Posted on 04/26/2023 9:00:54 AM PDT by thegagline
FYI...thegagline is an absolute POS troll!
Precisely.
Isn’t this trial based on illegal ex post facto banned by our US Constitution? passing a law after the fact and prosecuting it is what we’re talking about.
If no stain on your blue skirt, you must acquit.
5.56mm
Isn’t this trial based on illegal ex post facto banned by our US Constitution? passing a law after the fact and prosecuting it is what we’re talking about.
************
Apparently, because this is a civil lawsuit instead of criminal, the Constitution is allowed to be crapped on.
Our law system is extremely expensive & corrupt, it needs to be downsized & outsourced to the lowest bidder.
This is not a criminal trial, so there is no acquittal. Also, since it is a civil trial, the burden of proof is only a preponderance of the evidence (50% +1), not beyond a reasonable doubt, and a unanimous verdict is not required.
I believe that Changing laws after the fact is protected by the constitution. Even at the state and local level.
When will Trump grow up and stop acting like a clown.
The lawyer, Tacopina, should also be cited. He has no control over his client.
What a circus!
How so? If that's the case, why is this being heard in Federal court?
Thank you for clarifying.
What did Trump say that was clown-like?
Do you actually think that Trump and his lawyer should be cited for exercising their First Amendment rights to speak?
They changed the statue of limits on this ex post facto. Wouldn't that be a reason why to call this a "circus"?
I'll look for your answers.
laws are changed locally all the time...look at the new “no bail” laws in NYS..
The dress would HAVE to an issue....
TRUMP & HIS LAWYERS have a right to Discovery-—
The most persecuted man in American history shouldn’t shut up.
Trump has “met” MANY, Many people in his lifetime.
I do NOT fault him for NOT remembering this nutjob.
F that judge. Who gives a S what he says? Trump has first
amendment rights. She’s saying all she wants to in public.
27 years after the event, this woman decides now is the
time to come forward and take this to trial.
That dress is proof of nothing even if there is a match.
Who’s to say if what took place was consensual or not?
Nope! This is pure madness. Accepting this trial to
go forward already put this judge on record as an idiot.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.