What Are You Going To Do?

[boyst]

1 hour ago, ChiGoose said:

You believe it will for certain be overturned on appeal but you don’t know why. 
 

And anyone should listen to you… why?

Does it matter? All I need to know before I will address your question is if you can answer my question first. Will you respect the verdict if it is appealed successfully? 

 

Your understanding of arguments is very weak if you think I'm just going to chase your red herrings.

[B-Man]

 

 

Douglas Murray recently said in a great analogy that sometimes “a flare goes up, and you see exactly where everyone is.”

 

That is what has happened with this trial.

 

Biden and the Democrats have shown their true colors.

 

They have shown that they desire dominance, not democracy.

 

And there is no way to unsee what we have seen.

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qw81d46yUD0

 

[ChiGoose]

41 minutes ago, boyst said:

Does it matter? All I need to know before I will address your question is if you can answer my question first. Will you respect the verdict if it is appealed successfully? 

 

Your understanding of arguments is very weak if you think I'm just going to chase your red herrings.

 

Very telling that you don't think it matters what the reason an appeal might be successful is and that even considering what the ultimate reversable error that will lead to an overturn is a red herring. The very first thing you'd need to win on appeal is an actual reason you should win on appeal... Lots of people seem to expect an overturn based solely on feels, I suppose

 

If it's overturned, I'll accept it. I won't like it, and I might not agree with the reasoning, but I'll have to accept it because that's how the rule of law works. You accept it even if you don't like it.

 

However, this statute gets charged all of the time in NY. For decades. And the upper courts in NY have been totally fine with it. I do not expect them to overturn the conviction based on how the law was applied. If they had a problem with that, they would have done away with that interpretation of the law years ago.

 

If it's overturned in the NY courts, my guess would likely be a Molineux issue with Stormy Daniels' testimony around the sexual encounter. Ultimately, it would be sent back for retrial and Trump would likely still be convicted because the testimony really isn't necessary for the conviction. It'd be annoying and take years to resolve, but the end result would be the same.

 

I'm not going to predict what SCOTUS does. That court just likes to make it up as they go along. I can see them finding some way to interfere but I am unsure of the exact reasoning they will use. I've heard some people say it'll be presidential immunity, but how could paying off a porn star be a presidential act? You'd basically need complete presidential immunity, a thing we've never had in the history of this country (and is antithetical to our founding) and would in essence make the president a dictator. Which of course means that Biden can just assassinate Trump if he wants, so there's that.

Edited June 1 by ChiGoose

[Orlando Buffalo]

1 hour ago, ChiGoose said:

 

Very telling that you don't think it matters what the reason an appeal might be successful is and that even considering what the ultimate reversable error that will lead to an overturn is a red herring. The very first thing you'd need to win on appeal is an actual reason you should win on appeal... Lots of people seem to expect an overturn based solely on feels, I suppose

 

If it's overturned, I'll accept it. I won't like it, and I might not agree with the reasoning, but I'll have to accept it because that's how the rule of law works. You accept it even if you don't like it.

 

However, this statute gets charged all of the time in NY. For decades. And the upper courts in NY have been totally fine with it. I do not expect them to overturn the conviction based on how the law was applied. If they had a problem with that, they would have done away with that interpretation of the law years ago.

 

If it's overturned in the NY courts, my guess would likely be a Molineux issue with Stormy Daniels' testimony around the sexual encounter. Ultimately, it would be sent back for retrial and Trump would likely still be convicted because the testimony really isn't necessary for the conviction. It'd be annoying and take years to resolve, but the end result would be the same.

 

I'm not going to predict what SCOTUS does. That court just likes to make it up as they go along. I can see them finding some way to interfere but I am unsure of the exact reasoning they will use. I've heard some people say it'll be presidential immunity, but how could paying off a porn star be a presidential act? You'd basically need complete presidential immunity, a thing we've never had in the history of this country (and is antithetical to our founding) and would in essence make the president a dictator. Which of course means that Biden can just assassinate Trump if he wants, so there's that.

Goose I think you are overall honest, which is an odd way to start a statement where I expect you to fudge the truth. Tell me where I am wrong with this summation of this case: we have a novel prosecution, based on linking two items where intent is a key component, and the link is a man who has already been convicted of perjury, who while on the stand admits that he committed a worse crime then the one being prosecuted, while stating he feels the defendant did not pay him fully and he wants revenge? With all of that you still believe he is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt? 

[Scraps]

15 hours ago, boyst said:

I just needed someone to set the trap and link the evidence he was to show that he was found not guilty of the same violations trump was. ... And you did it.  You new here, bud?

