk. The clerks generally just do what the paperwork says, they don't usually have to think in their job. They have to deal with jury duty and other stuff, so they follow procedures and don't deviate. Someone leaked and sent it. For a sealed grand jury, there is very limited access. The DA or one of the other attorneys on the team would have had to leak it.

Which the DA should face the consequences for the leak of a sealed case.

(08-15-2023, 12:26 PM)NYC4jags Wrote: [ -> ]A mountain of evidence is already public knowledge. 
I didn't forget to add that word. 
It's just a matter of prosecutors doing their jobs at this point.

Mountain of evidence of no wrongdoing. Read through this mess of charges and tell us where the actual crime was because you can't have RICO charges without an actual crime.

Sent from my SM-T970 using Tapatalk

We all also know that if such a thing occurred if a Democrat were facing indictment by Republican DAs with a political agenda, the MSM would be screaming from the rooftops about it. However, they’ve done their due diligence in this case by reporting it and then moving on when the DA on their side simply shrugged.

(08-15-2023, 12:31 PM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ]The secret service will never stop supervising Trump until he dies.  
But already many times they have prevented him from going exactly where he wants exactly when he wants to.  Trump has had to notify them in advance of all of his travel plans.  I don't see the SS having a problem telling him to listen to GA state prison guards.

(08-15-2023, 12:51 PM)homebiscuit Wrote: [ -> ]When did that happen? I’m not questioning if it occurred but I’ve never heard that.

As to the last sentence, no. The Secret Service will never allow anyone to direct, incarcerate or put hands on the President. As pointed out above, protecting the President is their primary job. They will never cede that responsibility to anyone. Ever. That is not a stubborn partisan statement, it is a fact.

They have had to agree to everything that was previously done. If the secret service says no, he can't even be arraigned. Unless there were severe felonies, I don't see a president going to jail.

Sent from my SM-T970 using Tapatalk

(08-15-2023, 01:34 PM)p_rushing Wrote: [ -> ]

(08-15-2023, 12:31 PM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ]The secret service will never stop supervising Trump until he dies.  
But already many times they have prevented him from going exactly where he wants exactly when he wants to.  Trump has had to notify them in advance of all of his travel plans.  I don't see the SS having a problem telling him to listen to GA state prison guards.

(08-15-2023, 12:51 PM)homebiscuit Wrote: [ -> ]When did that happen? I’m not questioning if it occurred but I’ve never heard that.

As to the last sentence, no. The Secret Service will never allow anyone to direct, incarcerate or put hands on the President. As pointed out above, protecting the President is their primary job. They will never cede that responsibility to anyone. Ever. That is not a stubborn partisan statement, it is a fact.

They have had to agree to everything that was previously done. If the secret service says no, he can't even be arraigned. Unless there were severe felonies, I don't see a president going to jail.

Sent from my SM-T970 using Tapatalk

RussiaGate 2.0 incoming!!

Give'm some time to think some dumb [BLEEP] up.

Sissy Squad!! Mount up!!

(08-15-2023, 12:51 PM)homebiscuit Wrote: [ -> ]

(08-15-2023, 12:31 PM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ]The secret service will never stop supervising Trump until he dies.  
But already many times they have prevented him from going exactly where he wants exactly when he wants to.  Trump has had to notify them in advance of all of his travel plans.  I don't see the SS having a problem telling him to listen to GA state prison guards.

When did that happen? I’m not questioning if it occurred but I’ve never heard that.

As to the last sentence, no. The Secret Service will never allow anyone to direct, incarcerate or put hands on the President. As pointed out above, protecting the President is their primary job. They will never cede that responsibility to anyone. Ever. That is not a stubborn partisan statement, it is a fact.

This isn't some medieval court with oaths of allegiance till death.   The detail assigned to Trump take orders from a superior and could easily be told to cooperate with whatever terms are agreed to following any convictions.

(08-15-2023, 02:07 PM)NYC4jags Wrote: [ -> ]

(08-15-2023, 12:51 PM)homebiscuit Wrote: [ -> ]When did that happen? I’m not questioning if it occurred but I’ve never heard that.

As to the last sentence, no. The Secret Service will never allow anyone to direct, incarcerate or put hands on the President. As pointed out above, protecting the President is their primary job. They will never cede that responsibility to anyone. Ever. That is not a stubborn partisan statement, it is a fact.

