Today in hypocrisy...

[GrndPndr]

There is no actual evidence that Orange man did the deed with this attention whore.  Many famous/wealthy people use "hush" money to silence noisy claims of wrong doing - some of it real, and some not.

I hope Stormy (not her real name, lol) can make enough money to pay for the security she will need for the next ten or twenty years.

Please remember folks, this is all about the drama and emotion to get you to watch - and it's working.

[VMFA187]

17 hours ago, nsplayr said:

This is false. If you commit crimes, no matter who you are, you should face appropriate justice. Jaywalking, come the F on.

Any of the other stuff I’ve talked about recently, yea, if you do crimes you should face the justice system regardless of who you are or who you vote for.

If you think the law has been applied unevenly in the past, you are right! I agree with you! So let’s apply it correctly now.

Everything that Trump had done had been known for years, why was the time chosen now to prosecute him?

[SurelySerious]

Everything that Trump had done had been known for years, why was the time chosen now to prosecute him?

Gets him back in the media, strengthens his base, and makes it more difficult for anyone else to get an R majority in primary that isn’t Trump.

[Pooter]

9 hours ago, ClearedHot said:

In your words you said he paid her off with "campaign funds", that is simply not true.  The allegation in the indictment is business fraud because he re-categorized business funds and changed the accounting entries.  As has been pointed out by BOTH sides, this is only a crime where there an intent to defraud (use those books to raise or borrow money), AND if that was true it is a misdemeanor with a two year statue of limitations.  Please look beyond the narrative at the facts, that is what DA should do but as you point out they have political allegiances and they use their position to shape, influence and ultimately charge.

 

Oh so I guess he was just "recategorizing" the business expenditures for sh!ts and grins on the specific dates that just so happen to correspond with payoffs his lawyer made to the pornstar he banged. Silly me! Just a simple book keeping snafu. I just hate it when I have a business and I make 35 book-keeping errors that perfectly coincide in amounts and dates with payoffs I'm being accused of. 
 

Or.. "business fraud" is the legalese umbrella under which you would charge this exact behavior.  The only reasonable defense here for it not to be a felony is that trump was making these payments to conceal the affair from his wife. Because as we all know trump is a yuuuge marriage guy. 

Edited April 5, 2023 by Pooter

[Sim]

 

 

[ClearedHot]

5 hours ago, Pooter said:

Oh so I guess he was just "recategorizing" the business expenditures for sh!ts and grins on the specific dates that just so happen to correspond with payoffs his lawyer made to the pornstar he banged. Silly me! Just a simple book keeping snafu. I just hate it when I have a business and I make 35 book-keeping errors that perfectly coincide in amounts and dates with payoffs I'm being accused of. 
 

Or.. "business fraud" is the legalese umbrella under which you would charge this exact behavior.  The only reasonable defense here for it not to be a felony is that trump was making these payments to conceal the affair from his wife. Because as we all know trump is a yuuuge marriage guy. 

I don't think you understand the law....it is ONLY a crime (and a misdemeanor at that), if he then used those "altered" books to raise or borrow money.  That two year clock ran out YEARS ago.  Now I know you are a rah rah hang the Orange Man guy but if you want to connect it to the election that is a federal statue, something the NY DA can't prosecute and something the DOJ already looked at and elected to pass on.  By the way to make it a felony it has to be in an effort to hide another crime.  Lets say somehow this lunacy is a felony, that clock is five years and again it ran out a long time ago.  This is nothing but the democratic hate machine generating drama.

You guys are creating a martyr.  Prior to this there was a chance he was going to lose in the primaries...now the base will harden in response and he will win the nomination.  Even the talking heads at CNN have admitted it...let it go...let him fade to oblivion.

Even the New York Times agrees...

 

[Lawman]

If there are crimes committed by Dems (or anyone) within the jurisdiction of a DA or AG that represents you, by all means, write to them and encourage them to apply the law and bring charges! If they don’t or won’t for political reasons, work to vote them out at the next opportunity.
What should NOT happen is direct political retribution, or different justice applied on different places based solely on party (or race, or gender, or whatever).
Equal justice under the law for everyone is the goal that we have yet to achieve - work to get there rather than explicitly calling for the opposite like some have done here. 

Either this is about “everybody being under penalty of the same legal system” or it isn’t.

Hunter Biden isn’t “political retribution” should some next admin (because it sure as hell won’t be this one) chose to act on demonstrated public crime. He cannot legally own a firearm… yet he bought one… that’s a felony. We don’t need a 3 year special council investigation to establish that any more than we can’t prove him in possession of narcotics when he’s literally been photographed with a crack pipe. So felony firearms violations…it’s a Federal crime violated so yes it is in fact evidence that the executive branch does not intent to apply justice evenly and is carrying out action entirely based off political alignments.

You can’t claim some sort of legal justice seeking narrative going after a political opponent and then suddenly act like anybody connected to the opposite side being prosecuted for demonstrated crimes is “retribution.”


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[ClearedHot]

In yet ANOTHER example of the system being weaponized against the GOP.  This time the Air Force helped and the Deputy Chief of Staff for Manpower doesn't know if a single person was fired. 

 

[filthy_liar]

On 4/4/2023 at 10:28 PM, Pooter said:

It's just one big tit-for-tat game. It's never been fair. And it never will be.  So you have two COAs:

1) continue complaining about the game not being fair

2) cut your losses, play smarter, and avoid hitching your wagon to orange clowns who make unforced political errors like it's a bodily function. 

So, what do you do?  Better have a sweet GS or contract job lined up  (not difficult)

[FLEA]

3 hours ago, ClearedHot said:

I don't think you understand the law....it is ONLY a crime (and a misdemeanor at that), if he then used those "altered" books to raise or borrow money.  That two year clock ran out YEARS ago.  Now I know you are a rah rah hang the Orange Man guy but if you want to connect it to the election that is a federal statue, something the NY DA can't prosecute and something the DOJ already looked at and elected to pass on.  By the way to make it a felony it has to be in an effort to hide another crime.  Lets say somehow this lunacy is a felony, that clock is five years and again it ran out a long time ago.  This is nothing but the democratic hate machine generating drama.

You guys are creating a martyr.  Prior to this there was a chance he was going to lose in the primaries...now the base will harden in response and he will win the nomination.  Even the talking heads at CNN have admitted it...let it go...let him fade to oblivion.

Even the New York Times agrees...

 

So.... TDIL that in New York law the statute of limitations pauses every time someone leaves the state or their whereabouts are unobtainable. Basically it says the state has to have 5 years of opportunity to bring the person into custody. All of the charges are dated in CY17 after the inauguration. Trump did maintain a residence in NY and so likely could overcome a 2 year statute. But unlikely he could overcome 5. This case, from what I've been told by some lawyer types, hinges heavily on the state being able to prove an underlying crime, which they haven't said what that was yet. (It's not in the indictment) 

[FLEA]

7 hours ago, Pooter said:

Oh so I guess he was just "recategorizing" the business expenditures for sh!ts and grins on the specific dates that just so happen to correspond with payoffs his lawyer made to the pornstar he banged. Silly me! Just a simple book keeping snafu. I just hate it when I have a business and I make 35 book-keeping errors that perfectly coincide in amounts and dates with payoffs I'm being accused of. 
 

Or.. "business fraud" is the legalese umbrella under which you would charge this exact behavior.  The only reasonable defense here for it not to be a felony is that trump was making these payments to conceal the affair from his wife. Because as we all know trump is a yuuuge marriage guy. 

You should read the actual indictment. It's less than 20 pages and double spaced. He's being charged with fraudulent claiming he paid Cohen 12 installments of $35K in retainer fees when he in fact had no retainer agreement with Cohen and the amount was in fact reimbursement for the NDA agreements. The state hasn't indicated what the underlying crime is yet to make it a felony. Was kind of a silly move actually. Cohen's shell company had legal possession of the NDAs as assets. He should have just sold them as an asset to the Trump Organization for $35K payments. Trump has a lot of opportunity though on election finance. Trump is on record saying his businesses and their brand heavily rely on good will (as in the financial accounting definition) assets which have a volatile connection to his reputation. Gaining the NDAs certainly benefitted him in the election but he just as easy could argue they were to protect his company brands. 

One of the more interesting insights in the indictment was that Trump did indeed pay at least one person for an NDA who had a knowingly false story. Dude walked away with $50K simply because Trump was concerned people wouldn't scrutinize the story enough of it came out. 

My theory is the underlying crime will actually be tax related and not campaign finance related. All of the charges are in 2017. All of the accounting entries were made for a service rendered in 2016. 

Edited April 6, 2023 by FLEA

[Boomer6]

Here’s an article regarding the two Tennessee legislators that were expelled from the state House of Representstives:

https://www.cnn.com/2023/04/07/us/tennessee-democrat-house-representatives-expelled-friday/index.html

This quote from the Tennessee Democratic party, “Their expulsion sets a dangerous new precedent for political retribution,”

Then the Tennessee Democratic party chair called their removal a “direct political attack on the party.”

[SurelySerious]

Weren’t these two the ones yelling with a bullhorn during session?

[FourFans]

1 hour ago, SurelySerious said:

Weren’t these two the ones yelling with a bullhorn during session?

