The Tough Case of the Trump Anti-Trump Trial Is Only Two or Three Minorities


The site has stated – several times – that there are fewer cases punishing a person for “doing nothing,” and the more frequent cases involving children and adults at risk. We always hear of Trump sitting and watching the terrorists for 187 minutes as if it were a crime in their own right. If Trump were a soldier, that negligence is a crime. Unfortunately, as we all know, our military is under civilian leadership. Someone might criticize Trump for not working, but not accusing him.

But “187 minutes” are important. Of course, it is important, as Boston lawyer James Doyle writes Crime Report. All cases require some psychological evidence (there are several, legal rapes and one of them, Matt Gaetz!). 187 minutes go by to prove that Trump wanted more people to disrupt Congress in a way that could ruin the election. In other words, 187 minutes help prove that he was preventing Congress from carrying out its duties.

Doyle describes the case he wants:

Seditious federal case The plot it is placed inside 18 United States Code §2384. Instead he says:

If two or more people. . . plot. . . forcing to suspend, restrict, or delay the enactment of any law of the United States. . .Everyone must be fined or imprisoned for a term not exceeding 20 years, or both.

The site hates repetition but because this may be the most important crime in the history of the country, the alternative can be forgiven. Key words are conspiracy and when it comes to Trump conspiring in this crime one looks directly at two places, the people around him speaking at the Ellipse (with a larger purpose) and the people in the War Rooms at the Willard Hotel, where Peter Navarro and Steven Bannon was running “Operation Green Bay Sweep.” (Because of God’s love, he also referred to the system as something that sounded like he wanted the rebels to “sweep away” all the lawmakers in the Capitol, throwing the whole issue out of the Constitution).

Doyle is showing parallel (if not identical) to what we have published:

Prosecutors may also choose to investigate and submit to the federal high court a permanent case against Trump and his internal party.

The plaintiff can do this in one day. Half of the evidence you want is on video; the other half is found in printed texts, memorabilia, and interviews.

By doing so, you will be launching an insurgency against extremist humanitarian grievances as well as criminal cases identified by the congressional investigation and conspiracy theories against Trump over the years.

Appeal? WHEREAS, there may be twice as many complaints from people, then there is no point. The point is, try to blame him. It is very unlikely that Trump will ever see the prison team again, but it means “nothing”.

From then on, Doyle begins to question the legitimacy of the accusation and, of course, Garland’s confusion (which we also described here) about starting at the bottom of the pyramid and working out loud. Yes, this is how a person can be convicted of a drug offense, but not if the person above has committed a serious crime on television and made a phone call or doubled the testimony of another person.

As mentioned above, all one needs is cooperation (Trump agrees that this is a good idea), Trump doing one thing – even a small one, like talking to tell people to fight, or calling the War Room to see how it goes, and then attempted to stop the government, which happened on television in front of us. The case is settled, the appeal and everything.

There is something else in the case of a conspiracy that everyone should know about. One cannot go through the legal profession in a law school without hearing over and over again, that “conspiracy” is a powerful weapon in the prosecutor’s tools. “Why?” Because a person can produce evidence by hearsay. “News” and part of the conspiracy case. (For example, “What did Trump say when you thought of setting fire to the outside of the Capitol?”) Often the question does not come out in the open; “Criticism, hearing.” In the plot is evidence.

Doyle takes his story to the wilderness where he discusses whether it is appropriate to pay the president, and whether Garland and Biden are mistaken in believing that Trump is younger, more stupid, his worst enemy, and should not be held accountable. It only takes one MAGA per jury to destroy the whole thing.

No, it is not. In some cases, prosecutors have taken people to trial even though they do not believe that they have the necessary evidence. (They confirm that He is wrong beyond measure). But a prosecutor can choose to be prosecuted because “This person’s actions allow him to be held accountable for his actions.

Trump should be prosecuted, either conspired, or tried once in his life, to face a charge bearing his name on the cover. If not, it can make him more cautious at times.

But to get back to our senses, the case took place, no doubt. Congress was attacked. Trump sat for 187 minutes, which is strong evidence that he wants the terrorist to happen. What needs to be confirmed is that Trump knew that the “like” was designed to stop Congress, and he agreed to do his part, whether he was speaking, or refusing to call for some support.

Either way, this would be an easy and possible offense from above, not by a man throwing a brick out the window.



Source link

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *