KillingtonZone.com

apparently he is claiming he has not been charged...

who knows...

I just think the assertions you've made based on charges against Avenatti versus charges against Trump's inner circle are at odds with one another.

XtremeJibber2001 wrote:I just think the assertions you've made based on charges against Avenatti versus charges against Trump's inner circle are at odds with one another.

no you simply hate trump....nothing more to it that that....

what assertions did I make about avanetti? news reports say he was arrested for domestic violence based on injuries sustained by the victim...

who in trumps inner circle are you talking about? who in trumps inner circle was arrested and charged with a crime? particularly one that has anything to do with trump? or that occurred during trumps tenure?

yer just bitching for the sake of bitching...you got nothing here....

madhatter wrote:now it may turn out that mr awesome is being framed here...but right now police have deemed there to be sufficient evidence to charge him with a felony...he'll need to explain to a judge or DA...

Not that I want to defend Avenetti in any way, shape, or form, but this is not how it works. Avenetti doesn't need to explain anything to a judge or DA. Rather, the DA has to present sufficient evidence to establish a conviction. Avenetti isn't required to say a damned thing to anyone to establish his innocence. He is presumed innocent until proven guilty. See 5th Amendment, etc.

I see this all the time. A person is charged therefore they must be guilty, right? Or at least there's evidence of guilt, right? Not necessarily. To Mr. Jibber's point, you tend to jump to the conclusion that Trump and his appointees are innocent and any charges leveled against them are false and politically motivated, but when it comes to their opponents, like this Avenetti person, you tend to assume the charges are true until proven otherwise. It's definitely a double standard.

Kpdemello wrote:

madhatter wrote:now it may turn out that mr awesome is being framed here...but right now police have deemed there to be sufficient evidence to charge him with a felony...he'll need to explain to a judge or DA...

Not that I want to defend Avenetti in any way, shape, or form, but this is not how it works. Avenetti doesn't need to explain anything to a judge or DA. Rather, the DA has to present sufficient evidence to establish a conviction. Avenetti isn't required to say a damned thing to anyone to establish his innocence. He is presumed innocent until proven guilty. See 5th Amendment, etc.

I see this all the time. A person is charged therefore they must be guilty, right? Or at least there's evidence of guilt, right? Not necessarily. To Mr. Jibber's point, you tend to jump to the conclusion that Trump and his appointees are innocent and any charges leveled against them are false and politically motivated, but when it comes to their opponents, like this Avenetti person, you tend to assume the charges are true until proven otherwise. It's definitely a double standard.

there is physical evidence that an assault occurred...avenetti has been arrested and charged he WILL need to appear...not sure wtf you imagine....

what trump appointees have been arrested and charged with a crime? particularly one that occurred during trumps tenure or is in any way related to trump?

madhatter wrote:

Kpdemello wrote:

madhatter wrote:now it may turn out that mr awesome is being framed here...but right now police have deemed there to be sufficient evidence to charge him with a felony...he'll need to explain to a judge or DA...

Not that I want to defend Avenetti in any way, shape, or form, but this is not how it works. Avenetti doesn't need to explain anything to a judge or DA. Rather, the DA has to present sufficient evidence to establish a conviction. Avenetti isn't required to say a damned thing to anyone to establish his innocence. He is presumed innocent until proven guilty. See 5th Amendment, etc.

I see this all the time. A person is charged therefore they must be guilty, right? Or at least there's evidence of guilt, right? Not necessarily. To Mr. Jibber's point, you tend to jump to the conclusion that Trump and his appointees are innocent and any charges leveled against them are false and politically motivated, but when it comes to their opponents, like this Avenetti person, you tend to assume the charges are true until proven otherwise. It's definitely a double standard.

there is physical evidence that an assault occurred...avenetti has been arrested and charged he WILL need to appear...not sure wtf you imagine....

what trump appointees have been arrested and charged with a crime? particularly one that occurred during trumps tenure or is in any way related to trump?

Paul Manafort (campaign chairman) - Plead guilty
Michael Flynn (national security adviser) - Plead guilty
George Papadopoulos (foreign policy advisory adviser) - Plead guilty
Alex van der Zwaan (Paul Manafort and Rick Gates buddy) - Sentenced

XtremeJibber2001 wrote:

madhatter wrote:

Kpdemello wrote:

madhatter wrote:now it may turn out that mr awesome is being framed here...but right now police have deemed there to be sufficient evidence to charge him with a felony...he'll need to explain to a judge or DA...