Yes.  Weirdly enough it took almost 10 minutes of google searching to find out that Reps. Justin Jones and Rep. Justin Pearson used a megaphone because, after stating their opinion in the assembled state congress, they didn't like the response they got from both republicans and democrats of all races, so they used a megaphone to shout down their opponents and excite and and embolden protestors.  CNN claims it was a "rally" (because rallies happen in congressional chambers...obviously) when in fact it was an assembled session of congress.  It was almost like google didn't want me to get the raw facts...weird.

This wasn't the first time they disrupted sessions, and obviously the state leaders were tired of their childish behavior.  They are 27 and 28 years old and, according to google, haven't done anything with their lives outside of politics.  But google and CNN say they were ejected because of their race and the fact they were supporting gun control...not because they were acting like petulant children and refusing to let the state legislative body proceed with it's business.

The 60 year old lady with them wasn't expelled, but she says that's because she's white.

Seriously, these are people responsible for leading a state.  Apparently Jones isn't new to the megaphone.  If people don't like what you say, yell louder until they respond the way you want them to, right? 

They are nothing but entitled bullies.

Edited April 7, 2023 by FourFans

[FLEA]

1 hour ago, FourFans said:

Yes.  Weirdly enough it took almost 10 minutes of google searching to find out that Reps. Justin Jones and Rep. Justin Pearson used a megaphone because, after stating their opinion in the assembled state congress, they didn't like the response they got from both republicans and democrats of all races, so they used a megaphone to shout down their opponents and excite and and embolden protestors.  CNN claims it was a "rally" (because rallies happen in congressional chambers...obviously) when in fact it was an assembled session of congress.  It was almost like google didn't want me to get the raw facts...weird.

This wasn't the first time they disrupted sessions, and obviously the state leaders were tired of their childish behavior.  They are 27 and 28 years old and, according to google, haven't done anything with their lives outside of politics.  But google and CNN say they were ejected because of their race and the fact they were supporting gun control...not because they were acting like petulant children and refusing to let the state legislative body proceed with it's business.

The 60 year old lady with them wasn't expelled, but she says that's because she's white.

Seriously, these are people responsible for leading a state.  Apparently Jones isn't new to the megaphone.  If people don't like what you say, yell louder until they respond the way you want them to, right? 

They are nothing but entitled bullies.

I'm confused.... so are we allowed to protest in the halls of convening legislative bodies or are we not? Which one is it? 

[FourFans]

45 minutes ago, FLEA said:

I'm confused.... so are we allowed to protest in the halls of convening legislative bodies or are we not? Which one is it? 

Perhaps I didn't use enough sarcasm.  Protests should not occur in those chambers.  That's just naked intimidation.  Moreover, the elected leaders shouldn't be actively leading those protests.  It wasn't ok on Jan 6th and it's still not ok.  Acting like a thug has no place in our civics.

As for if it's actually allowed?  I have no idea what the law says about that.

Edited April 7, 2023 by FourFans

[FLEA]

21 minutes ago, FourFans said:

Perhaps I didn't use enough sarcasm.  Protests should not occur in those chambers.  That's just naked intimidation.  Moreover, the elected leaders shouldn't be actively leading those protests.  It wasn't ok on Jan 6th and it's still not ok.  Acting like a thug has no place in our civics.

As for if it's actually allowed?  I have no idea what the law says about that.

Sorry I wasn't retorting you. Perhaps I wasn't using enough sarcasm, lol. 

[Pooter]

On 4/5/2023 at 6:19 PM, ClearedHot said:

I don't think you understand the law....it is ONLY a crime (and a misdemeanor at that), if he then used those "altered" books to raise or borrow money.  That two year clock ran out YEARS ago.  Now I know you are a rah rah hang the Orange Man guy but if you want to connect it to the election that is a federal statue, something the NY DA can't prosecute and something the DOJ already looked at and elected to pass on.  By the way to make it a felony it has to be in an effort to hide another crime.  Lets say somehow this lunacy is a felony, that clock is five years and again it ran out a long time ago.  This is nothing but the democratic hate machine generating drama.

You guys are creating a martyr.  Prior to this there was a chance he was going to lose in the primaries...now the base will harden in response and he will win the nomination.  Even the talking heads at CNN have admitted it...let it go...let him fade to oblivion.

Even the New York Times agrees...

 

The underlying crime being trying to influence the outcome of an election.. you know that little thing. 
 

And I'm sure the prosecution wouldn't debut these charges only to get immediately top-roped by a 5 year timer they forgot to account for. Turns out there quite a lot more nuance to that as well which I'm sure will be fiercely argued in court. 
 

The legal analysis I've seen of this case that seems legit all zeros in on the prosecution having to prove trumps intent behind the payments. Because the intent speaks to the possibility of a larger crime.

