|
Post by palealeman on Apr 16, 2024 11:15:05 GMT -5
One Democrat who was not in good standing with the party to begin with is the exception that proves the rule. If you can't see that Trump is being selectively prosecuted then you are willfully blind. And if you think that Trump is being selectively prosecuted, then you're not only wilfully blind, you're pretty stupid.
|
|
|
Post by palealeman on Apr 16, 2024 11:24:08 GMT -5
I think it's the other way around. He wouldn't be running again if it wasn't for these charges. He's trying to stay out of jail. Its election interference. The only people who believe this is election interference are the MAGA people who believe that everything Demented Donald says is accurate. In point of fact, most of what he says is BS. What upsets most is how Demented Donald has single handedly disparaged the government so much that people actually believe him. "The DOJ is being weaponized against me." There's no proof of that, and that only President who's tried to weaponized DOJ is Demented Donald himself. "The election was stolen." Again, 3 years and 60 some court cases later, no evidence that the election was stolen, but a lot of evidence that DD tried to steal the election in Georgia, Michigan, and Wisconsin. And, if given the chance, he'll try to do it again. If someone appears to have committed a crime, if an investigation determines that there is sufficient probable cause to believe that a crime was committed, then the normal process if for that person to be charged and arrested and taken to trial. That's our system of justice. It applies to everyone. Even to demented former presidents. Sorry you have such a problem with truth.
|
|
|
Post by smokey1 on Apr 16, 2024 11:39:36 GMT -5
Its election interference. The only people who believe this is election interference are the MAGA people who believe that everything Demented Donald says is accurate. In point of fact, most of what he says is BS. What upsets most is how Demented Donald has single handedly disparaged the government so much that people actually believe him. "The DOJ is being weaponized against me." There's no proof of that, and that only President who's tried to weaponized DOJ is Demented Donald himself. "The election was stolen." Again, 3 years and 60 some court cases later, no evidence that the election was stolen, but a lot of evidence that DD tried to steal the election in Georgia, Michigan, and Wisconsin. And, if given the chance, he'll try to do it again. If someone appears to have committed a crime, if an investigation determines that there is sufficient probable cause to believe that a crime was committed, then the normal process if for that person to be charged and arrested and taken to trial. That's our system of justice. It applies to everyone. Even to demented former presidents. Sorry you have such a problem with truth. SMH
|
|
|
Post by pickle20 on Apr 16, 2024 12:36:23 GMT -5
Nope but I don't believe anyone should be below the law either. Trump wouldn't be facing any of these fraudulent charges if he wasn't running for office again and you know it. No, I don't. Most? All? of these charges were filed before he declared.
|
|
|
Post by pickle20 on Apr 16, 2024 12:40:12 GMT -5
Nobody is above the law. Nobody. Does that include Litecia, Fani and Jackie boy? Of how about Jimmy Kimmel who actually did cheat on his apartment evaluation by over 800%? Or how about Joe the perv biden who had the same document issue but the DOJ declined to prosecute? Doesn't sound like no one is above the law to me. I can't take seriously anyone who calls Biden "the perv" as they defend a man with more than 20 sexual assault accusations against him, was found civilly responsible for rape, admitted to grabbing women by the pu$$y, admitted that he walks in on teenage beauty contestants as they are changing and had an affair with a porn star he is now on trial for paying off to keep quiet. I mean, if ever there was a case of cognitive dissonance, this is it.
|
|
|
Post by smokey1 on Apr 16, 2024 12:46:04 GMT -5
Does that include Litecia, Fani and Jackie boy? Of how about Jimmy Kimmel who actually did cheat on his apartment evaluation by over 800%? Or how about Joe the perv biden who had the same document issue but the DOJ declined to prosecute? Doesn't sound like no one is above the law to me. I can't take seriously anyone who calls Biden "the perv" as they defend a man with more than 20 sexual assault accusations against him, was found civilly responsible for rape, admitted to grabbing women by the pu$$y, admitted that he walks in on teenage beauty contestants as they are changing and had an affair with a porn star he is now on trial for paying off to keep quiet. I mean, if ever there was a case of cognitive dissonance, this is it. At least the accusers against Trump were all of legal age as opposed to Biden's predilection for fondling little girls and taking showers with his daughter.