Not that I want to defend Avenetti in any way, shape, or form, but this is not how it works. Avenetti doesn't need to explain anything to a judge or DA. Rather, the DA has to present sufficient evidence to establish a conviction. Avenetti isn't required to say a damned thing to anyone to establish his innocence. He is presumed innocent until proven guilty. See 5th Amendment, etc.

I see this all the time. A person is charged therefore they must be guilty, right? Or at least there's evidence of guilt, right? Not necessarily. To Mr. Jibber's point, you tend to jump to the conclusion that Trump and his appointees are innocent and any charges leveled against them are false and politically motivated, but when it comes to their opponents, like this Avenetti person, you tend to assume the charges are true until proven otherwise. It's definitely a double standard.

there is physical evidence that an assault occurred...avenetti has been arrested and charged he WILL need to appear...not sure wtf you imagine....

what trump appointees have been arrested and charged with a crime? particularly one that occurred during trumps tenure or is in any way related to trump?

Paul Manafort - Plead guiltyto crimes that occured a decade ago and had nothing to do with trump
Michael Flynn - Plead guiltyprocedural
George Papadopoulos - Plead guilty procedural
Alex van der Zwaan - Sentenced procedural

FYI none of those are trump appointees...all except manafort were accused of procedural crime of lying to FBI...no one has any way to see that evidence...none were arrested either...they were charged with procedural crimes related to testimony...no one ever said they were innocent either....just that they didn't do anything related to collusion etc....


not sure wtf you are even attempting to say here....

how does any of that have any bearing on avanetti who was a charged with a crime based on evidence made public...?

have you ever actually made a valid point before? cuz yer missing the mark here...not even sure wtf you are trying to say...

how does any of that relate to avanetti being charged with a crime for which there is physical evidence...?

your TDS is glaring....

madhatter wrote:there is physical evidence that an assault occurred...avenetti has been arrested and charged he WILL need to appear...not sure wtf you imagine....

There might be physical evidence. For all I know the man is guilty. All I'm saying is that your statement "he'll need to explain to a judge or DA" is wrong. He doesn't need to explain anything, and they can't compel him to. He can stay silent and let his attorney cross examine every witness against him. He can even have his attorney call witnesses to contradict the evidence. But what he doesn't have to do is explain anything to anyone. That's what innocent until proven guilty means.

madhatter wrote:what trump appointees have been arrested and charged with a crime? particularly one that occurred during trumps tenure or is in any way related to trump?

seriously?

But thanks for proving the double standard. Avenetti is accused and you assume he's guilty. Multiple Trump staffers/appointees plead guilty and/or are convicted of crimes and you simply forget they exist.

And if you're going to split hairs about appointees vs staffers, what about Pruitt? The man resigned in disgrace over ethics violations.

Kpdemello wrote:

madhatter wrote:there is physical evidence that an assault occurred...avenetti has been arrested and charged he WILL need to appear...not sure wtf you imagine....

There might be physical evidence. For all I know the man is guilty. All I'm saying is that your statement "he'll need to explain to a judge or DA" is wrong. He doesn't need to explain anything, and they can't compel him to. He can stay silent and let his attorney cross examine every witness against him. He can even have his attorney call witnesses to contradict the evidence. But what he doesn't have to do is explain anything to anyone. That's what innocent until proven guilty means.

madhatter wrote:what trump appointees have been arrested and charged with a crime? particularly one that occurred during trumps tenure or is in any way related to trump?

seriously?

But thanks for proving the double standard. Avenetti is accused and you assume he's guilty. Multiple Trump staffers/appointees plead guilty and/or are convicted of crimes and you simply forget they exist.

And if you're going to split hairs about appointees vs staffers, what about Pruitt? The man resigned in disgrace over ethics violations.

you are quite possibly THE stupidest poster on ANY board ANYWHERE....

when you are charged you must appear in court before a judge/DA unless charges are dropped in a pre-hearing...sorry you are too fvcking stupid to comprehend but he cannot simply ignore the charges or pretend they never occurred...

so again

he'll need to explain to a judge or DA

he may be able to have a lawyer do that on his behalf, ( we call this common knowledge) but regardless of what's going on inside that empty head of yours he IS facing charges that he will need to explain to the satisfaction of the DA/judge or he will be sentenced...as always you don't make a case at all, you simply fail to comprehend simple english and seem to lack any sort of common sense/knowledge...maybe both... bottom line?yer an idiot...

