*** The Official MAGAposting thread ***

[Poopadoop]

It's in there. they actually quoted the warden's argument first.

Well, last actually. And they gave it much less space than the big list of grievances from G's lawyer that they listed. The implication to a simple person might be that the warden's reasoning is less well -founded because it's shorter.

“In line with determinations previously made by both the Internal Reviewing Officer and the Military Judge, I find the stipulations of restriction are required to prevent attempts by SOC Gallagher to intimidate witnesses and obstruct justice,”

It's a fucking TWEET. Sorry if it doesn't contain deep legal reasoning.

Who said it should? But it stated his motivations one way, and you are interpreting them another way.

How is that a viable interpretation? Please explain how you're getting this.

See above. Trump has a history of racist views, and now is jumping in to defend an alleged POC child-killer.

What details would he need? Since you seem to have the full details....what should Trump have done instead?

Made it clear he was interested in a fair trial, rather than defending the alleged child killer's because of his 'past service'.

nowhere on either side has anyone said "There's no problem here because the people that died were brown"

lol, as if they're going to say that.

Why does that need to be proven? 30% of the guy's billl of rights is being violated. And I have to prove that someone stopping that from happening has to have pure motives??? You and Oskar are the only ones who seem to think that this is just a show of solidarity with kid-killers. Shouldn't YOU have to provide proof??

Wait, aren't you the one always speaking up for due process? We don't know the facts of his treatment whether it was abusing his rights or not until it goes to court. Right?

So why are you leaping to the conclusion that Gallagher's lawyers are right and the warden is wrong?

More importantly, why is Trump leaping to that same conclusion?