 

The shift of the goal post was exactly what I did. Now explain why it's ok to find Edwards innocent of what trump was accused of doing and convicted of???

 

Also, in NC we all knew Edwards just like cal Cunningham who is absolutely and positively an idiot. It was known he had a thing for the ladies.

So you intentionally lied in your first post.

 

Edwards was found not guilty on one charge but the jury hung on the remaining charges.  These are two different cases with different evidence and it is understandable that there can be different outcomes.  Your logic seems whackadoodle.  You seem to be saying if one person beat a murder charge, nobody else should ever be charged with murder again.

[Scraps]

55 minutes ago, Orlando Buffalo said:

Goose I think you are overall honest, which is an odd way to start a statement where I expect you to fudge the truth. Tell me where I am wrong with this summation of this case: we have a novel prosecution, based on linking two items where intent is a key component, and the link is a man who has already been convicted of perjury, who while on the stand admits that he committed a worse crime then the one being prosecuted, while stating he feels the defendant did not pay him fully and he wants revenge? With all of that you still believe he is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt? 

Michael Cohen wasn't the only witness and his account was corroborated with documentary evidence and other witnesses.  If it was only Cohen's testimony, Trump would have walked (even though Trump is a greater pathological liar than Cohen).  Even the judge instructed the jury that they couldn't convict on Cohen's testimony alone.

[ChiGoose]

1 hour ago, Orlando Buffalo said:

Goose I think you are overall honest, which is an odd way to start a statement where I expect you to fudge the truth. Tell me where I am wrong with this summation of this case: we have a novel prosecution, based on linking two items where intent is a key component, and the link is a man who has already been convicted of perjury, who while on the stand admits that he committed a worse crime then the one being prosecuted, while stating he feels the defendant did not pay him fully and he wants revenge? With all of that you still believe he is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt? 

If the evidence was simply Cohen vs Trump, I think that’d leave a lot of room for doubt.

 

But there were over 200 exhibits in this case and much of Cohen’s testimony was corroborated by people friendly to Trump like Pxcker, McConney, and Hicks. 
 

The judge even told the jury they could not convict Trump solely on Cohen’s testimony. 
 

So you have an unreliable witness but most of what he said was already testified to by other witnesses, several of whom were still friendly to the defendant. 

[ChiGoose]

11 minutes ago, Scraps said:

Michael Cohen wasn't the only witness and his account was corroborated with documentary evidence and other witnesses.  If it was only Cohen's testimony, Trump would have walked (even though Trump is a greater pathological liar than Cohen).  Even the judge instructed the jury that they couldn't convict on Cohen's testimony alone.

Jinx, lol 

[L Ron Burgundy]

The aftermath of this case is fascinating.  The right is still latching onto anything that would free this POS from suffering consequences.  People that know nothing of the law or the case, "oh it'll get overturned on appeal".  Ask them why and you often get zero response.  Almost none of them actually saying he's innocent mind you, not innocent of the fraud or hooking up with Stormy (still lying about that).  Most are just vaguely insinuating the charges are BS or that prosecution broke a rule.

 

I think these people are lost, they're not gonna get right until the orange fupa dies.  I feel like it should make me happy because I do dislike him with every fiber of my being but i guess i dislike that they love this POS more.  There are no redeeming features.

[Joe Ferguson forever]

2 hours ago, Orlando Buffalo said:

d the link is a man who has already been convicted of perjury,

This is rich considering trump admitted after the trial that he didn't testify because of -possible perjury...

 

https://www.msnbc.com/the-last-word/watch/lawrence-trump-admits-he-didn-t-testify-because-he-would-have-committed-perjury-212073029510

Edited June 1 by Joe Ferguson forever

[Joe Ferguson forever]

1 hour ago, L Ron Burgundy said:

The aftermath of this case is fascinating.  The right is still latching onto anything that would free this POS from suffering consequences.  People that know nothing of the law or the case, "oh it'll get overturned on appeal".  Ask them why and you often get zero response.  Almost none of them actually saying he's innocent mind you, not innocent of the fraud or hooking up with Stormy (still lying about that).  Most are just vaguely insinuating the charges are BS or that prosecution broke a rule.

 

I think these people are lost, they're not gonna get right until the orange fupa dies.  I feel like it should make me happy because I do dislike him with every fiber of my being but i guess i dislike that they love this POS more.  There are no redeeming features.

worse.  They are attacking the entire justice system.

