A leopard doesn’t change his spots.
You’re trying to engage in good faith with someone who is not returning the favor.
Mischaracterize, misdirect, misrepresent is his whole game book.
Trump 2024 Run Thread
- Thread starter Polds4OSU
- Start date
You’re trying to engage in good faith with someone who is not returning the favor.
Mischaracterize, misdirect, misrepresent is his whole game book.
Got it. Have to be creative with crimes then JT says you can't be prosecuted. How detailed do we have to get? Would wearing a blow up T-rex costume and using purple clown car with balloons painted on it make bank robbery a first time thing, or does someone need to get even more creative? (Not suggesting anyone do that or condoning it)
WTH? The very specific details don't matter? The law that was broken and prosecuted has been prosecuted thousands of times. Don't see you defending every other convicted felon.
No I am not defending guilty people. What he did was a crime and the jury found him guilty. The jury decision should be respected. Said that in my first post.
Only blind kool-aid drinkers cannot admit the case was trivial and politically motivated. When you have multiple CNN legal analysts, several non-Trump journalists (Cuomo as example of one) and Mitt Romney, who are not Trump fans, calling this case “contorted” and “malpractice”..maybe stop and think.
Too many people appear to be 1) blind MAGA-loving extremists dolts who believe anything Trump says and make unsubstantiated claims about jury being rigged or Biden being involved (they are wrong) …or 2) are blind extremists who are okay with the ends justifying the means.
The good about this case is that it highlights those more objective versus those squirreled down their rabbit hole.
You said it was a crime that was never prosecuted, then when provided proof that it's been prosecuted a bunch of other times, you make a comment implying those cases are different because of what the payment was hidden for...
How is this trial different from the others beyond the name of the defendent?
Thirty four felony convictions = "trivial" is defending guilty people.
Calling the prosecution that led to those thirty four felony convictions "contorted" and "malpractice" is defending guilty people.
Calling the prosecution of criminals that actually leads to 34 felony convictions "politically motivated" is defending guilty people.
The prosecution of and conviction of criminals is never politically motivated. NOT prosecuting criminals because of who they are would be the "politically motivated" conduct. Prosecution of and conviction of criminals is the proper administration of justice and is in no way "political". The investigation without reasonable suspicion and charging without probable cause could arguably be fairly characterized as "political". The investigation, charging, and conviction of criminals, however, is nothing but equal justice under the law for all people regardless of their politics, position, power, or name.
Last edited:
LOL. Of course it was politically motivated. No reasonable person would argue otherwise.
Loading…
www.wsj.com
At the moment no bromide spurts insincerity like “no one is above the law.” The slogan manages to be both meaningless and inspirational, but it says nothing useful about people or the law. Anyone uttering it should be forced to submit his laptop and smartphone to the authorities to search for evidence of crimes.
Many cuttlefish commentators spurting that “no one is above the law” would insist their laptops and smartphones contain no evidence of serious crimes like falsifying business records. Really? How about felony drug diversion for borrowing a Valium from somebody else? How about the overly high estimate provided to the Internal Revenue Service on the clothes and furniture donated to Goodwill? Tax fraud anyone? Let’s hope none of those laptops contain an application for a home-equity loan in which the borrower overstated the value of his residence. That’s bank fraud. If the loan application was emailed to the bank, that’s mail fraud. If the back-and-forth between the borrower and loan officers amounts to 34 emails, that’s 34 counts of mail fraud.
With state and federal criminal laws as limitless as the stars in the heavens, about the worst thing a prosecutor can do, other than taking bribes, is prosecute people instead of crimes. In states like New York where prosecutors are elected, they are supposed to run for office by promising to stop carjackings or put meth dealers in prison. When a prosecutor instead says, “Vote for me, I’ll find a way to get Mr. X,” he’s abusing his power. It means vote for me and I’ll examine every email or statement Mr. X has ever made. I’ll subpoena his laptop and smartphone and I’ll have a team of lawyers and algorithms search the criminal codes until I find a way to get him. Who wants to live under such a regime?
Before the 2016 election, FBI Director James Comey held a press conference explaining why his office was recommending that prosecutors not bring charges against Hillary Clinton for mishandling classified information. “Although there is evidence of potential violations regarding the handling of classified information,” Mr. Comey said, “our judgment is that no reasonable prosecutor would bring such a case.”