|
|
|
Post by pickle20 on Apr 16, 2024 13:04:47 GMT -5
I can't take seriously anyone who calls Biden "the perv" as they defend a man with more than 20 sexual assault accusations against him, was found civilly responsible for rape, admitted to grabbing women by the pu$$y, admitted that he walks in on teenage beauty contestants as they are changing and had an affair with a porn star he is now on trial for paying off to keep quiet. I mean, if ever there was a case of cognitive dissonance, this is it. At least the accusers against Trump were all of legal age as opposed to Biden's predilection for fondling little girls and taking showers with his daughter. You just exposed yourself, Smokey. That right there is why you argue with emotion. Because you're willing to excuse a crime if someone else's crime is somehow worse, especially when it's someone you don't like. I prefer to see anyone who broke the law face justice. You seem OK to leverage one crime against another and make wild accusations. Sad and pathetic. Thank God you spent your life kicking over rocks and weren't involved with legal matters.
|
|
|
Post by pickle20 on Apr 16, 2024 13:09:51 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by zenwalk on Apr 16, 2024 13:39:15 GMT -5
She plays him like a fiddle with the Daddy talk. I'm sure it's real. After all she's been joined at his hip since the s*it hit the fan.
|
|
|
Post by guido2 on Apr 16, 2024 13:54:42 GMT -5
Your post is misdirected. I'm not the one who corrected the Cohen perjury post. I've given up caring about your posts except for the ridicule factor it affords. But again I've hit a nerve. You seem to take his majesty's diaper issues personally. He could have avoided having to wear one had he snorted a little less Adderall throughout his life and upgraded his diet from Big Macs. He's an impulsive child and his diet reflects that. He'll need a pen pal though in a few months. Ahh the fantasies you and Guido share. Here on Earth One, what you call fantasies are what we call reality. At least what 'we' experienced prior to the Magical Mystery Tour that TFG has presented.
|
|
|
Post by zenwalk on Apr 16, 2024 14:06:05 GMT -5
Hmmm... I wonder how many prison cells his Security Detail is going to need. All he has to do is exaggerate the square footage of his cell then add on extra bedrooms. If he's locked up instead of home detention it won't be in a penitentiary. It will more likely be on a military base where safety concerns won't factor much.
|
|
|
Post by guido2 on Apr 16, 2024 14:06:38 GMT -5
This was all covered in the legal analysis I posted on the previous page. 1) Paying hush money, and NDAs are not illegal. 2) Trump is being charged with falsifying business records. In order to convict him, Bragg is going to have to show Trump was aware of how this was recorded in the company's business records... which seeks unlikely given he has lawyers and accountants to figure this out and do this for him.3) That's assuming you get past the statute of limitations problem, and the idea that you have to record the purpose of an NDA in business records, thereby defeating the purpose of the NDA. Oh, and then there's the supposed federal campaign finance law that allows this to be charged as a felony in the first place. With that you can either 1) have Trump pay the NDA, in which case it's not a campaign law violation, or 2) set up campaign finance law to have the campaign pay for it which seems ridiculous. That's the clown world you, Guido and Judge Merchan are living in. Hate to break this to you. But, a good percentage of the evidence that is being used to (possibly) prove that Trump cooked the books, was also the evidence that was used to put Cohen away. Further, I seriously doubt, that a grand jury, and the prosecution, and the local district court would allow a case to proceed if there were no 'receipts' to back their falsification of business records charges. Lastly. Most every legal document that I have ever signed, that was prepared by another person, be it an accountant or a lawyer says in effect: By my signature, I attest and maintain that the information here within said document is true and factual. And that I have read and fully understand the content of the document form itself and attest that the information in said document is true AND fully agree with. And my signature attest to and validates my agreement with same.
