Election Interference | Donald Trump + Stormy Daniels hush money case - GUILTY

[leh-nerd skin-erd]

1 hour ago, ChiGoose said:

 

It really feels like some people have (very legitimate) complaints about NYS law but are using that to claim bias or impropriety in this particular case.

If the concerns are legitimate, why would it matter?  The law(s) certainly could have been changed, struck down etc.  If a law is unfair or unreasonable, need it be pursued?  

[muppy]

2 minutes ago, leh-nerd skin-erd said:

If the concerns are legitimate, why would it matter?  The law(s) certainly could have been changed, struck down etc.  If a law is unfair or unreasonable, need it be pursued?  

greetings Leo. Pipsqueaking in to say that now this case in the hands of a jury "of his peers". Can a jury be of his peers if they are not followers of MAGA?

 

I Think not. I think you view Donald Trump as a victim or a criminal in this case. It would not shock me if the jury is hung. Both sides have had their day. 

 

The defendant did himself No favors with his flaunting and opening his mouth to how many gag orders?

 

If he is found guilty it is That same judge who gets to sentence him. EITHER WAY the donalds rhetoric won't change. He can do no wrong and if he did he has immunity oh wait he did nothing wrong WAIT..lol  . Victim or Criminal Now it is up to a jury in this criminal case

 

All the hoopla concerning his crowd sizes is basically more media and he doesn't really mind bad OR Good. He uses  them both to preach to his supporters.

 

I think of he s a charlatan snake oil sleazy guy. I don't trust a word he says out of his mouth. He just wants elected and to MAGA  HIS view of America. 

 

They all LIE and covet THEIR version of the "Truth" politics make me wanna hurl

 

Leo hand me a towel hold my hair LMAO

 

🙂

[ChiGoose]

29 minutes ago, leh-nerd skin-erd said:

If the concerns are legitimate, why would it matter?  The law(s) certainly could have been changed, struck down etc.  If a law is unfair or unreasonable, need it be pursued?  

 

I think it's fair to criticize the laws. What I'm opposed to is using criticism of the laws to state or imply that the case is biased against Trump when it's handled the same as other cases under the existing law.

 

I wonder if more conservatives are going to join the lib criminal justice reformers after this...

[Tommy Callahan]

 

[The Frankish Reich]

11 minutes ago, ChiGoose said:

 

I think it's fair to criticize the laws. What I'm opposed to is using criticism of the laws to state or imply that the case is biased against Trump when it's handled the same as other cases under the existing law.

 

I wonder if more conservatives are going to join the lib criminal justice reformers after this...

I do have issues with how the NY laws - as they apply to this case - are written and how they have been interpreted.

In fact, as they've been interpreted, how would any intentional false statement NOT be for the purpose of violating some other law or laws? I mean, that's what makes it a felony. 

Do people just intentionally create false records for the sheer joy of it? I don't think so. They're trying to avoid taxation, or (in this case) public humiliation and even electoral defeat. So isn't every misdemeanor a felony? If so, is that a rational construction of criminal laws relating to false statements?

But the law and its interpretation (so far) is clear, and it seems to me that the Judge got the instructions right.

[ChiGoose]

5 minutes ago, The Frankish Reich said:

I do have issues with how the NY laws - as they apply to this case - are written and how they have been interpreted.

In fact, as they've been interpreted, how would any intentional false statement NOT be for the purpose of violating some other law or laws? I mean, that's what makes it a felony. 

Do people just intentionally create false records for the sheer joy of it? I don't think so. They're trying to avoid taxation, or (in this case) public humiliation and even electoral defeat. So isn't every misdemeanor a felony? If so, is that a rational construction of criminal laws relating to false statements?

But the law and its interpretation (so far) is clear, and it seems to me that the Judge got the instructions right.

 

Off the top of my head, in this case, if Trump had falsified the business records to cover up the affair solely for the purpose of keeping Melania from learning of it, I think that would just be a misdemeanor. I think adultery is technically a crime in NY, but nobody would buy a step-up for that.

 

An unrelated example might be if you made a mistake at work and falsified the company's records to cover that up. 

