|
Post by bullfrog on Jun 2, 2024 15:31:19 GMT -5
So if one of the defendants in your court decides to run for president you would drop the case? Your hypocrisy is showing. Newsflash: The entire system is bias at every level, and in every way, and yet, is still the best in the world. Can't cherry pick the way the cards are falling for Trump while he and his Federalist Society buddies are out there judge shopping in their culture wars centric campaign to their heart's content. If some red state nutjob thinks they can make a case against Biden, (Joe or Hunter) they should put it in the system and see what happens. Heck, that biased system locks people up, and sometimes even kills them. Go figure. 1. I agree our system is still the best in the world. But that may not be saying much if we slide further down this path of using the criminal justice system to settle political scores. 2. The appointment of conservative judges has nothing to do with making up fake crimes to prosecute political enemies. Both sides legitimately try to appoint judges that match their takes on Constitutional interpretation. Apples and oranges. 3. No, red states should NOT give Biden the same treatment. This politicization of the criminal justice system must be immediately crushed lest it tear the nation in two.
|
|
|
Post by walkerdog on Jun 2, 2024 15:37:53 GMT -5
It’s just a rinse and repeat of what Pelosi did during her impeachments of Big Meanie.
No governmental entity or process is too sacred for them to desecrate, in pursuit of their desire to keep him from becoming elected President again.
The beauty of it all is that they are too blind in their hatred to see that all they’ve succeeded in doing is making him more likely to become 47.
|
|
|
Post by cadman on Jun 2, 2024 15:52:59 GMT -5
I wonder how those on the right seem to think that the person who ran a fraudulent university, has been found to have been guilty of sexual assault in civil court, stolen from his charity that somehow this is political, the man is a criminal plain and simple and deserves to be in prison. He deserves to be convicted of real crimes and not for churching up how he labeled a payment to a porn star. Like… trying to obstruct the recovering of sensitive classified documents. That’s a real crime and he either did or didn’t do that real crime. Its not OK to use the system and biased officials/jurors to convict him of a non-crime because he ought not be president for a myriad of reasons and/or he’s otherwise a distasteful human being. You don't think he was guilty? Which part is not true. Trump used Pecker and AMI to pay McDougal not to tell her story. He did not reimburse AMI and did not report this as a campaign contribution even though it was done on his behalf. Trump used Michael Cohen to pay Daniels not to tell her story Trump reimbursed Cohen and booked it as legal expenses Trump then reported that as a deduction on his state and federal taxes Trump did this to stop the stories from stopping his chance to win the election Which of that is not true? It is all true and Trump was guilty. You may be right as to why the prosecution took up the case now, but if you are as objective as you claim, there is no doubt Trump was guilty of the crime.
|
|
|
Post by walkerdog on Jun 2, 2024 16:14:03 GMT -5
I don’t believe that any of what you’ve said is untrue. The problem is, that isn’t what the issue is here, to many.
It’s the unequal treatment that makes it a rallying point for those that don’t like the abuse they’ve been seeing take place for almost a decade now.
If this was just the most recent prosecution in a long list of them from both parties going back to the middle of the last century, maybe people wouldn’t notice the partiality of it so much and could actually accept it as justice. Unfortunately, when you give a pass to everyone for many decades, and then you don’t, it just doesn’t stand a chance of passing the smell test of being impartial.
It’s the stench of it that is the issue.
|
|
|
Post by cadman on Jun 2, 2024 16:33:39 GMT -5
So you are O.K. with him being guilty of the crime, you just don't want anyone to prosecute him for it?
|
|
|
Post by walkerdog on Jun 2, 2024 16:40:27 GMT -5
If you actually read what I wrote and you actually comprehend it, that’s not the question you’d be asking.
Age has not been kind to you, it seems.
|
|
|
Post by bullfrog on Jun 2, 2024 16:48:55 GMT -5
He deserves to be convicted of real crimes and not for churching up how he labeled a payment to a porn star. Like… trying to obstruct the recovering of sensitive classified documents. That’s a real crime and he either did or didn’t do that real crime. Its not OK to use the system and biased officials/jurors to convict him of a non-crime because he ought not be president for a myriad of reasons and/or he’s otherwise a distasteful human being. You don't think he was guilty? Which part is not true. Trump used Pecker and AMI to pay McDougal not to tell her story. He did not reimburse AMI and did not report this as a campaign contribution even though it was done on his behalf. Trump used Michael Cohen to pay Daniels not to tell her story Trump reimbursed Cohen and booked it as legal expenses Trump then reported that as a deduction on his state and federal taxes Trump did this to stop the stories from stopping his chance to win the election Which of that is not true? It is all true and Trump was guilty. You may be right as to why the prosecution took up the case now, but if you are as objective as you claim, there is no doubt Trump was guilty of the crime. If it was all true, I don’t think he did a crime under New York law. The hush money wasn’t a crime in and of itself. The alleged crime is in how he reported it. He reported the payment. He just called it a “legal expense.” The NY crime is alleged to be falsifying a business record. I don’t think calling it a legal expense is a true falsification as much as it is being very generic. It is a legal fee… just a legal fee relating to his attorney’s work on payout out hush money. Its only false insofar as not being specific enough. Hush money ought not be considered a campaign contribution by default. He did no violation of the NY record keeping law in furtherance of another crime. Its legal BS, contrived charges based on the a legal theory that at best can be considered “creative” and is obvious ad hoc reasoning designed to find a crime to charge Trump with. Do you really doubt the DA told his people “we need to find something to charge Trump with. Figure it out.” It would be hard not to doubt that. He ran on an election campaign promising to prosecute Trump. That would have been before the crime could have been known. How does that not smack of terrible partisan weaponization of the justice system?
|
|
|
Post by cadman on Jun 2, 2024 16:52:12 GMT -5
If you actually read what I wrote and you actually comprehend it, that’s not the question you’d be asking. Age has not been kind to you, it seems. You said my statement was true (you said nothing I said was untrue), but then claim it was all partisan politics. If my statements were true, then Trump is guilty. But your issue is with the prosecution of him. So it would seem logical that you are o.k. with him being guilty and don't want him prosecuted for the crimes he committed. It was partisan when they went after Clinton. It didn't change the fact he was guilty. Even if it starts out partisan, if the evidence is there and the person is guilty, why be upset when they are caught and convicted?
|
|
|
Post by cadman on Jun 2, 2024 16:58:44 GMT -5
You don't think he was guilty? Which part is not true. Trump used Pecker and AMI to pay McDougal not to tell her story. He did not reimburse AMI and did not report this as a campaign contribution even though it was done on his behalf. Trump used Michael Cohen to pay Daniels not to tell her story Trump reimbursed Cohen and booked it as legal expenses Trump then reported that as a deduction on his state and federal taxes Trump did this to stop the stories from stopping his chance to win the election Which of that is not true? It is all true and Trump was guilty. You may be right as to why the prosecution took up the case now, but if you are as objective as you claim, there is no doubt Trump was guilty of the crime. If it was all true, I don’t think he did a crime under New York law. The hush money wasn’t a crime in and of itself. The alleged crime is in how he reported it. He reported the payment. He just called it a “legal expense.” The NY crime is alleged to be falsifying a business record. I don’t think calling it a legal expense is a true falsification as much as it is being very generic. It is a legal fee… just a legal fee relating to his attorney’s work on payout out hush money. Its only false insofar as not being specific enough. Hush money ought not be considered a campaign contribution by default. He did no violation of the NY record keeping law in furtherance of another crime. Its legal BS, contrived charges based on the a legal theory that at best can be considered “creative” and is obvious ad hoc reasoning designed to find a crime to charge Trump with. Do you really doubt the DA told his people “we need to find something to charge Trump with. Figure it out.” It would be hard not to doubt that. He ran on an election campaign promising to prosecute Trump. That would have been before the crime could have been known. How does that not smack of terrible partisan weaponization of the justice system? I guess you don't prosecute white collar crime. Listing a payment to a hooker though a third party as legal expense is a falsification of business records by any accountant. It can not be expensed as such. If he has paid it out of his personal funds, there would have bene no crime. It is not a legal fee by any stretch of the definition. If you make a payment on behalf of a candidate to benefit the candidate, that is a campaign contribution. If a person running for office asked you to pay for his political ads as a favor and you did, that would be a campaign contribution. You are not very objective at all in this case. You are letting your bias show.
|
|
|
Post by walkerdog on Jun 2, 2024 17:01:00 GMT -5
Poor guy! Another swing and a miss.