UNDER PENALTY OF LAW.
|
|
|
Post by zenwalk on Apr 16, 2024 14:11:07 GMT -5
This was all covered in the legal analysis I posted on the previous page. 1) Paying hush money, and NDAs are not illegal. 2) Trump is being charged with falsifying business records. In order to convict him, Bragg is going to have to show Trump was aware of how this was recorded in the company's business records... which seeks unlikely given he has lawyers and accountants to figure this out and do this for him.3) That's assuming you get past the statute of limitations problem, and the idea that you have to record the purpose of an NDA in business records, thereby defeating the purpose of the NDA. Oh, and then there's the supposed federal campaign finance law that allows this to be charged as a felony in the first place. With that you can either 1) have Trump pay the NDA, in which case it's not a campaign law violation, or 2) set up campaign finance law to have the campaign pay for it which seems ridiculous. That's the clown world you, Guido and Judge Merchan are living in. Hate to break this to you. But, a good percentage of the evidence that is being used to (possibly) prove that Trump cooked the books, was also the evidence that was used to put Cohen away. Further, I seriously doubt, that a grand jury, and the prosecution, and the local district court would allow a case to proceed if there were no 'receipts' to back their falsification of business records charges. Lastly. Most every legal document that I have ever signed, that was prepared by another person, be it an accountant or a lawyer says in effect: By my signature, I attest and maintain that the information here within said document is true and factual. And that I have read and fully understand the content of the document form itself and attest that the information in said document is true AND fully agree with. And my signature attest to and validates my agreement with same.
UNDER PENALTY OF LAW. Plus he falsified business records in furtherance of election interference. Blocking critical information to manipulate the 16 results is certainly a crime if only to have spared us the last f+cking 9 years. Bout time we begin to understand why he has lived a teflon coated life. And the statute of limitations issue is not an issue since as president he couldn't be indicted. But now he can.
|
|
|
Post by guido2 on Apr 16, 2024 14:17:57 GMT -5
Nope but I don't believe anyone should be below the law either. Trump wouldn't be facing any of these fraudulent charges if he wasn't running for office again and you know it. OK so say that is true. Why doesn't he strike a deal with the 4....I REPEAT.... 4 different courts that he will discontinue is running in exchange for dropping the charges? Inquiring minds want to know.
|
|
|
Post by zenwalk on Apr 16, 2024 14:27:53 GMT -5
Nope but I don't believe anyone should be below the law either. Trump wouldn't be facing any of these fraudulent charges if he wasn't running for office again and you know it. If these were fraudulent charges I'd think he'd want to clear his name as soon as possible. He doesn't seem to want to. How do they explain this in smokeyland?
|
|
|
Post by guido2 on Apr 16, 2024 14:29:45 GMT -5
Hate to break this to you. But, a good percentage of the evidence that is being used to (possibly) prove that Trump cooked the books, was also the evidence that was used to put Cohen away. Further, I seriously doubt, that a grand jury, and the prosecution, and the local district court would allow a case to proceed if there were no 'receipts' to back their falsification of business records charges. Lastly. Most every legal document that I have ever signed, that was prepared by another person, be it an accountant or a lawyer says in effect: By my signature, I attest and maintain that the information here within said document is true and factual. And that I have read and fully understand the content of the document form itself and attest that the information in said document is true AND fully agree with. And my signature attest to and validates my agreement with same.
UNDER PENALTY OF LAW.Plus he falsified business records in furtherance of election interference. Blocking critical information to manipulate the 16 results is certainly a crime if only to have spared us the last f+cking 9 years. Bout time we begin to understand why he has lived a teflon coated life. And the statute of limitations issue is not an issue since as president he couldn't be indicted. But now he can. Hold that thought. Cause, remember, Trumps 3 handpicked judges, and two grifters who relies on Trump connected rich guys largess out of 9 SC members are listening to exactly what might change all that. I have said the following before: - The Supremely useless court will not decide till after the election is decided. AND not until one or the other takes the ahhhh 'oath'. (For whatever that is worth anymore) Anyway....... - If Biden wins, then 'of course' the idea that a president can be held accountable. - If Donnie wins, then 'of course' the idea shouldn't be held responsible. NOTE: They will not do this immediately after the election. Because if they do, and Biden wins. Well, Biden has cart Blanche. And we can't have that .....