[pawnman]

5 hours ago, FLEA said:

I'm confused.... so are we allowed to protest in the halls of convening legislative bodies or are we not? Which one is it? 

This time is (D)ifferent.

[Pooter]

I do think there's a fun question in here to unpack though..

Are the democrats targeting trump because they actually think they can take him down, or are they doing it to prop him up so he wins the nomination?
 

If it's the latter, which it probably is, it's a great move from the left.  I think they believe trump is utterly unelectable in a general election so they want to ensure he's the nominee. If they space out the prosecution of the payments, the Georgia fake electors scheme, and the classified documents, they'll keep the media lens squarely focused on trump to the detriment of any other candidates on the right all the way through this year. 
 

Trump's significant but non-majority base will galvanize around his martyr status, edge out any viable Republican candidates, and virtually guarantee dems a win in 2024.   

[dream big]

1 hour ago, Pooter said:

I do think there's a fun question in here to unpack though..

Are the democrats targeting trump because they actually think they can take him down, or are they doing it to prop him up so he wins the nomination?
 

If it's the latter, which it probably is, it's a great move from the left.  I think they believe trump is utterly unelectable in a general election so they want to ensure he's the nominee. If they space out the prosecution of the payments, the Georgia fake electors scheme, and the classified documents, they'll keep the media lens squarely focused on trump to the detriment of any other candidates on the right all the way through this year. 
 

Trump's significant but non-majority base will galvanize around his martyr status, edge out any viable Republican candidates, and virtually guarantee dems a win in 2024.   

I wouldn’t give the Democratic Party that much credit but it’s not that far fetched to think about. They know anyone but Trump would humiliate Biden and Kamala. Biden still hasn’t announced that he is running and the election is only about a year and a half out. 

[ClearedHot]

11 hours ago, Pooter said:

The underlying crime being trying to influence the outcome of an election.. you know that little thing. 
 

And I'm sure the prosecution wouldn't debut these charges only to get immediately top-roped by a 5 year timer they forgot to account for. Turns out there quite a lot more nuance to that as well which I'm sure will be fiercely argued in court. 
 

The legal analysis I've seen of this case that seems legit all zeros in on the prosecution having to prove trumps intent behind the payments. Because the intent speaks to the possibility of a larger crime.

So by this logic, shouldn't Hillary have been brought up on the exact same charges?  She paid for a fake dossier with the expressed purpose (nothing to unpack on intent), of influencing the outcome of a Presidential election.

[GKinnear]

13 hours ago, Pooter said:

The underlying crime being trying to influence the outcome of an election.. you know that little thing. 
 

7 hours ago, Pooter said:

I do think there's a fun question in here to unpack though..

Are the democrats targeting trump because they actually think they can take him down, or are they doing it to prop him up so he wins the nomination?
 

If it's the latter, which it probably is, it's a great move from the left. 

 

I'm trying to reconcile your two statements here.

The first one seems to back the DA's legal analysis that trying to influence the election using his personal money is somehow a crime. 

The second leads me to believe you support election influencing from one party to ensure the unelectable candidate is the nominee.

What am I missing that would prove these statements both conform to a logical, consistent set of principles, outside of a political perspective?

 

Edit:  I'll allow it was business money on the Stormy Daniels payoff...that Trump owned, so potato / potato.  As I understand it, the only person defrauded financially was Trump.

Edited April 8, 2023 by GKinnear

[HeloDude]

8 hours ago, Pooter said:

Are the democrats targeting trump because they actually think they can take him down, or are they doing it to prop him up so he wins the nomination?
 

If it's the latter, which it probably is, it's a great move from the left.  I think they believe trump is utterly unelectable in a general election so they want to ensure he's the nominee. 

So it’s your opinion that the Democrats are using the judicial system to intentionally affect the outcome of a future election?  Does this bother you at all?

[Lord Ratner]

10 hours ago, Pooter said:

I do think there's a fun question in here to unpack though..

Are the democrats targeting trump because they actually think they can take him down, or are they doing it to prop him up so he wins the nomination?
 

If it's the latter, which it probably is, it's a great move from the left.  I think they believe trump is utterly unelectable in a general election so they want to ensure he's the nominee. If they space out the prosecution of the payments, the Georgia fake electors scheme, and the classified documents, they'll keep the media lens squarely focused on trump to the detriment of any other candidates on the right all the way through this year. 
 

Trump's significant but non-majority base will galvanize around his martyr status, edge out any viable Republican candidates, and virtually guarantee dems a win in 2024.   

🎯  

 

They saw how his candidates did in the midterms. After that there can be no doubt.

Edited April 8, 2023 by Lord Ratner