[boyst]

5 hours ago, ChiGoose said:

 

Very telling that you don't think it matters what the reason an appeal might be successful is and that even considering what the ultimate reversable error that will lead to an overturn is a red herring. The very first thing you'd need to win on appeal is an actual reason you should win on appeal... Lots of people seem to expect an overturn based solely on feels, I suppose

 

If it's overturned, I'll accept it. I won't like it, and I might not agree with the reasoning, but I'll have to accept it because that's how the rule of law works. You accept it even if you don't like it.

 

However, this statute gets charged all of the time in NY. For decades. And the upper courts in NY have been totally fine with it. I do not expect them to overturn the conviction based on how the law was applied. If they had a problem with that, they would have done away with that interpretation of the law years ago.

 

If it's overturned in the NY courts, my guess would likely be a Molineux issue with Stormy Daniels' testimony around the sexual encounter. Ultimately, it would be sent back for retrial and Trump would likely still be convicted because the testimony really isn't necessary for the conviction. It'd be annoying and take years to resolve, but the end result would be the same.

 

I'm not going to predict what SCOTUS does. That court just likes to make it up as they go along. I can see them finding some way to interfere but I am unsure of the exact reasoning they will use. I've heard some people say it'll be presidential immunity, but how could paying off a porn star be a presidential act? You'd basically need complete presidential immunity, a thing we've never had in the history of this country (and is antithetical to our founding) and would in essence make the president a dictator. Which of course means that Biden can just assassinate Trump if he wants, so there's that.

That's way too much to read to realize you don't have the balls to answer the question princess.

 

Until you do better and answer a simple question... I am not going to bathe in your blathering idiot speak.

3 hours ago, Scraps said:

So you intentionally lied in your first post.

 

Edwards was found not guilty on one charge but the jury hung on the remaining charges.  These are two different cases with different evidence and it is understandable that there can be different outcomes.  Your logic seems whackadoodle.  You seem to be saying if one person beat a murder charge, nobody else should ever be charged with murder again.

No, I baited and switched a trap for the stupid.

[boyst]

1 hour ago, Joe Ferguson forever said:

worse.  They are attacking the entire justice system.

So is Biden. Do you have a problem with it?

 

[ChiGoose]

27 minutes ago, boyst said:

That's way too much to read to realize you don't have the balls to answer the question princess.

 

Until you do better and answer a simple question... I am not going to bathe in your blathering idiot speak.

No, I baited and switched a trap for the stupid.

Literally answered in the fourth sentence. 
 

Reading is fundamental. The more you post, the more you’re embarrassing yourself. 

[boyst]

4 minutes ago, ChiGoose said:

Literally answered in the fourth sentence. 
 

Reading is fundamental. The more you post, the more you’re embarrassing yourself. 

4th sentence to answer a yes or no question...?  You're not that special to make a long bloviating statement, pal.

[ChiGoose]

6 minutes ago, boyst said:

4th sentence to answer a yes or no question...?  You're not that special to make a long bloviating statement, pal.

Just providing context for my yes answer. 
 

I didn’t realize I was dealing with someone with reading issues. I’ll try to keep things to about a 6th grade level for you moving forward. My bad!

[Joe Ferguson forever]

2 hours ago, boyst said:

So is Biden. Do you have a problem with it?

 

tell me about SCOTUS and the student debt issue.  and Biden's response.  Enquiring minds want to know.

Edited June 2 by Joe Ferguson forever

[boyst]

3 hours ago, ChiGoose said:

Just providing context for my yes answer. 
 

I didn’t realize I was dealing with someone with reading issues. I’ll try to keep things to about a 6th grade level for you moving forward. My bad!

Sorry I didn't realize someone who had to elaborate so much thinking that I really cared. As long as you're willing to say that you believe in the delivery of Justice we can continue the discussion. I need you to just simply enter yes or no to questions, I don't care about the rest. Thank you for your service to me. 

1 hour ago, Joe Ferguson forever said:

tell me about SCOTUS and the student debt issue.  and Biden's response.  Enquiring minds want to know.

What would you like to know? I'll do the best I can but I'm not used to talking with ######s so it might be easier to just draw a picture for you. 

[ChiGoose]

16 minutes ago, boyst said:

Sorry I didn't realize someone who had to elaborate so much thinking that I really cared. As long as you're willing to say that you believe in the delivery of Justice we can continue the discussion. I need you to just simply enter yes or no to questions, I don't care about the rest. Thank you for your service to me. 

Ok, so can you not actually read? I’m beginning to wonder if I’m talking to someone with severe disabilities and I feel bad for making them demonstrate to the world how dumb they are…

[CoudyBills]

Libertarian, not a Democrat.  I'll shake my head that we didn't have a real solution and get on with my day.  Most things in DC don't affect me directly.