President Trump On Trial for Fraud (Civil)

Politics
348

LOL I don’t care what others write, the law clearly states picketing at a residence of a judge during deliberation is a felony. They are entitled to their opinions not their own facts. Gotta love the far lefts reimagining of laws to protect felons.

Whoever, with the intent of interfering with, obstructing, or impeding the administration of justice, or with the intent of influencing any judge, juror, witness, or court officer, in the discharge of his duty, pickets or parades in or near a building housing a court of the United States

This is exactly what the left did!

1 Like
349

No it doesn’t.
The first sentence of what you yourself posted disagree with you

You don’t care what other people write and that’s fine but you should the read what you copy and paste.

Every protest is done with the intent to effect something.

Then how can we enjoy our first amendment rights without interfering in judicial proceedings……

1 Like
350

Oh…what was Biden’s business? Talk to me lib? What did Biden ever do to generate tax revenue?

1 Like
351

So as long as it generates tax revenue it’s fine…. :joy:

352

I literally posted verbatim what the law says!

Whoever, with the intent of interfering with, obstructing, or impeding the administration of justice, or with the intent of influencing any judge, juror, witness, or court officer, in the discharge of his duty, pickets or parades in or near a building housing a court of the United States

What part of Picketing or parading a judges house is a felony that you don’t understand? You were using intimidation by picketing to influence a decision it’s not free speech.

1 Like
353

If that’s how you choose to spin that question…carry on but try…if you can…to answer it?

354

It says with the intent to do something

If they protested how does that statute survive a first amendment challenge

My gosh. Think.

355

The intent is to intimidate to change an outcome. Also known as influence, which clearly is a felony. Clearly states. The intent was to influence a row v wade decision.

356

You whatsbouted to Biden at ludicrous speed.

His government salary is taxable. So is his other income. Not from the stuff you think he is hiding of course but everything else was taxed

You see how silly of a point you were trying to make.

357

All protest has the intent to change an outcome

What protest would qualify as not intimidating?

358

…is an expense. Try again and think of it in accounting principles. :+1: :wink:

1 Like
359

Occupy Wall Street! Sorry but intimidating a judge during deliberation is a felony. Their kids were receiving death threats. They were trying to influence a decision by picketing

1 Like
360

Fair enough. But as his taxes reveal his other income which i also mentioned generated tax revenue

Also how much tax revenue has President trump generated when his losses outweigh his income :blush:

361

We are finally getting there. So the intent is what matters.

362

…and I’'ll let Congress deal with that issue. I brought it to your attention years ago but only now is it being actually investigated. IYO do you think he earned millions corruptly? Is he the…“big guy”?

363

Whoever, with the intent of interfering with, obstructing, or impeding the administration of justice, or with the intent of influencing

So intimidating judges at their house because you disagree with them isn’t influencing? LOL I guess Capone never influenced his business partners either. It was all first amendment to shake people down to get a favorable outcome.

364

What other issue?

He claimed bribery based income? Are you for real :joy:

365

Is that how he defined it or did he label it something else because the truth is, it was corrupt?

366

So basically you are making things up and thinking there will be evidence. Like always the most Vivid imagination.

1 Like
367

You’re right…ignore the mountains of evidence and wait until a judge says he’s baaa, baaa, baaad.