This isn't some medieval court with oaths of allegiance till death.   The detail assigned to Trump take orders from a superior and could easily be told to cooperate with whatever terms are agreed to following any convictions.

Well, no [BLEEP], NYC. In what world did you think anyone would believe such a thing? 

The Secret Service has a sworn duty to protect current and past presidents. That is their job. I have little doubt that in your seething hatred for this one man that you would like to see him eliminated. But the fact of the matter is allowing harm or death to come to any president because the Secret Service abrogated their responsibility and moral obligation would set a dangerous precedence and send a chilling message. 

Tell me, who is this "superior" that would order such a potentially disastrous scenario? Who would order a sworn federal protective service that they should no longer uphold their most sacred responsibility to protect an asset of utmost national importance? Yes, I know you detest the air that Trump breathes, but he is still a person who is now intrinsically tied to U.S. sovereignty - as is any living president. 

What you are proposing would be exactly on par with the military turning over part of their defense responsibilities to a police department. 

Stop allowing your blind hatred to think for you and to paint others as mindless myrmidons.

(08-15-2023, 03:08 PM)homebiscuit Wrote: [ -> ]

(08-15-2023, 02:07 PM)NYC4jags Wrote: [ -> ]This isn't some medieval court with oaths of allegiance till death.   The detail assigned to Trump take orders from a superior and could easily be told to cooperate with whatever terms are agreed to following any convictions.

Well, no [BLEEP], NYC. In what world did you think anyone would believe such a thing? 

The Secret Service has a sworn duty to protect current and past presidents. That is their job. I have little doubt that in your seething hatred for this one man that you would like to see him eliminated. But the fact of the matter is allowing harm or death to come to any president because the Secret Service abrogated their responsibility and moral obligation would set a dangerous precedence and send a chilling message. 

Tell me, who is this "superior" that would order such a potentially disastrous scenario? Who would order a sworn federal protective service that they should no longer uphold their most sacred responsibility to protect an asset of utmost national importance? Yes, I know you detest the air that Trump breathes, but he is still a person who is now intrinsically tied to U.S. sovereignty - as is any living president. 

What you are proposing would be exactly on par with the military turning over part of their defense responsibilities to a police department. 

Stop allowing your blind hatred to think for you and to paint others as mindless myrmidons.

You seem to have glossed over the second sentence I posted. 

I said "cooperate with whatever terms are agreed to" 
I'm not saying the secret service would leave the guy vulnerable - merely that they'd cooperate with the terms of a conviction. I know they have to protect him even if incarcerated (and I don't think he will be) 

Sure seemed like you were being adamant that they wouldn't subject him to the state authorities processing and sentencing.  I think they'd cooperate with those state authorities. Remaining present with him throughout. 

It's not blind hatred. I merely want to see him face the consequence of his own actions. He's gotten away with an insane amount of fraud in his lifetime.  I want him to finally face the music. Seeing him left vulnerable to undue harm isn't part of the equation for me.

And if he's innocent? Do these libs and dems go after and eat their own? Not a chance.. That fat turd of a woman named Hillary is still walking around free as a bird for her part in RussiaGate..

(08-15-2023, 03:39 PM)WingerDinger Wrote: [ -> ]And if he's innocent? Do these libs and dems go after and eat their own? Not a chance.. That fat turd of a woman named Hillary is still walking around free as a bird for her part in RussiaGate..

Just a note to HB, this is what hate looks like.

(08-15-2023, 03:53 PM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ]

(08-15-2023, 03:39 PM)WingerDinger Wrote: [ -> ]And if he's innocent? Do these libs and dems go after and eat their own? Not a chance.. That fat turd of a woman named Hillary is still walking around free as a bird for her part in RussiaGate..

Just a note to HB, this is what hate looks like.

That's not hate.. That's loathe.

I'm outraged at all of this outrageousness. 

(08-15-2023, 03:28 PM)NYC4jags Wrote: [ -> ]

(08-15-2023, 03:08 PM)homebiscuit Wrote: [ -> ]Well, no [BLEEP], NYC. In what world did you think anyone would believe such a thing? 