Yes, you have to appear. But you don't have to say anything. If you say nothing, a not guilty plea gets entered on your behalf. So no, you don't have to explain anything to a judge or DA. The DA has to present proof of guilt. The defendant doesn't have to present anything. You can have an entire trial where the defendant offers zero evidence, not even calling a witness. And sometimes those result in not guilty verdicts.

Your statement:

he'll need to explain to a judge or DA...

is wrong. You're also wrong that he has to satisfy the judge or DA of anything. He has a right to a jury trial, and the jury decides guilt or innocence.

This would be easier if you could for just once admit that you were wrong about something.

Kpdemello wrote:Yes, you have to appear. But you don't have to say anything. If you say nothing, a not guilty plea gets entered on your behalf. So no, you don't have to explain anything to a judge or DA. The DA has to present proof of guilt. The defendant doesn't have to present anything. You can have an entire trial where the defendant offers zero evidence, not even calling a witness. And sometimes those result in not guilty verdicts.

Your statement:

he'll need to explain to a judge or DA...

is wrong. You're also wrong that he has to satisfy the judge or DA of anything. He has a right to a jury trial, and the jury decides guilt or innocence.

This would be easier if you could for just once admit that you were wrong about something.

let me put this in simple terms for you...


a crime was reported

avanetti was accused of that crime

charges were filed by the state based on evidence it has seen

avenetti is now a defendant

avanetiii will need to contact the DA in advance of his court date if he hopes to settle or have charges reduced or dropped prior to his court date...he could simply do nothign until his court date but he;s a lawyer, knows lawyers who know the local prosecutors etc...he will try to settle before his court date...if he does the DA will present that settlement to the judge and 99% of the time the judge will accept the DA's recommendation...

if they are unable to come to a resolution prior to his court date he will eventually need to plead...from there the decision will be made as to whether or not he wishes to go to a trial by jury ( highly unlikely) or trial before a judge...

yeah he;s still innocent until proven guilty but to imagine that he doesn't have to answer to anyone or explain anything to anyone is just stupidity on your part...that would be failure to appear....

now he could appear and plead the fifth but that leaves it at the word of the prosecutor and the discretion of the judge which at this point would lead to a conviction....

he could also explain to his lawyer and have his lawyer speak for him....

but he most certainly WILL attempt to explain to the DA why he is not guilty of the crime for which he has been charged...


enjoy whatever imbecilic interpretation of avenetti was arrested on felony domestic violence charges and will have to answer for it you like......

There are so many errors in that wall of text that I'd have to send you a bill to address them all

Not worth my time anyway because you'll never admit to making any of them

Kpdemello wrote:There are so many errors in that wall of text that I'd have to send you a bill to address them all

Not worth my time anyway because you'll never admit to making any of them

again

enjoy whatever imbecilic interpretation of avenetti was arrested on felony domestic violence charges and will have to answer for it you like......

not sure what you are disagreeing with but here's where he stands right now as far as I know...

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/11/14/us/m ... ence-.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Mr. Avenatti was arrested just after 2 p.m. Wednesday and booked into jail on a felony charge of “domestic violence with visible injury” about two hours later, the police said. Mr. Avenatti was released from jail about 5:30 p.m. local time after posting $50,000 bail.

He is due in court on Dec. 5.

he is a defendant at this point and will need to defend himself against charges ( charges are the prosecutors "proof of guilt") a judge ( or jury) will decide whether the defendant or prosecutor has the better case if avanetti is unable to come to an agreement before then which he will certainly attempt to do unless he is looking to make a public show of the situation...

for any regular joe if you could strike a deal w the DA to have the charges dropped if you were clearly innocent in every possible way, or lessened if there were no way to get charges dropped that is what you would do...court appearances cost a lot of money ...if you can pay a fine, do some service etc in exchange for a nullification etc thast what you do...now if the state says teh evidence is overwhelming they are going to want to get a conviction and you will need to go before a judge, and again you are defending yourself against what the state presents as proof of guilt...

can we agree avanetti is in the hot seat here? that there is evidence that a crime was committed? that avanetti is the person accused of that crime? that he was arrested and charged w a felony offense? that he has a court date on dec 5?

if so then I've told you what I think will occur on or before dec 5...what do YOU think will happen?

Aspiring Actress Files Restraining Order Against Michael Avenatti

#believewomen... I mean ya gotta....Hillaryous.....you go rockstar....

madhatter wrote:Aspiring Actress Files Restraining Order Against Michael Avenatti

#believewomen... I mean ya gotta....Hillaryous.....you go rockstar....

He’s a character. I’ll give him that much. He and Trump seem to be made for each other.