|
|
|
Post by augustwest on Apr 16, 2024 14:30:28 GMT -5
I think it's the other way around. He wouldn't be running again if it wasn't for these charges. He's trying to stay out of jail. Its election interference. Allowing one candidate to break the law with impunity would be election interference
|
|
|
Post by zenwalk on Apr 16, 2024 14:41:52 GMT -5
Plus he falsified business records in furtherance of election interference. Blocking critical information to manipulate the 16 results is certainly a crime if only to have spared us the last f+cking 9 years. Bout time we begin to understand why he has lived a teflon coated life. And the statute of limitations issue is not an issue since as president he couldn't be indicted. But now he can. Hold that thought. Cause, remember, Trumps 3 handpicked judges, and two grifters who relies on Trump connected rich guys largess out of 9 SC members are listening to exactly what might change all that. I have said the following before: - The Supremely useless court will not decide till after the election is decided. AND not until one or the other takes the ahhhh 'oath'. (For whatever that is worth anymore) Anyway....... - If Biden wins, then 'of course' the idea that a president can be held accountable. - If Donnie wins, then 'of course' the idea shouldn't be held responsible. NOTE: They will not do this immediately after the election. Because if they do, and Biden wins. Well, Biden has cart Blanche. And we can't have that ..... SCOTUS has no jurisdiction over the election interference case because it's a state case. The judges on SCOTUS that are corrupt are thankfully still in the minority so far as we know. I can see a scenario where the others have grown tired of constantly fondling trump's balls on command anyway and might be willing to drop him in the crapper.
|
|
|
Post by guido2 on Apr 16, 2024 14:58:15 GMT -5
Hold that thought. Cause, remember, Trumps 3 handpicked judges, and two grifters who relies on Trump connected rich guys largess out of 9 SC members are listening to exactly what might change all that. I have said the following before: - The Supremely useless court will not decide till after the election is decided. AND not until one or the other takes the ahhhh 'oath'. (For whatever that is worth anymore) Anyway....... - If Biden wins, then 'of course' the idea that a president can be held accountable. - If Donnie wins, then 'of course' the idea shouldn't be held responsible. NOTE: They will not do this immediately after the election. Because if they do, and Biden wins. Well, Biden has cart Blanche. And we can't have that ..... SCOTUS has no jurisdiction over the election interference case because it's a state case. The judges on SCOTUS that are corrupt are thankfully still in the minority so far as we know. I can see a scenario where the others have grown tired of constantly fondling trump's balls on command anyway and might be willing to drop him in the crapper. Well you can be corrupt in multiple ways. So far, yes Alito and the Black bullfrog are pretty much caught dead to rights about being on the take. (Not that it matters, as we have seen.) But equally the remaining GOP appointees have been water carriers for the affluent on many occasions. I mean, Roberts wife I believe has a cushy job doing nothing for a MAGA associated ahhhh business. That is one example I can recall at the moment. But there are more.
|
|
|
Post by smokey1 on Apr 16, 2024 15:59:57 GMT -5
At least the accusers against Trump were all of legal age as opposed to Biden's predilection for fondling little girls and taking showers with his daughter. You just exposed yourself, Smokey. That right there is why you argue with emotion. Because you're willing to excuse a crime if someone else's crime is somehow worse, especially when it's someone you don't like. I prefer to see anyone who broke the law face justice. You seem OK to leverage one crime against another and make wild accusations. Sad and pathetic. Thank God you spent your life kicking over rocks and weren't involved with legal matters. What crime am I excusing? If Trump ends up being convicted of any serious crime after any appeals in his cases I won't excuse them. Unfortunately some have forgotten that in the US we are innocent until proven guilty in a court of law.
|
|
|
Post by Ranger John on Apr 16, 2024 16:04:07 GMT -5
Hate to break this to you. But, a good percentage of the evidence that is being used to (possibly) prove that Trump cooked the books, was also the evidence that was used to put Cohen away. Further, I seriously doubt, that a grand jury, and the prosecution, and the local district court would allow a case to proceed if there were no 'receipts' to back their falsification of business records charges. Lastly. Most every legal document that I have ever signed, that was prepared by another person, be it an accountant or a lawyer says in effect: By my signature, I attest and maintain that the information here within said document is true and factual. And that I have read and fully understand the content of the document form itself and attest that the information in said document is true AND fully agree with. And my signature attest to and validates my agreement with same.
