▲ 1095 ▼ Something something Biden bad (lemmy.world) submitted 2 years ago by Ekybio@lemmy.world to c/politicalmemes@lemmy.world 669 comments fedilink hide all child comments Please start your comments with the following question answered at the top: "Will you vote for Biden in the 2024 election?" [Y/N]
[–] frezik@midwest.social 15 points 2 years ago (2 children) The word "prosecution" just means he's been officially accused in court. Trials do not take a week. Maybe they do for speeding over 30. Not for mishandling classified documents or election fraud. That is not at all how things work. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] Cryophilia@lemmy.world 1 point 2 years ago There are people accused of crimes sitting in jail (not prison, jail) for 4, 5, 6 years before ever having a trial. permalink fedilink source parent [+] Maggoty@lemmy.world -9 points 2 years ago (2 children) So the prosecutor is doing what then? What could possibly be the verb of their title? And yes. The actual trial is generally pretty short. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] frezik@midwest.social 11 points 2 years ago (1 child) The prosecutor has been going over literally tens of thousands of pages of evidence to build a case. The defense is also entitled to go over many of the same documents. Short of hiring a literal army of lawyers, there is no way to speed this up. Even hiring an army doesn't solve everything. Communication channels increase geometrically with the size of the team, and past a certain point, it slows things down more than it helps. Worse, combinations of things can be missed by two different people seeing two different documents that together would point to something, but it's never adequately communicated across the team. The trial you speak of is the end result of months to years of this process. It typically takes 12-18 months for a federal prosecution to get to that point. Even that is after they've been gathering evidence for some time before that. Trump's case is nothing unusual in that regard. On top of that, federal judges have an oversized case load. We could probably quadruple the size of the federal bench to get it to something reasonable. Which means there's a very good reason to expand the bench beyond unfucking the fact that Trump stuffed it after McConnell held a bunch of seats open under Obama. The one thing that is uniquely slowing it down is the Supreme Court taking up the presidential immunity challenge. The other federal trials are on hold until they make some kind of decision. That wouldn't necessarily mean a full hearing of the Supreme Court, or if it does get that far, they may undo the stay that's currently stopping trials from proceeding. If so, that would be an indication that they don't think Trump has immunity, but want to put their stamp on a constitutional issue that hasn't come before the court before. Otherwise, this is how the system works for everyone. It needs to be fixed in general, but Trump is not getting any special treatment. This length of time is far from unusual. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [+] Maggoty@lemmy.world -8 points 2 years ago (1 child) So put a literal army of lawyers on it. It's not like it's important or anything. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] QuaternionsRock@lemmy.world 0 points 2 years ago (1 child) Let me get this straight - you want the government to cut a check made out to Donald Trump for a “literal army” of lawyers? Because that’s how that would work. The criminal justice system cannot place an unreasonable financial burden on a defendant that is presumed innocent. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Maggoty@lemmy.world -2 points 2 years ago (1 child) Lmamamamamamamamao Hold on. The criminal justice system cannot place an unreasonable financial burden on a defendant that is presumed innocent. Yup still laughing. Just a minute. Okay okay. If Martha mother of 2 can end up homeless, in and out of jail, and jobless, because her court appointed attorney got her a not guilty verdict then Trump can fucking pay for lawyers. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] QuaternionsRock@lemmy.world 3 points 2 years ago (2 children) If Martha mother of 2 can end up homeless, in and out of jail, and jobless, because her court appointed attorney got her a not guilty verdict Did you mean a guilty verdict? In either case, you have a point. The justice system is far from perfect, and what you’ve described is a perfect example of that: courts tend to respect financial burden more than they do conflicting obligations (e.g. a job). But should we be advocating for an objectively worse legal system because Trump is protected from being forced to choose between inadequate representation or shelling out tens of millions of dollars? I don’t think so. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] Pratai@lemmy.cafe 1 point 2 years ago That guy has no idea what they’re talking about. permalink fedilink source parent [–] Maggoty@lemmy.world -1 points 2 years ago* No I didn't. I meant what I said. And what happens with unpaid court fees? Oh debtor's prison is back. I don't care what the system is supposed to do on its best day. If this is how we're treating everyday Americans then those are our de facto rights. Trump shouldn't be getting extras. permalink fedilink source parent [–] mojofrododojo@lemmy.world 7 points 2 years ago (1 child) you have no idea what you're talking about. I've been in trials that have gone months as an expert witness, it's not uncommon at all. and it's prosecutors, how can you be so ignorant of the situation at hand and yet critical about things you obviously don't comprehend? 