The Secret Service has a sworn duty to protect current and past presidents. That is their job. I have little doubt that in your seething hatred for this one man that you would like to see him eliminated. But the fact of the matter is allowing harm or death to come to any president because the Secret Service abrogated their responsibility and moral obligation would set a dangerous precedence and send a chilling message. 

Tell me, who is this "superior" that would order such a potentially disastrous scenario? Who would order a sworn federal protective service that they should no longer uphold their most sacred responsibility to protect an asset of utmost national importance? Yes, I know you detest the air that Trump breathes, but he is still a person who is now intrinsically tied to U.S. sovereignty - as is any living president. 

What you are proposing would be exactly on par with the military turning over part of their defense responsibilities to a police department. 

Stop allowing your blind hatred to think for you and to paint others as mindless myrmidons.

You seem to have glossed over the second sentence I posted. 

I said "cooperate with whatever terms are agreed to" 
I'm not saying the secret service would leave the guy vulnerable - merely that they'd cooperate with the terms of a conviction. I know they have to protect him even if incarcerated (and I don't think he will be) 

Sure seemed like you were being adamant that they wouldn't subject him to the state authorities processing and sentencing.  I think they'd cooperate with those state authorities. Remaining present with him throughout. 

It's not blind hatred. I merely want to see him face the consequence of his own actions. He's gotten away with an insane amount of fraud in his lifetime.  I want him to finally face the music. Seeing him left vulnerable to undue harm isn't part of the equation for me.

The Secret service does not "agree to terms" with others in the matter of protecting the President.  It dictates every possible condition and potential exposure surrounding him, all day, every day.

It sounds like this goes way beyond the election for you.

Haha the clerk claimed she needed to send a test indictment because this one was large and could have issues.

1st - if the indictment was known to be large but was under seal, so how did she know it was large?
2nd - why did all the charges match the ones in the indictment? Why did it have Trump's info on it and not a dummy?
3rd - why did it get a case id and get docketed?

The court systems don't work like this. You don't test sending an indictment through because it triggers a lot of automations that happen for the case. You can generally test print a case but that usually requires someone in the courtroom to receive and verify it or a special test printer setup.

Sent from my SM-T970 using Tapatalk

(08-15-2023, 08:10 PM)p_rushing Wrote: [ -> ]Haha the clerk claimed she needed to send a test indictment because this one was large and could have issues.

1st - if the indictment was known to be large but was under seal, so how did she know it was large?
2nd - why did all the charges match the ones in the indictment? Why did it have Trump's info on it and not a dummy?
3rd - why did it get a case id and get docketed?

The court systems don't work like this. You don't test sending an indictment through because it triggers a lot of automations that happen for the case. You can generally test print a case but that usually requires someone in the courtroom to receive and verify it or a special test printer setup.

Sent from my SM-T970 using Tapatalk

Why does it matter?
It created some extra, confusing paperwork for some of the courthouse workers. They are done.
It had no impact on the prosecutor, the defense, or the judge beyond that.

(08-15-2023, 08:22 PM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ]

(08-15-2023, 08:10 PM)p_rushing Wrote: [ -> ]Haha the clerk claimed she needed to send a test indictment because this one was large and could have issues.

1st - if the indictment was known to be large but was under seal, so how did she know it was large?
2nd - why did all the charges match the ones in the indictment? Why did it have Trump's info on it and not a dummy?
3rd - why did it get a case id and get docketed?

The court systems don't work like this. You don't test sending an indictment through because it triggers a lot of automations that happen for the case. You can generally test print a case but that usually requires someone in the courtroom to receive and verify it or a special test printer setup.

Sent from my SM-T970 using Tapatalk

Why does it matter?
It created some extra, confusing paperwork for some of the courthouse workers. They are done.
It had no impact on the prosecutor, the defense, or the judge beyond that.

IT WAS A SEALED GRAND JURY. They had not even deliberated when it was posted. It was illegal to do that, it was illegally shared with her, and she had access to SPI that she shouldn't have had access to. Grand juries are just rubber stamps now but if they didn't and said no indictment, then publishing a secret grand jury hurts Trump.

I know you want to selectively follow the law but the DA should be taking the fall for all if these issues from a poorly run office and the one responsible for securing the sealed information.

Sent from my SM-S901U using Tapatalk

(08-15-2023, 09:27 AM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ]

(08-15-2023, 08:53 AM)Sneakers Wrote: [ -> ]Those of us without selective memories already know. 

Exactly.  That was nothing compared to what might come.

I've been saying this for some time yet you guys have acted like I was wrong. Glad to see you're finally woke to reality.

Whether or not you think he should be charged or convicted, I think you Trump supporters should read the indictments, and if the facts alleged are true, why in the world would you think that guy should be President of the United States?

Are there not at least a dozen other Republicans who have the same policies, but who have not committed the wide variety of crimes, and do not have the same deep character flaws, as Donald Trump?  

For gosh sakes, this is not an irreplaceable person.

(08-16-2023, 08:04 AM)The Real Marty Wrote: [ -> ]Whether or not you think he should be charged or convicted, I think you Trump supporters should read the indictments, and if the facts alleged are true, why in the world would you think that guy should be President of the United States?

Are there not at least a dozen other Republicans who have the same policies, but who have not committed the wide variety of crimes, and do not have the same deep character flaws, as Donald Trump?  

For gosh sakes, this is not an irreplaceable person.

For the nth time, simply expressing the opinion that the allegations are not supported by facts sufficient to prove the crimes, IS NOT, the equivalent of supporting his campaign.  Why is this so difficult to understand?

(08-16-2023, 08:26 AM)Sneakers Wrote: [ -> ]

(08-16-2023, 08:04 AM)The Real Marty Wrote: [ -> ]Whether or not you think he should be charged or convicted, I think you Trump supporters should read the indictments, and if the facts alleged are true, why in the world would you think that guy should be President of the United States?

Are there not at least a dozen other Republicans who have the same policies, but who have not committed the wide variety of crimes, and do not have the same deep character flaws, as Donald Trump?  

For gosh sakes, this is not an irreplaceable person.

For the nth time, simply expressing the opinion that the allegations are not supported by facts sufficient to prove the crimes, IS NOT, the equivalent of supporting his campaign.  Why is this so difficult to understand?

I already know that.  My post was quite clearly stipulating that.  I am asking the question of the people who DO support his campaign.  Did you not see the sentence where I addressed the question to Trump supporters?

(08-15-2023, 07:32 PM)Sneakers Wrote: [ -> ]

(08-15-2023, 03:28 PM)NYC4jags Wrote: [ -> ]You seem to have glossed over the second sentence I posted. 

I said "cooperate with whatever terms are agreed to" 
I'm not saying the secret service would leave the guy vulnerable - merely that they'd cooperate with the terms of a conviction. I know they have to protect him even if incarcerated (and I don't think he will be) 

Sure seemed like you were being adamant that they wouldn't subject him to the state authorities processing and sentencing.  I think they'd cooperate with those state authorities. Remaining present with him throughout. 

It's not blind hatred. I merely want to see him face the consequence of his own actions. He's gotten away with an insane amount of fraud in his lifetime.  I want him to finally face the music. Seeing him left vulnerable to undue harm isn't part of the equation for me.

The Secret service does not "agree to terms" with others in the matter of protecting the President.  It dictates every possible condition and potential exposure surrounding him, all day, every day.

It sounds like this goes way beyond the election for you.

LOL - You think?? Yes it goes beyond the election.  I tried to tell this forum before he was nominated for his first term he was a crook who didn't pay vendors that do jobs for him, rips off investors, screws over tenants, and generally just finds ways to take money out of the pockets of hard working people. He has a decades long history of this with his various failed businesses and real estate ventures. 

The guy has been a crook his entire life. And he's gotten away with it by pitting his team of high priced lawyers against the little guy who doesn't have the money to keep up in legal fees. Cases claiming fair, agree upon payment get dismissed when he holds them up in court forever. 
He's ripped off countless hard working Americans this way. Before running for office. 
It is downright shameful that so many fools fell for his grift after his decades of horrible rip-offs. 

So it's no surprise that now he is letting several of those lawyers go down with him, while not paying them for the work they did working on the illegal electors scheme he and Eastman apparently cooked up and attempted. (Eastman is one of the never-paid lawyers BTW)

I guess we'll see in a few months what the Secret Service does in terms of cooperation. 
I think he'll get a slap on the wrist personally, so it won't matter, but we will see. 
If he's sentenced to an insulated  white collar type facility - they have to go along with that. They can protect them there, but they can't alter the sentencing. Just the parameters of his safety. That was my point.