UNDER PENALTY OF LAW.Plus he falsified business records in furtherance of election interference. Blocking critical information to manipulate the 16 results is certainly a crime if only to have spared us the last f+cking 9 years. Bout time we begin to understand why he has lived a teflon coated life. And the statute of limitations issue is not an issue since as president he couldn't be indicted. But now he can. If paying hush money to Stormy Daniels is "election interference" hauling Trump into court in the middle of a campaign is treason.
|
|
|
Post by smokey1 on Apr 16, 2024 16:04:21 GMT -5
Nope but I don't believe anyone should be below the law either. Trump wouldn't be facing any of these fraudulent charges if he wasn't running for office again and you know it. OK so say that is true. Why doesn't he strike a deal with the 4....I REPEAT.... 4 different courts that he will discontinue is running in exchange for dropping the charges? Inquiring minds want to know. Why would he do that? He believes in the Constitution.
|
|
|
Post by smokey1 on Apr 16, 2024 16:09:04 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by upstream on Apr 16, 2024 16:13:48 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by zenwalk on Apr 16, 2024 16:14:16 GMT -5
Plus he falsified business records in furtherance of election interference. Blocking critical information to manipulate the 16 results is certainly a crime if only to have spared us the last f+cking 9 years. Bout time we begin to understand why he has lived a teflon coated life. And the statute of limitations issue is not an issue since as president he couldn't be indicted. But now he can. If paying hush money to Stormy Daniels is "election interference" hauling Trump into court in the middle of a campaign is treason. The only side conducting backroom dialogue with Russia is doing so through Orban. As for treason or sedition keep plugging away. Come back when you got something. Why are you so dead set against your master going to trial? Why don't you want to give him the chance to prove his innocence?
|
|
|
Post by zenwalk on Apr 16, 2024 16:17:56 GMT -5
Joe Biden says to remind you finding a crime to fit an investigation is the GOP's default given its thick cluelessness has no solutions to anything.
|
|
|
Post by pickle20 on Apr 16, 2024 16:18:28 GMT -5
You just exposed yourself, Smokey. That right there is why you argue with emotion. Because you're willing to excuse a crime if someone else's crime is somehow worse, especially when it's someone you don't like. I prefer to see anyone who broke the law face justice. You seem OK to leverage one crime against another and make wild accusations. Sad and pathetic. Thank God you spent your life kicking over rocks and weren't involved with legal matters. What crime am I excusing? If Trump ends up being convicted of any serious crime after any appeals in his cases I won't excuse them. Unfortunately some have forgotten that in the US we are innocent until proven guilty in a court of law. Remember this at the end of this trial.
|
|
|
Post by pickle20 on Apr 16, 2024 16:19:46 GMT -5
Kinda feels like that’s what republicans have been doing with Hunter Biden. And Joe too.
|
|
|
Post by smokey1 on Apr 16, 2024 16:50:45 GMT -5
What crime am I excusing? If Trump ends up being convicted of any serious crime after any appeals in his cases I won't excuse them. Unfortunately some have forgotten that in the US we are innocent until proven guilty in a court of law. Remember this at the end of this trial. I said at the end of all appeals. I anticipate the lower courts could bring convictions because of biased judges and juries but hope that they would be reversed on appeal in higher courts that actually follow the rule of law.
|
|
|
Post by smokey1 on Apr 16, 2024 16:52:02 GMT -5
Kinda feels like that’s what republicans have been doing with Hunter Biden. And Joe too. The left always accuses the right of doing what they are actually doing. The republicans don't control the DOJ or FBI.
|
|