[Tommy Callahan]

 

Will the left go violent, again if Trump doesn't get jail?  

This has to be false...

 

 

[leh-nerd skin-erd]

55 minutes ago, muppy said:

greetings Leo. Pipsqueaking in to say that now this case in the hands of a jury "of his peers". Can a jury be of his peers if they are not followers of MAGA?

 

I Think not. I think you view Donald Trump as a victim or a criminal in this case. It would not shock me if the jury is hung. Both sides have had their day. 

 

The defendant did himself No favors with his flaunting and opening his mouth to how many gag orders?

 

If he is found guilty it is That same judge who gets to sentence him. EITHER WAY the donalds rhetoric won't change. He can do no wrong and if he did he has immunity oh wait he did nothing wrong WAIT..lol  . Victim or Criminal Now it is up to a jury in this criminal case

 

All the hoopla concerning his crowd sizes is basically more media and he doesn't really mind bad OR Good. He uses  them both to preach to his supporters.

 

I think of he s a charlatan snake oil sleazy guy. I don't trust a word he says out of his mouth. He just wants elected and to MAGA  HIS view of America. 

 

They all LIE and covet THEIR version of the "Truth" politics make me wanna hurl

 

Leo hand me a towel hold my hair LMAO

 

🙂

That’s not pipsqueaking into the convo, Mup, that’s some pure straight razor to the face of your old pal Leo.  I’m torn between concern over my boyish good looks and the recognition that a well placed scar on my mug might actually improve upon the blessings my God has bestowed upon me. 
 

Now, to your hurtful commentary. 
 

I don’t view DJT as a victim, I see him as a target.  There is a difference. 
 

The jury may or may not reflect a jury of his peers.  The jury may or may not be impartial, it may or may not be pro-Trump or anti-Trump.  It may be the beneficiary or a skilled and neutral judge or the victim of a political creature with nefarious intent.  I have no idea one way or the other, but I’m long past the point of trusting everyone involved has  justice at the forefront of their mind here.  That’s the system and it’s used as such.  Some will win in it, others will lose.  Here’s a pro tip—change the scenario, change the players and people clamoring for Trumps head feel the same way I do here.  
 

Respectfully, on gag orders and such—the govt can make declarations all day long, leak details to willing reporters and not a tear is shed.

Trump is fighting for his life and the notion he should meekly acquiesce is silly.  That’s not to say most don’t, because after all the other side has bottomless pockets and endless resources.  If the process is broken by a defendant being mean to the process, the system is broken.  Besides, if he judges the relative value of fine v self-censoring as justified, he’s using the system to his benefit. 
 

Your characterization of DJT “preaching” reflects a fundamental misunderstanding of the multitude of reasons people may support him, and honestly I’m a bit surprised you as a woman of faith would choose that particular term. 
 

You don’t trust him.  I can respect that, but I’m not sure what you expect me to do with that information.  You have options regardless of who I support.  Vote for Joe Biden.  Vote for RFK jr.  Write in for me. I support your right to do so.
 

They all lie. This is true.  I tend to disregard the notion of moral high ground just because someone likes their liar more than they like my liar.  
 

When you get done  chuckin up lunch, come on back!  Always a pleasure but your new nickname is Mup the Knife! 

[leh-nerd skin-erd]

1 hour ago, ChiGoose said:

 

I think it's fair to criticize the laws. What I'm opposed to is using criticism of the laws to state or imply that the case is biased against Trump when it's handled the same as other cases under the existing law.

 

I wonder if more conservatives are going to join the lib criminal justice reformers after this...

Maybe, though I wonder when the lib criminal justice reformers abandoned their principles and became proponents of the DOJ, AG etc. 

 

As for implications of bias, that’s fairly standard fare in high profile cases.  We just have to work through it. 

[BillStime]

13 minutes ago, leh-nerd skin-erd said:

Maybe, though I wonder when the lib criminal justice reformers abandoned their principles and became proponents of the DOJ, AG etc. 

 

As for implications of bias, that’s fairly standard fare in high profile cases.  We just have to work through it. 

 

Sen. Bob Menendez, Rep. Henry Cuellar, Rep. Cori Bush, Hunter Biden, and former Rep. TJ Cox are all laughing at you.  Hard.

[muppy]

27 minutes ago, leh-nerd skin-erd said:

That’s not pipsqueaking into the convo, Mup, that’s some pure straight razor to the face of your old pal Leo.  I’m torn between concern over my boyish good looks and the recognition that a well placed scar on my mug might actually improve upon the blessings my God has bestowed upon me. 
 

Now, to your hurtful commentary. 
 

I don’t view DJT as a victim, I see him as a target.  There is a difference. 
 

The jury may or may not reflect a jury of his peers.  The jury may or may not be impartial, it may or may not be pro-Trump or anti-Trump.  It may be the beneficiary or a skilled and neutral judge or the victim of a political creature with nefarious intent.  I have no idea one way or the other, but I’m long past the point of trusting everyone involved has  justice at the forefront of their mind here.  That’s the system and it’s used as such.  Some will win in it, others will lose.  Here’s a pro tip—change the scenario, change the players and people clamoring for Trumps head feel the same way I do here.  
 

Respectfully, on gag orders and such—the govt can make declarations all day long, leak details to willing reporters and not a tear is shed.

Trump is fighting for his life and the notion he should meekly acquiesce is silly.  That’s not to say most don’t, because after all the other side has bottomless pockets and endless resources.  If the process is broken by a defendant being mean to the process, the system is broken.  Besides, if he judges the relative value of fine v self-censoring as justified, he’s using the system to his benefit. 
 

Your characterization of DJT “preaching” reflects a fundamental misunderstanding of the multitude of reasons people may support him, and honestly I’m a bit surprised you as a woman of faith would choose that particular term. 
 

You don’t trust him.  I can respect that, but I’m not sure what you expect me to do with that information.  You have options regardless of who I support.  Vote for Joe Biden.  Vote for RFK jr.  Write in for me. I support your right to do so.
 

They all lie. This is true.  I tend to disregard the notion of moral high ground just because someone likes their liar more than they like my liar.  
 

When you get done  chuckin up lunch, come on back!  Always a pleasure but your new nickname is Mup the Knife! 

 

a la ****** I had an entire post written and my internet went poof COMMIE PLOT SMH lol

 

I'll try to recreate that sucks though.

 

to the bolded I will be mup the knife if I can rename you scarface

 

"say hello to my leeetle friend mup the knife" lol

 

 I think the lines being political parties are more divided than ever before and MANY of those issues are what I see as spiritual battles. 

 

I think Donald wants to be the "MAGA" savior of our country and many of his like minded followers honestly see him that way. It REEKS of religious fervor. That's what I meant. And HIS brand of leadership makes me QUEASY because of my distrust

 

By no means do I mean to disparage YOU of all people.  You are my beloved chat brother by choice and it is my honor to be your Amiga.

 

I even asked you to hold my hair when the topic gags me. That's a true friend.

 

hasta lasagna senor Scarface. HA

 

m

[leh-nerd skin-erd]

25 minutes ago, muppy said:

 

a la ****** I had an entire post written and my internet went poof COMMIE PLOT SMH lol

 

I'll try to recreate that sucks though.

 

to the bolded I will be mup the knife if I can rename you scarface

 

"say hello to my leeetle friend mup the knife" lol

 

 I think the lines being political parties are more divided than ever before and MANY of those issues are what I see as spiritual battles. 

 

I think Donald wants to be the "MAGA" savior of our country and many of his like minded followers honestly see him that way. It REEKS of religious fervor. That's what I meant. And HIS brand of leadership makes me QUEASY because of my distrust

 

By no means do I mean to disparage YOU of all people.  You are my beloved chat brother by choice and it is my honor to be your Amiga.

 

I even asked you to hold my hair when the topic gags me. That's a true friend.

 

hasta lasagna senor Scarface. HA

 

m

Oh, I know what you meant, MupalupTownGirl, and I stand by what I said.

 

Big picture--there are crazies for sure.  That's not unique to MAGA, Liberals or Independents. 

 

The vast majority of people who support DJT aren't zealots, worshippers, cultists, nazis, deplorable, irredeemable or whatever the latest Hochul buzzword is.   I'm not here to debate that, it's  waste of time. 

 

Somewhere out in America a Muppy twin--oh, let's go with Mupplegänger!--is queasy about your candidate, China Joe, Joe the Fib, Joey Doublespeak, Joey the Groper, Joey Burisma or whatever else he rightly is criticized for.  

 

I can tell you this--I can, and will, discuss these and other topics with you respectfully and expect the same in return.  If I deviate, call me out and I'll consider your feelings and adjust accordingly.  If you deviate, I'll let you know, or depending on the totality of your posts, simply move on.   Even if that happened, Mup, if I saw your car broken down along the road, or you needed assistance I could provide, I'd extend my hand to help you out. That's about the best I can offer. 

 

As for holding your hair, I'd have to acknowledge I'd probably dunk ya a couple times as that would be epic!  

[The Frankish Reich]

3 hours ago, ChiGoose said:

 

Off the top of my head, in this case, if Trump had falsified the business records to cover up the affair solely for the purpose of keeping Melania from learning of it, I think that would just be a misdemeanor. I think adultery is technically a crime in NY, but nobody would buy a step-up for that.

 

An unrelated example might be if you made a mistake at work and falsified the company's records to cover that up. 

Good point. I think you've hit on the distinction!

[All_Pro_Bills]

53 minutes ago, The Frankish Reich said:

Good point. I think you've hit on the distinction!

A distinction that may not matter since none of the 34 counts mention any underlying crime or cite any law or criminal code violation by name or number.

The falsifying business records statute says to conceal or facilitate a crime. What crime is that exsctly? In a normal court that would be a count 35. But apparently its a multiple choice quiz.

The judge instructed the jury they can find Trump guilty of any of a list of "crimes" but they do not all have to agree on one specific crime. That's wild. 

[The Frankish Reich]

10 minutes ago, All_Pro_Bills said:

A distinction that may not matter since none of the 34 counts mention any underlying crime or cite any law or criminal code violation by name or number.

The falsifying business records statute says to conceal or facilitate a crime. What crime is that exsctly? In a normal court that would be a count 35. But apparently its a multiple choice quiz.

The judge instructed the jury they can find Trump guilty of any of a list of "crimes" but they do not all have to agree on one specific crime. That's wild. 

That’s all well and good. But you’re arguing with the statute as written and as interpreted by higher NY courts. I’m not sure in the highest NY State court has weighed in on the isssue yet. If not, that layer of appeal would hear your (Trump’s) argument. Or if not, the Supreme Court could agree to hear the case under a “void for vagueness” US constitutional claim. 

[ChiGoose]

47 minutes ago, All_Pro_Bills said:

A distinction that may not matter since none of the 34 counts mention any underlying crime or cite any law or criminal code violation by name or number.

The falsifying business records statute says to conceal or facilitate a crime. What crime is that exsctly? In a normal court that would be a count 35. But apparently its a multiple choice quiz.

The judge instructed the jury they can find Trump guilty of any of a list of "crimes" but they do not all have to agree on one specific crime. That's wild. 

That’s just how this statute works in a normal court: you don’t have to be charged for the crime you intended to commit and the intent is simply that you’re trying to cover up a crime. 
 

The prosecution outlined a handful of crimes they believe Trump was trying to conceal. If a juror believes that he was trying to cover up any of them, then they can find guilt in the first degree. 

[Doc]

9 hours ago, Joe Ferguson forever said:

what are your estimates based on?   law is not a subject taught in an anesthesiology residency.  Maybe you, in reality, went to law school or perhaps you're a JD/MD.  or maybe you're neither.  LOL

Since when does “mostly concerned” mean 55%? It doesn’t, in law, medicine or anywhere.  So you taking me to task for “making up numbers” is just silly. Shocker. 

Edited May 29 by Doc

[BillStime]

 

[BillStime]

Did Elise write a letter to the totally unbiased Aileen Cannon?

 

Please note - @BillsFanNC won’t start a fresh thread on this bias POS judge.
 

LaWfArE

 

[Big Blitz]