Not sure why you’re having so much trouble grasping what I said, but you’re at least consistent in missing it.
BTW, you’re also wrong in how you’ve chosen to characterize what I said. Close, but no cigar there.
|
|
|
Post by bullfrog on Jun 2, 2024 17:08:37 GMT -5
If it was all true, I don’t think he did a crime under New York law. The hush money wasn’t a crime in and of itself. The alleged crime is in how he reported it. He reported the payment. He just called it a “legal expense.” The NY crime is alleged to be falsifying a business record. I don’t think calling it a legal expense is a true falsification as much as it is being very generic. It is a legal fee… just a legal fee relating to his attorney’s work on payout out hush money. Its only false insofar as not being specific enough. Hush money ought not be considered a campaign contribution by default. He did no violation of the NY record keeping law in furtherance of another crime. Its legal BS, contrived charges based on the a legal theory that at best can be considered “creative” and is obvious ad hoc reasoning designed to find a crime to charge Trump with. Do you really doubt the DA told his people “we need to find something to charge Trump with. Figure it out.” It would be hard not to doubt that. He ran on an election campaign promising to prosecute Trump. That would have been before the crime could have been known. How does that not smack of terrible partisan weaponization of the justice system? I guess you don't prosecute white collar crime. Listing a payment to a hooker though a third party as legal expense is a falsification of business records by any accountant. It can not be expensed as such. If he has paid it out of his personal funds, there would have bene no crime. It is not a legal fee by any stretch of the definition. If you make a payment on behalf of a candidate to benefit the candidate, that is a campaign contribution. If a person running for office asked you to pay for his political ads as a favor and you did, that would be a campaign contribution. You are not very objective at all in this case. You are letting your bias show. I guess you do prosecute white collar crime? So who made the payment? Was Trump paying a hooker and lying by calling it a legal fee? In which case it wouldn’t be Cohen making a campaign contribution to Trump. It can’t both be an illegal campaign contribution to Trump by a third party and Trump paying the hooker and just using the third party to do so. I actually do prosecute white collar crimes. No chance I could bring this case with a clear conscience against Obama himself. Its wrong. Its evil to use the system this way.
|
|
|
Post by luapnor on Jun 2, 2024 17:25:18 GMT -5
Is extortion now legal? Asking for a friend?
|
|
|
Post by nikonoclast on Jun 2, 2024 17:44:19 GMT -5
"The tallest nail gets the hammer."
"The squeaky wheel gets the grease."
Trump has been demanding attention for Decades!
Pushing his "name brand" has been his primary pursuit.
The fact that he failed miserably on numerous occasions, hasn't slowed him down.
( How was it done? Huge debts paid off by his father, and fraudulent accounting. )
For all the publicity, bluster, and bravado, the reality was pedestrian ... as was his taste.
Did any mover and shaker of New York real estate ever take him seriously?
The answer is no ... apartments in Queens really don't count ( unless you cheat ).
Multiple bankruptcy's, letting others bite the bankruptcy boner, isn't considered a plus.
He's bragged and bullied and finally, ... someone checked the records.
Once the NY Times broke the scheme, he's been in the cross hairs.
He asked for it!
|
|
|
Post by luapnor on Jun 2, 2024 18:00:15 GMT -5
"She wore a really tight miniskirt and a halter top and flirted with every man..."
She asked for it.
|
|
|
Post by walkerdog on Jun 2, 2024 18:33:58 GMT -5
"The tallest nail gets the hammer." "The squeaky wheel gets the grease." Trump has been demanding attention for Decades! Pushing his "name brand" has been his primary pursuit. The fact that he failed miserably on numerous occasions, hasn't slowed him down. ( How was it done? Huge debts paid off by his father, and fraudulent accounting. ) For all the publicity, bluster, and bravado, the reality was pedestrian ... as was his taste. Did any mover and shaker of New York real estate ever take him seriously? The answer is no ... apartments in Queens really don't count ( unless you cheat ). Multiple bankruptcy's, letting others bite the bankruptcy boner, isn't considered a plus. He's bragged and bullied and finally, ... someone checked the records. Once the NY Times broke the scheme, he's been in the cross hairs. He asked for it! “Well, whuddya know….” - Lyin’ Biden 🙄
|
|