91 counts buddy, that's multiple court cases, multiple prosecutors, multiple trials, multiple appeals etc. Multiple opportunities for Trump to get his base frothed up to murder people. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Maggoty@lemmy.world -5 points 2 years ago (1 child) They only need to go fast on one. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] mojofrododojo@lemmy.world 4 points 2 years ago (1 child) yes, rush the trial so fuckwit mctreason gets off on a technicality? BRILLIANT! permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Maggoty@lemmy.world -4 points 2 years ago (1 child) Inciting a riot would have worked for the first one and is a slam dunk considering he literally gave a speech inciting the riot. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] mojofrododojo@lemmy.world 5 points 2 years ago (2 children) oh I didn't realize you had your law degree, shit man, why didn't you take him to trial? WHAT THE FUCK YO? Oh, that's right. You're not a lawyer. You have NO idea what you're talking about. Goddamn, but you keep talking shit like you can convince me - well bud, ya failed. Gonna do you a favor and block you now so I don't have to read anymore of your stupidity. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] brick@lemm.ee 2 points 2 years ago You’re out of your league intellectually. How dare you talk to someone with ALL THE ANSWERS like this!? permalink fedilink source parent [–] Maggoty@lemmy.world -2 points 2 years ago Oh no? The horror! permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Cryophilia@lemmy.world 1 point 2 years ago There are people accused of crimes sitting in jail (not prison, jail) for 4, 5, 6 years before ever having a trial. permalink fedilink source parent
[+] Maggoty@lemmy.world -9 points 2 years ago (2 children) So the prosecutor is doing what then? What could possibly be the verb of their title? And yes. The actual trial is generally pretty short. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] frezik@midwest.social 11 points 2 years ago (1 child) The prosecutor has been going over literally tens of thousands of pages of evidence to build a case. The defense is also entitled to go over many of the same documents. Short of hiring a literal army of lawyers, there is no way to speed this up. Even hiring an army doesn't solve everything. Communication channels increase geometrically with the size of the team, and past a certain point, it slows things down more than it helps. Worse, combinations of things can be missed by two different people seeing two different documents that together would point to something, but it's never adequately communicated across the team. The trial you speak of is the end result of months to years of this process. It typically takes 12-18 months for a federal prosecution to get to that point. Even that is after they've been gathering evidence for some time before that. Trump's case is nothing unusual in that regard. On top of that, federal judges have an oversized case load. We could probably quadruple the size of the federal bench to get it to something reasonable. Which means there's a very good reason to expand the bench beyond unfucking the fact that Trump stuffed it after McConnell held a bunch of seats open under Obama. The one thing that is uniquely slowing it down is the Supreme Court taking up the presidential immunity challenge. The other federal trials are on hold until they make some kind of decision. That wouldn't necessarily mean a full hearing of the Supreme Court, or if it does get that far, they may undo the stay that's currently stopping trials from proceeding. If so, that would be an indication that they don't think Trump has immunity, but want to put their stamp on a constitutional issue that hasn't come before the court before. Otherwise, this is how the system works for everyone. It needs to be fixed in general, but Trump is not getting any special treatment. This length of time is far from unusual. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [+] Maggoty@lemmy.world -8 points 2 years ago (1 child) So put a literal army of lawyers on it. It's not like it's important or anything. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] QuaternionsRock@lemmy.world 0 points 2 years ago (1 child) Let me get this straight - you want the government to cut a check made out to Donald Trump for a “literal army” of lawyers? Because that’s how that would work. The criminal justice system cannot place an unreasonable financial burden on a defendant that is presumed innocent. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Maggoty@lemmy.world -2 points 2 years ago (1 child) Lmamamamamamamamao Hold on. The criminal justice system cannot place an unreasonable financial burden on a defendant that is presumed innocent. Yup still laughing. Just a minute. Okay okay. If Martha mother of 2 can end up homeless, in and out of jail, and jobless, because her court appointed attorney got her a not guilty verdict then Trump can fucking pay for lawyers. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] QuaternionsRock@lemmy.world 3 points 2 years ago (2 children) If Martha mother of 2 can end up homeless, in and out of jail, and jobless, because her court appointed attorney got her a not guilty verdict Did you mean a guilty verdict? In either case, you have a point. The justice system is far from perfect, and what you’ve described is a perfect example of that: courts tend to respect financial burden more than they do conflicting obligations (e.g. a job). But should we be advocating for an objectively worse legal system because Trump is protected from being forced to choose between inadequate representation or shelling out tens of millions of dollars? I don’t think so. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] Pratai@lemmy.cafe 1 point 2 years ago That guy has no idea what they’re talking about. permalink fedilink source parent [–] Maggoty@lemmy.world -1 points 2 years ago* No I didn't. I meant what I said. And what happens with unpaid court fees? Oh debtor's prison is back. I don't care what the system is supposed to do on its best day. If this is how we're treating everyday Americans then those are our de facto rights. Trump shouldn't be getting extras. permalink fedilink source parent [–] mojofrododojo@lemmy.world 7 points 2 years ago (1 child) you have no idea what you're talking about. I've been in trials that have gone months as an expert witness, it's not uncommon at all. and it's prosecutors, how can you be so ignorant of the situation at hand and yet critical about things you obviously don't comprehend? 91 counts buddy, that's multiple court cases, multiple prosecutors, multiple trials, multiple appeals etc. Multiple opportunities for Trump to get his base frothed up to murder people. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Maggoty@lemmy.world -5 points 2 years ago (1 child) They only need to go fast on one. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] mojofrododojo@lemmy.world 4 points 2 years ago (1 child) yes, rush the trial so fuckwit mctreason gets off on a technicality? BRILLIANT! permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Maggoty@lemmy.world -4 points 2 years ago (1 child) Inciting a riot would have worked for the first one and is a slam dunk considering he literally gave a speech inciting the riot. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] mojofrododojo@lemmy.world 5 points 2 years ago (2 children) oh I didn't realize you had your law degree, shit man, why didn't you take him to trial? WHAT THE FUCK YO? Oh, that's right. You're not a lawyer. You have NO idea what you're talking about. Goddamn, but you keep talking shit like you can convince me - well bud, ya failed. Gonna do you a favor and block you now so I don't have to read anymore of your stupidity. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] brick@lemm.ee 2 points 2 years ago You’re out of your league intellectually. How dare you talk to someone with ALL THE ANSWERS like this!? permalink fedilink source parent [–] Maggoty@lemmy.world -2 points 2 years ago Oh no? The horror! permalink fedilink source parent
[–] frezik@midwest.social 11 points 2 years ago (1 child) The prosecutor has been going over literally tens of thousands of pages of evidence to build a case. The defense is also entitled to go over many of the same documents. Short of hiring a literal army of lawyers, there is no way to speed this up. Even hiring an army doesn't solve everything. Communication channels increase geometrically with the size of the team, and past a certain point, it slows things down more than it helps. Worse, combinations of things can be missed by two different people seeing two different documents that together would point to something, but it's never adequately communicated across the team. The trial you speak of is the end result of months to years of this process. It typically takes 12-18 months for a federal prosecution to get to that point. Even that is after they've been gathering evidence for some time before that. Trump's case is nothing unusual in that regard. On top of that, federal judges have an oversized case load. We could probably quadruple the size of the federal bench to get it to something reasonable. Which means there's a very good reason to expand the bench beyond unfucking the fact that Trump stuffed it after McConnell held a bunch of seats open under Obama. The one thing that is uniquely slowing it down is the Supreme Court taking up the presidential immunity challenge. The other federal trials are on hold until they make some kind of decision. That wouldn't necessarily mean a full hearing of the Supreme Court, or if it does get that far, they may undo the stay that's currently stopping trials from proceeding. If so, that would be an indication that they don't think Trump has immunity, but want to put their stamp on a constitutional issue that hasn't come before the court before. Otherwise, this is how the system works for everyone. It needs to be fixed in general, but Trump is not getting any special treatment. This length of time is far from unusual. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [+] Maggoty@lemmy.world -8 points 2 years ago (1 child) So put a literal army of lawyers on it. It's not like it's important or anything. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] QuaternionsRock@lemmy.world 0 points 2 years ago (1 child) Let me get this straight - you want the government to cut a check made out to Donald Trump for a “literal army” of lawyers? Because that’s how that would work. The criminal justice system cannot place an unreasonable financial burden on a defendant that is presumed innocent. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Maggoty@lemmy.world -2 points 2 years ago (1 child) Lmamamamamamamamao Hold on. The criminal justice system cannot place an unreasonable financial burden on a defendant that is presumed innocent. Yup still laughing. Just a minute. Okay okay. If Martha mother of 2 can end up homeless, in and out of jail, and jobless, because her court appointed attorney got her a not guilty verdict then Trump can fucking pay for lawyers. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] QuaternionsRock@lemmy.world 3 points 2 years ago (2 children) If Martha mother of 2 can end up homeless, in and out of jail, and jobless, because her court appointed attorney got her a not guilty verdict Did you mean a guilty verdict? In either case, you have a point. The justice system is far from perfect, and what you’ve described is a perfect example of that: courts tend to respect financial burden more than they do conflicting obligations (e.g. a job). But should we be advocating for an objectively worse legal system because Trump is protected from being forced to choose between inadequate representation or shelling out tens of millions of dollars? I don’t think so. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] Pratai@lemmy.cafe 1 point 2 years ago That guy has no idea what they’re talking about. permalink fedilink source parent [–] Maggoty@lemmy.world -1 points 2 years ago* No I didn't. I meant what I said. And what happens with unpaid court fees? Oh debtor's prison is back. I don't care what the system is supposed to do on its best day. If this is how we're treating everyday Americans then those are our de facto rights. Trump shouldn't be getting extras. permalink fedilink source parent
[+] Maggoty@lemmy.world -8 points 2 years ago (1 child) So put a literal army of lawyers on it. It's not like it's important or anything. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] QuaternionsRock@lemmy.world 0 points 2 years ago (1 child) Let me get this straight - you want the government to cut a check made out to Donald Trump for a “literal army” of lawyers? Because that’s how that would work. The criminal justice system cannot place an unreasonable financial burden on a defendant that is presumed innocent. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Maggoty@lemmy.world -2 points 2 years ago (1 child) Lmamamamamamamamao Hold on. The criminal justice system cannot place an unreasonable financial burden on a defendant that is presumed innocent. Yup still laughing. Just a minute. Okay okay. If Martha mother of 2 can end up homeless, in and out of jail, and jobless, because her court appointed attorney got her a not guilty verdict then Trump can fucking pay for lawyers. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] QuaternionsRock@lemmy.world 3 points 2 years ago (2 children) If Martha mother of 2 can end up homeless, in and out of jail, and jobless, because her court appointed attorney got her a not guilty verdict Did you mean a guilty verdict? In either case, you have a point. The justice system is far from perfect, and what you’ve described is a perfect example of that: courts tend to respect financial burden more than they do conflicting obligations (e.g. a job). But should we be advocating for an objectively worse legal system because Trump is protected from being forced to choose between inadequate representation or shelling out tens of millions of dollars? I don’t think so. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] Pratai@lemmy.cafe 1 point 2 years ago That guy has no idea what they’re talking about. permalink fedilink source parent [–] Maggoty@lemmy.world -1 points 2 years ago* No I didn't. I meant what I said. And what happens with unpaid court fees? Oh debtor's prison is back. I don't care what the system is supposed to do on its best day. If this is how we're treating everyday Americans then those are our de facto rights. Trump shouldn't be getting extras. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] QuaternionsRock@lemmy.world 0 points 2 years ago (1 child) Let me get this straight - you want the government to cut a check made out to Donald Trump for a “literal army” of lawyers? Because that’s how that would work. The criminal justice system cannot place an unreasonable financial burden on a defendant that is presumed innocent. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Maggoty@lemmy.world -2 points 2 years ago (1 child) Lmamamamamamamamao Hold on. The criminal justice system cannot place an unreasonable financial burden on a defendant that is presumed innocent. Yup still laughing. Just a minute. Okay okay. If Martha mother of 2 can end up homeless, in and out of jail, and jobless, because her court appointed attorney got her a not guilty verdict then Trump can fucking pay for lawyers. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] QuaternionsRock@lemmy.world 3 points 2 years ago (2 children) If Martha mother of 2 can end up homeless, in and out of jail, and jobless, because her court appointed attorney got her a not guilty verdict Did you mean a guilty verdict? In either case, you have a point. The justice system is far from perfect, and what you’ve described is a perfect example of that: courts tend to respect financial burden more than they do conflicting obligations (e.g. a job). But should we be advocating for an objectively worse legal system because Trump is protected from being forced to choose between inadequate representation or shelling out tens of millions of dollars? I don’t think so. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] Pratai@lemmy.cafe 1 point 2 years ago That guy has no idea what they’re talking about. permalink fedilink source parent [–] Maggoty@lemmy.world -1 points 2 years ago* No I didn't. I meant what I said. And what happens with unpaid court fees? Oh debtor's prison is back. I don't care what the system is supposed to do on its best day. If this is how we're treating everyday Americans then those are our de facto rights. Trump shouldn't be getting extras. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Maggoty@lemmy.world -2 points 2 years ago (1 child) Lmamamamamamamamao Hold on. The criminal justice system cannot place an unreasonable financial burden on a defendant that is presumed innocent. Yup still laughing. Just a minute. Okay okay. If Martha mother of 2 can end up homeless, in and out of jail, and jobless, because her court appointed attorney got her a not guilty verdict then Trump can fucking pay for lawyers. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] QuaternionsRock@lemmy.world 3 points 2 years ago (2 children) If Martha mother of 2 can end up homeless, in and out of jail, and jobless, because her court appointed attorney got her a not guilty verdict Did you mean a guilty verdict? In either case, you have a point. The justice system is far from perfect, and what you’ve described is a perfect example of that: courts tend to respect financial burden more than they do conflicting obligations (e.g. a job). But should we be advocating for an objectively worse legal system because Trump is protected from being forced to choose between inadequate representation or shelling out tens of millions of dollars? I don’t think so. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] Pratai@lemmy.cafe 1 point 2 years ago That guy has no idea what they’re talking about. permalink fedilink source parent [–] Maggoty@lemmy.world -1 points 2 years ago* No I didn't. I meant what I said. And what happens with unpaid court fees? Oh debtor's prison is back. I don't care what the system is supposed to do on its best day. If this is how we're treating everyday Americans then those are our de facto rights. Trump shouldn't be getting extras. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] QuaternionsRock@lemmy.world 3 points 2 years ago (2 children) If Martha mother of 2 can end up homeless, in and out of jail, and jobless, because her court appointed attorney got her a not guilty verdict Did you mean a guilty verdict? In either case, you have a point. The justice system is far from perfect, and what you’ve described is a perfect example of that: courts tend to respect financial burden more than they do conflicting obligations (e.g. a job). But should we be advocating for an objectively worse legal system because Trump is protected from being forced to choose between inadequate representation or shelling out tens of millions of dollars? I don’t think so. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] Pratai@lemmy.cafe 1 point 2 years ago That guy has no idea what they’re talking about. permalink fedilink source parent [–] Maggoty@lemmy.world -1 points 2 years ago* No I didn't. I meant what I said. And what happens with unpaid court fees? Oh debtor's prison is back. I don't care what the system is supposed to do on its best day. If this is how we're treating everyday Americans then those are our de facto rights. Trump shouldn't be getting extras. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Pratai@lemmy.cafe 1 point 2 years ago That guy has no idea what they’re talking about. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Maggoty@lemmy.world -1 points 2 years ago* No I didn't. I meant what I said. And what happens with unpaid court fees? Oh debtor's prison is back. I don't care what the system is supposed to do on its best day. If this is how we're treating everyday Americans then those are our de facto rights. Trump shouldn't be getting extras. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] mojofrododojo@lemmy.world 7 points 2 years ago (1 child) you have no idea what you're talking about. I've been in trials that have gone months as an expert witness, it's not uncommon at all. and it's prosecutors, how can you be so ignorant of the situation at hand and yet critical about things you obviously don't comprehend? 91 counts buddy, that's multiple court cases, multiple prosecutors, multiple trials, multiple appeals etc. Multiple opportunities for Trump to get his base frothed up to murder people. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Maggoty@lemmy.world -5 points 2 years ago (1 child) They only need to go fast on one. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] mojofrododojo@lemmy.world 4 points 2 years ago (1 child) yes, rush the trial so fuckwit mctreason gets off on a technicality? BRILLIANT! permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Maggoty@lemmy.world -4 points 2 years ago (1 child) Inciting a riot would have worked for the first one and is a slam dunk considering he literally gave a speech inciting the riot. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] mojofrododojo@lemmy.world 5 points 2 years ago (2 children) oh I didn't realize you had your law degree, shit man, why didn't you take him to trial? WHAT THE FUCK YO? Oh, that's right. You're not a lawyer. You have NO idea what you're talking about. Goddamn, but you keep talking shit like you can convince me - well bud, ya failed. Gonna do you a favor and block you now so I don't have to read anymore of your stupidity. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] brick@lemm.ee 2 points 2 years ago You’re out of your league intellectually. How dare you talk to someone with ALL THE ANSWERS like this!? permalink fedilink source parent [–] Maggoty@lemmy.world -2 points 2 years ago Oh no? The horror! permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Maggoty@lemmy.world -5 points 2 years ago (1 child) They only need to go fast on one. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] mojofrododojo@lemmy.world 4 points 2 years ago (1 child) yes, rush the trial so fuckwit mctreason gets off on a technicality? BRILLIANT! permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Maggoty@lemmy.world -4 points 2 years ago (1 child) Inciting a riot would have worked for the first one and is a slam dunk considering he literally gave a speech inciting the riot. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] mojofrododojo@lemmy.world 5 points 2 years ago (2 children) oh I didn't realize you had your law degree, shit man, why didn't you take him to trial? WHAT THE FUCK YO? Oh, that's right. You're not a lawyer. You have NO idea what you're talking about. Goddamn, but you keep talking shit like you can convince me - well bud, ya failed. Gonna do you a favor and block you now so I don't have to read anymore of your stupidity. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] brick@lemm.ee 2 points 2 years ago You’re out of your league intellectually. How dare you talk to someone with ALL THE ANSWERS like this!? permalink fedilink source parent [–] Maggoty@lemmy.world -2 points 2 years ago Oh no? The horror! permalink fedilink source parent
[–] mojofrododojo@lemmy.world 4 points 2 years ago (1 child) yes, rush the trial so fuckwit mctreason gets off on a technicality? BRILLIANT! permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Maggoty@lemmy.world -4 points 2 years ago (1 child) Inciting a riot would have worked for the first one and is a slam dunk considering he literally gave a speech inciting the riot. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] mojofrododojo@lemmy.world 5 points 2 years ago (2 children) oh I didn't realize you had your law degree, shit man, why didn't you take him to trial? WHAT THE FUCK YO? Oh, that's right. You're not a lawyer. You have NO idea what you're talking about. Goddamn, but you keep talking shit like you can convince me - well bud, ya failed. Gonna do you a favor and block you now so I don't have to read anymore of your stupidity. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] brick@lemm.ee 2 points 2 years ago You’re out of your league intellectually. How dare you talk to someone with ALL THE ANSWERS like this!? permalink fedilink source parent [–] Maggoty@lemmy.world -2 points 2 years ago Oh no? The horror! permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Maggoty@lemmy.world -4 points 2 years ago (1 child) Inciting a riot would have worked for the first one and is a slam dunk considering he literally gave a speech inciting the riot. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] mojofrododojo@lemmy.world 5 points 2 years ago (2 children) oh I didn't realize you had your law degree, shit man, why didn't you take him to trial? WHAT THE FUCK YO? Oh, that's right. You're not a lawyer. You have NO idea what you're talking about. Goddamn, but you keep talking shit like you can convince me - well bud, ya failed. Gonna do you a favor and block you now so I don't have to read anymore of your stupidity. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] brick@lemm.ee 2 points 2 years ago You’re out of your league intellectually. How dare you talk to someone with ALL THE ANSWERS like this!? permalink fedilink source parent [–] Maggoty@lemmy.world -2 points 2 years ago Oh no? The horror! permalink fedilink source parent
[–] mojofrododojo@lemmy.world 5 points 2 years ago (2 children) oh I didn't realize you had your law degree, shit man, why didn't you take him to trial? WHAT THE FUCK YO? Oh, that's right. You're not a lawyer. You have NO idea what you're talking about. Goddamn, but you keep talking shit like you can convince me - well bud, ya failed. Gonna do you a favor and block you now so I don't have to read anymore of your stupidity. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] brick@lemm.ee 2 points 2 years ago You’re out of your league intellectually. How dare you talk to someone with ALL THE ANSWERS like this!? permalink fedilink source parent [–] Maggoty@lemmy.world -2 points 2 years ago Oh no? The horror! permalink fedilink source parent
[–] brick@lemm.ee 2 points 2 years ago You’re out of your league intellectually. How dare you talk to someone with ALL THE ANSWERS like this!? permalink fedilink source parent
