2024 US Presidential Election

[xtsho]

The bottom line is that trump broke the law. He was charged, had a jury trial, and that 12 person jury after looking at the evidence found him guilty.

There is no liberal plot. trump broke the law. Those defending him want to just pick and choose what laws to follow. They like him and don't care.

Real Americans are happy to see that the law is applied to those even if they are powerful. In some countries criminals like trump would never even be charged. The United States system of law worked and a criminal was held accountable. It's that simple.

I'd like to ask those defending trump how he isn't guilty of what he was convicted of. The evidence is now public. He definitely broke the law. What is his defense? He falsified business records. That's a fact. So how is trump being persecuted when he's just being held accountable to the same laws any other American is held accountable to?

 

[moose eater]

The bottom line is that trump broke the law. He was charged, had a jury trial, and that 12 person jury after looking at the evidence found him guilty.

There is no liberal plot. trump broke the law. Those defending him want to just pick and choose what laws to follow. They like him and don't care.

Real Americans are happy to see that the law is applied to those even if they are powerful. In some countries criminals like trump would never even be charged. The United States system of law worked and a criminal was held accountable. It's that simple.

I'd like to ask those defending trump how he isn't guilty of what he was convicted of. The evidence is now public. He definitely broke the law. What is his defense? He falsified business records. That's a fact. So how is trump being persecuted when he's just being held accountable to the same laws any other American is held accountable to?

Absolutely.

And from what I understand there was possibly at least one pro-Trump juror, though I don't know that.

Part of the vetting of a jury involves answering questions re. bias, etc., and if misrepresenting a position or political activities, a juror can actually be charged.

 

[PadawanWarrior]

The bottom line is that trump broke the law. He was charged, had a jury trial, and that 12 person jury after looking at the evidence found him guilty.

There is no liberal plot. trump broke the law. Those defending him want to just pick and choose what laws to follow. They like him and don't care.

Real Americans are happy to see that the law is applied to those even if they are powerful. In some countries criminals like trump would never even be charged. The United States system of law worked and a criminal was held accountable. It's that simple.

I'd like to ask those defending trump how he isn't guilty of what he was convicted of. The evidence is now public. He definitely broke the law. What is his defense? He falsified business records. That's a fact. So how is trump being persecuted when he's just being held accountable to the same laws any other American is held accountable to?

I'm sure he did break the law somehow but it's kinda like going to prison for getting caught with a joint. This post makes some good points on both sides. I'd rather we have 2 totally different candidates personally, but this is the shi*t storm that's forced on us.

The best — and worst — criticisms of Trump’s conviction

Was Trump wrongly convicted? The debate, explained.

www.vox.com

In Trumps defense

1) Trump may have falsified business records, but he did not do so with an “intent to defraud,” in the legal sense of that term. As the National Review’s Andrew McCarthy argues, the Supreme Court recently confirmed that “intent to defraud” has a very specific and narrow legal meaning: It describes the intention to deprive someone of money, property, or some other concrete good through deception.
There is no evidence that Trump falsified business records for the sake of tricking any specific individual into giving him cash. But Bragg’s office argued that, under New York state law, “intent to defraud” can refer to deliberately misleading the government or voting public.
McCarthy argues that this is much too broad: If you can commit fraud without actually trying to “steal something in which people have a concrete interest,” then “any untrue statement a candidate makes” could be prosecutable fraud, since such statements deceive voters.
2) The claim that Trump falsified business records to conceal a separate crime rests on a dubious interpretation of an obscure and arguably inapplicable law. Legal analysts (from across the political spectrum) have long argued that the shakiest part of the prosecution’s case was the claim that Trump’s fraudulent paperwork was intended to cover up another crime.
After all, there is no law against paying your ex-lover not to speak with a tabloid about your sordid liaison. The prosecution’s case rested primarily on the assertion that the payment to Daniels violated federal campaign finance law.
There are two potential objections to this: First, as David French notes in the New York Times, the Department of Justice chose not to charge Trump with violating campaign finance law by arranging Daniels’s payoff, apparently concluding that the case would be difficult to win. Yes, Cohen did plead guilty to a campaign finance violation related to the Daniels payment. But a guilty plea does not have the same weight as a jury verdict, from the standpoint of legal precedent. And in any case, Cohen’s plea did not establish Trump’s guilt in the alleged scheme.
Second, Mark Pomerantz, a former prosecutor in the Manhattan DA’s office, has observed that it isn’t clear that a violation of federal law can qualify as “unlawful means” under New York state law. Before this trial, the question had simply never been adjudicated.
To its credit, Bragg’s office anticipated this problem, and argued that Trump not only promoted his own election through federal campaign finance violations, but also through other unlawful means, such as the falsification of separate business records and violations of tax law. But the validity of these supplementary charges is contested.
More fundamentally, some legal scholars argue that New York’s law against promoting a candidate’s election through unlawful means is preempted by federal law. “Federal election law, generally speaking, preempts state election law when it comes to a governing of federal elections, except there are exceptions whereby certain state election laws can come into play,” Jerry H. Goldfeder, a campaign finance lawyer, told CNN last year.
3) There is little evidence that Trump knew he had violated campaign finance laws, let alone that he knowingly tried to conceal having done so. Donald Trump does not have a reputation for being highly fluent in the details of public policy or the legal niceties of the political system.
As National Review’s McCarthy argues, “there is not a shred of evidence that Trump was even thinking about FECA (the Federal Election Campaign Act) in 2016-17, much less willfully transgressing it — which, to establish, prosecutors need to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Trump was aware of a legal duty to comply with FECA’s contribution limits and reporting requirements, yet intentionally violated them.”
4) Even if Trump were guilty, the statute of limitations on his offense has already expired. The statute of limitations on misdemeanor business records falsification is two years; for the felony version, it’s five years.
Trump committed his alleged offense in 2017. But New York law holds that the clock on its statute of limitations stops when a defendant is “continuously” outside of the state. Therefore, it is plausible that the years Trump spent primarily in the White House and Mar-a-Lago do not count against the clock.
Still, even under this interpretation, Syracuse University law professor Gregory Germain argues that two years have certainly passed since Trump allegedly falsified records related to his hush money payment. In Germain’s view, it “is not clear whether the felony can stand when the misdemeanor is time barred” because the “felony statute requires showing that the misdemeanor was committed, since the felony is really a penalty enhancement on the misdemeanor.”
5) The prosecution was blatantly politically motivated, and the judge was politically biased. Finally, the prosecution’s skeptics point to all of its case’s dubious elements — and then to the surrounding political context — and argue that Trump has been politically persecuted. As former federal prosecutor Elie Honig notes in New York magazine, Alvin Bragg ran for district attorney on a promise to indict Donald Trump. And the judge in Trump’s trial, Juan Merchan, donated to “a pro-Biden, anti-Trump political operation,” in violation of a rule barring New York judges from contributing to political campaigns, according to Honig.
And there is indeed some evidence that Trump’s prosecution was highly selective. No state prosecutor has ever cited federal election laws as a predicate state crime. The Manhattan DA hardly ever brings cases in which the sole charge concerns the falsification of business records. And the statute prohibiting conspiracies to promote a person’s election through unlawful means has almost never been used: According to an analysis from the Washington Post, since 2000, no judge issued a single legal opinion concerning the statute until Trump’s trial began last year.

 

[audiohi]

I'm sure he did break the law somehow but it's kinda like going to prison for getting caught with a joint.

us cannabis users have always had to man up and deal with the consequences of our actions if/when that time came.

glad you admit he broke the law.

time to man up.

 

[moose eater]

Imagine if everyone disgusted with the quality of candidates in this election agreed to choose a non-corporatist, thinking and soulful being from a third party... Imagine....

No groupies per se', just business and sincere concern for the Country and ideas. Imagine that for just a moment.

And the primary reason they rarely do? Fear of each other's choices.

 

[xtsho]

I'm sure he did break the law somehow but it's kinda like going to prison for getting caught with a joint. This post makes some good points on both sides. I'd rather we have 2 totally different candidates personally, but this is the shi*t storm that's forced on us.

The best — and worst — criticisms of Trump’s conviction

Was Trump wrongly convicted? The debate, explained.

www.vox.com

In Trumps defense

1) Trump may have falsified business records, but he did not do so with an “intent to defraud,” in the legal sense of that term. As the National Review’s Andrew McCarthy argues, the Supreme Court recently confirmed that “intent to defraud” has a very specific and narrow legal meaning: It describes the intention to deprive someone of money, property, or some other concrete good through deception.
There is no evidence that Trump falsified business records for the sake of tricking any specific individual into giving him cash. But Bragg’s office argued that, under New York state law, “intent to defraud” can refer to deliberately misleading the government or voting public.
McCarthy argues that this is much too broad: If you can commit fraud without actually trying to “steal something in which people have a concrete interest,” then “any untrue statement a candidate makes” could be prosecutable fraud, since such statements deceive voters.
2) The claim that Trump falsified business records to conceal a separate crime rests on a dubious interpretation of an obscure and arguably inapplicable law. Legal analysts (from across the political spectrum) have long argued that the shakiest part of the prosecution’s case was the claim that Trump’s fraudulent paperwork was intended to cover up another crime.
After all, there is no law against paying your ex-lover not to speak with a tabloid about your sordid liaison. The prosecution’s case rested primarily on the assertion that the payment to Daniels violated federal campaign finance law.
There are two potential objections to this: First, as David French notes in the New York Times, the Department of Justice chose not to charge Trump with violating campaign finance law by arranging Daniels’s payoff, apparently concluding that the case would be difficult to win. Yes, Cohen did plead guilty to a campaign finance violation related to the Daniels payment. But a guilty plea does not have the same weight as a jury verdict, from the standpoint of legal precedent. And in any case, Cohen’s plea did not establish Trump’s guilt in the alleged scheme.
Second, Mark Pomerantz, a former prosecutor in the Manhattan DA’s office, has observed that it isn’t clear that a violation of federal law can qualify as “unlawful means” under New York state law. Before this trial, the question had simply never been adjudicated.
To its credit, Bragg’s office anticipated this problem, and argued that Trump not only promoted his own election through federal campaign finance violations, but also through other unlawful means, such as the falsification of separate business records and violations of tax law. But the validity of these supplementary charges is contested.
More fundamentally, some legal scholars argue that New York’s law against promoting a candidate’s election through unlawful means is preempted by federal law. “Federal election law, generally speaking, preempts state election law when it comes to a governing of federal elections, except there are exceptions whereby certain state election laws can come into play,” Jerry H. Goldfeder, a campaign finance lawyer, told CNN last year.
3) There is little evidence that Trump knew he had violated campaign finance laws, let alone that he knowingly tried to conceal having done so. Donald Trump does not have a reputation for being highly fluent in the details of public policy or the legal niceties of the political system.
As National Review’s McCarthy argues, “there is not a shred of evidence that Trump was even thinking about FECA (the Federal Election Campaign Act) in 2016-17, much less willfully transgressing it — which, to establish, prosecutors need to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Trump was aware of a legal duty to comply with FECA’s contribution limits and reporting requirements, yet intentionally violated them.”
4) Even if Trump were guilty, the statute of limitations on his offense has already expired. The statute of limitations on misdemeanor business records falsification is two years; for the felony version, it’s five years.
Trump committed his alleged offense in 2017. But New York law holds that the clock on its statute of limitations stops when a defendant is “continuously” outside of the state. Therefore, it is plausible that the years Trump spent primarily in the White House and Mar-a-Lago do not count against the clock.
Still, even under this interpretation, Syracuse University law professor Gregory Germain argues that two years have certainly passed since Trump allegedly falsified records related to his hush money payment. In Germain’s view, it “is not clear whether the felony can stand when the misdemeanor is time barred” because the “felony statute requires showing that the misdemeanor was committed, since the felony is really a penalty enhancement on the misdemeanor.”
5) The prosecution was blatantly politically motivated, and the judge was politically biased. Finally, the prosecution’s skeptics point to all of its case’s dubious elements — and then to the surrounding political context — and argue that Trump has been politically persecuted. As former federal prosecutor Elie Honig notes in New York magazine, Alvin Bragg ran for district attorney on a promise to indict Donald Trump. And the judge in Trump’s trial, Juan Merchan, donated to “a pro-Biden, anti-Trump political operation,” in violation of a rule barring New York judges from contributing to political campaigns, according to Honig.
And there is indeed some evidence that Trump’s prosecution was highly selective. No state prosecutor has ever cited federal election laws as a predicate state crime. The Manhattan DA hardly ever brings cases in which the sole charge concerns the falsification of business records. And the statute prohibiting conspiracies to promote a person’s election through unlawful means has almost never been used: According to an analysis from the Washington Post, since 2000, no judge issued a single legal opinion concerning the statute until Trump’s trial began last year.

trump isn't going to serve a day in jail over these charges if they stand up to appeal. He has a clean record and like you and I will just get probation.

Actually it's about time trump has had to be held accountable. Decades of being notorious for not paying contractors that he hired. He had a legal team already working for him. It wasn't worth the six figure lawyer fee to try and get their money.

He's a very bad person. He cares only of himself. People are just tools to him. Just look at all the ruined careers and live he's left in his wake. If you're anywhere near trump and a bus is around you're likely going under it.

I will give him credit for being a true shark. He shows no mercy and everyone is expendable. No morals, no values, no conviction, nothing... It's all about survival with trump.

The best way to survive is to have a good offense and trump figured that out decades ago. He's good at what he does which is con people.

 

[PadawanWarrior]

trump isn't going to serve a day in jail over these charges if they stand up to appeal. He has a clean record and like you and I will just get probation.

Actually it's about time trump has had to be held accountable. Decades of being notorious for not paying contractors that he hired. He had a legal team already working for him. It wasn't worth the six figure lawyer fee to try and get their money.

He's a very bad person. He cares only of himself. People are just tools to him. Just look at all the ruined careers and live he's left in his wake. If you're anywhere near trump and a bus is around you're likely going under it.

I will give him credit for being a true shark. He shows no mercy and everyone is expendable. No morals, no values, no conviction, nothing... It's all about survival with trump.

The best way to survive is to have a good offense and trump figured that out decades ago. He's good at what he does which is con people.

What's up Xtsho. Good seeing you here. I know we don't agree on everything, especially politics, lol, but I respect your weed knowledge. I know Trump isn't a good person, but I think he did a way better job of running the country than Biden. I was hoping Nikky Haley would be the republican candidate but that didn't happen. Trump is too divisive and so is Joe. Joe said how he was going to unite the country but that was a load of sh*t. We really have no good options.

 

[GOT_BUD?]

What's up Xtsho. Good seeing you here. I know we don't agree on everything, especially politics, lol, but I respect your weed knowledge. I know Trump isn't a good person, but I think he did a way better job of running the country than Biden. I was hoping Nikky Haley would be the republican candidate but that didn't happen. Trump is too divisive and so is Joe. Joe said how he was going to unite the country but that was a load of sh*t. We really have no good options.

What makes you think Trump ran the country better than Biden?

Not trying to start a fight. Just genuinely curious because I've never seen you in the Speakers Corner before so I assume you really don't follow politics. So I'm thinking you might be the "average man on the street" if you will.

 

[GOT_BUD?]

We've had Greens run for office in Alaska and years ago some won their contests.

Greens right now offer a far more reasonable and citizen/domestic/national-oriented solution than either of the 2 primary corporate hacks.

Jim Sykes is one in particular, and he helped (was actually THE founder) to form the Greens in Alaska and won ballot access via litigation using previously established case law, set in motion by later-murdered Joe Vogler and his Alaskan Independence Party (*See 'Manfred West', a cartoon sketch artist and the doer in Vogler's death) ...

Jim and I worked together gathering signatures for the first SB21 oil referendum in (I think) about 2013.

The Greens, of all parties, recognize the fact that any real changes start small and work their way up. And grass roots acceptance and momentum HAS to start locally.... by definition. Known faces from people with integrity matters... And Jim has -very- stout integrity

Jim Sykes - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

And yet you think voting 3rd party for President is a viable option.

 

[GOT_BUD?]

I followed the trial as it went on. I see no reason to watch a biased Left Wing Media video but thanks.

Well, I guess I really don't need you to answer the question above as you have already had the koolaid and found it delicious.

Enjoy crying in November.

 

[buzzmobile]

falsifying business records

It's a felony in New York.

other people are regularly prosecuted for the same crimes.

Lots of other people have been prosecuted for the same crimes.