These days we are forced to ask: Yes, but what about unreasonable prosecutors?
PF5
Ranger
was it politically motivated? the real question is ´when would it have been a good time to charge and prosecute these crimes?´
suppose it was delayed til after the election...is it politically motivated then? suppose it was done last year...is it politically motivated then?
some more real questions:
did he commit a crime? did he get charged for said crime? was he found guilty? will maga cultists still support him?
hint: the answer to all of these is yes.
Unreasonable for a prosecutor to bring 34 felony counts which resulted in a conviction on all counts by a jury of peers.
Yes, that is how charges are handled, every time you break a law it can be a charge. Good job. They tend to run sentences concurrently so the punishment isn't as bad as it could be.
Unlike the GOP politicians, I don't commit 3 felonies a day. Is this an admission that you've done all those things? I haven't.
Except no judge will sign off on a warrant to search without probable cause... so no they can't just search everything he's ever written until they find something.
Oh... this is referencing the call to all Red State DAs to get busy. If they broke the law then send to grand jury and see what the outcome is. I want all politicians clean, not just the R ones.
FFS dude if you expect me to get baited into a discussion between you and your sock account you're even dumber than I thought you were.Unreasonable for a prosecutor to bring 34 felony counts which resulted in a conviction on all counts by a jury of peers.
So some people are above the law?
NEW: Donald Trump's legal team reportedly sent a cease-and-desist in an attempt to stop a potentially damning investigation from being made public.
A report alleges nine people who testified in Trump's defense later received benefits.
- https://www.newsweek.com/donald-trump-cease-desist-investigation-public-1907883
A report alleges nine people who testified in Trump's defense later received benefits. - https://www.newsweek.com/donald-trump-cease-desist-investigation-public-1907883Haha already saying the appeals court is rigged against Trump..
"One of justices donated to Hillary Clinton" -- Fox News is preemptively attacking the justices on the New York appeals court, putting up their photos and trying to smear them as partisan Dems
"One of justices donated to Hillary Clinton" -- Fox News is preemptively attacking the justices on the New York appeals court, putting up their photos and trying to smear them as partisan Dems
Everybody keeps asking that question like it's some kind of gotcha and it does seem like a simple question doesn't it? The fact is there will be literally thousands of laws broken today that won't be prosecuted for one reason or another (Bragg in particular has been criticized for being extremely soft on crime) and that is a fact. Can you, with a straight face, say that this case would have and should have been brought if Trump wasn't running again? It shouldn't have and, I keep saying it, the Dems will wish that they hadn't because the other side is now going to ramp up the stupidity. Do you think it's cool for a DA to campaign on his desire to go after a specific individual? If that's what you want then I can see how this would be right in your wheelhouse. It was dumb...and this verdict will be overturned on appeal. In the meantime, the Dems will get to call Trump a felon for the next 5 months and when it's overturned (probably sometime next year) we'll see if everyone is still cool with it.
Well then we’ll go from Felonious Trump to Treasonous Trump when the documents and the Jan 6th trials are over. IMO I just pray the lying conman criminal isn’t president at that point.
Last edited:
I read this, but all I see is
So your argument is other people do it so why can't Trump? And yeah, I can say that the judicial system worked and he was convicted by a jury of his peers regardless of his political standing. If I were to guess normally stuff like this gets pled out but this was never going to because Trump's ego was too big to realize that there was a possibility of conviction. Not the Republican politician but the person. And I can also say with a straight face that if there was a D in front of his name and not an R you would be giddy about it.
I read this, but all I see is
So your argument is other people do it so why can't Trump? And yeah, I can say that the judicial system worked and he was convicted by a jury of his peers regardless of his political standing. If I were to guess normally stuff like this gets pled out but this was never going to because Trump's ego was too big to realize that there was a possibility of conviction. Not the Republican politician but the person. And I can also say with a straight face that if there was a D in front of his name and not an R you would be giddy about it.
Maybe Trump's ego was why no settlement was reached. But I think it's also likely that his team knew he'd be found guilty and how valuable that would be politically for him. I mean just look at the response.