Survey of Past New York Felony Prosecutions for Falsifying Business Records

A survey of years of New York criminal cases, which shows that the prosecution of falsifying business records in first degree is common.

www.justsecurity.org

 

[Microbeman]

If you watch Trump's press conference, you can see that he makes stuff up as he goes along; people coming from prisons and insane asylums into the US; crime like it's never been in New York; nothing happened (with Stormy) - then why do you need the (perfectly legal NDA?) - fighting for the constitution which he previously stated was in his way - on and on... what a horrid state with such a crud able to run for president - both candidates should get out of the way for younger, more astute, honest leaders (if such exist who would want the job)

 

[moose eater]

And yet you think voting 3rd party for President is a viable option.

Eventually yes, it can be. Very few things happen overnight in politics, and as a student of such you probably already know that.

It's still far better to vote for character and integrity than stuffed shirt criminals. Otherwise I have to wash my hands three of four times when I get home from voting and rinse my mind out.

And if you and a few others did the same, we'd be that much closer to success and ridding the country of the chains of corporate sponsorship that the 2 primary political parties are hinged upon and continue to sell themselves to in order t pursue their long-lasting twisted nothingburger dominance, which subjugates the Country to guaranteed mediocrity.

I swore off mediocrity for Lent.

 

[moose eater]

If you watch Trump's press conference, you can see that he makes stuff up as he goes along; people coming from prisons and insane asylums into the US; crime like it's never been in New York; nothing happened (with Stormy) - then why do you need the (perfectly legal NDA?) - fighting for the constitution which he previously stated was in his way - on and on... what a horrid state with such a crud able to run for president - both candidates should get out of the way for younger, more astute, honest leaders (if such exist who would want the job)

He's a sociopathic narcissistic maroon with a third-grade vocabulary and a penchant for the pretense of success even if it's built upon pure bullshit. But the words are pretty for the non-critically thinking minions that love the sound of bravado and 'taking no prisoners' in his hype. But he almost always distances himself, or TRIES to distance himself, from the actual work... or... dirty work. In that regard, I'm a bit surprised he doesn't hire a surrogate to fuck Melania.

 

[Cannavore]

And yet you think voting is a viable option.

fixed that lol

 

[shiva82]

the self proclaimed father of the vaccine, operation warpspeed seems to still be as popular in the usa as before the theatre. biden would be booed no doubt

 

[moose eater]

fixed that lol

Some of us are already well aware of the current nature of the rigged, corporate-sponsored system that wants to have people believe the delusions and illusions that they had a choice, when both parties' candidates are often sponsored through their national orgs by some of the same major corporate contributors and entities; a lesson in poli sci 40 years ago. Find the donors who contribute heavily to both teams, and therein you'll find the forces for whom nothing changes to disrupt their gravy train, at the cost of the commoners.

Not new, but still worthy of rejection and anger.

That said, I'm a super voter, as is my wife, rarely missing an election, and constantly voting for people (typically third party) with fewer corporate ties and greater integrity.

"Voting for the lesser of 2 evils is still voting for evil."

 

[xtsho]

If you watch Trump's press conference, you can see that he makes stuff up as he goes along; people coming from prisons and insane asylums into the US; crime like it's never been in New York; nothing happened (with Stormy) - then why do you need the (perfectly legal NDA?) - fighting for the constitution which he previously stated was in his way - on and on... what a horrid state with such a crud able to run for president - both candidates should get out of the way for younger, more astute, honest leaders (if such exist who would want the job)

I'm definitely not going to watch trumps press conference. It sickens me just looking at him. Listening to his ranting is torture. It's like what they did to detainees at Guantanamo Bay by blasting Brittany Spears music in their cells 24/7 to get them to talk. He's been lying and making stuff up going back to the 80's. He's nothing but a con man. Always has been and always will be.

 

[armedoldhippy]

it's kinda like going to prison for getting caught with a joint.

hate to tell you this, but that still happens.

us cannabis users have always had to man up and deal with the consequences of our actions if/when that time came.

glad you admit he broke the law.

time to man up.

Well, I guess I really don't need you to answer the question above as you have already had the koolaid and found it delicious.

Enjoy crying in November.

 

[audiohi]