What's new

Trump thread part 2 (Or anything else we want to talk about that's ridiculous in politics today)

PadawanWarrior

PadawanWarrior

Well-known member
HempKat said:
👆More proof that you couldn't reason your way out of a wet paper bag.
Click to expand...
What exactly did Trump do that justifies 34 felony counts? Writing "Legal Fees" on his check? Even you know this was a reach by the prosecution. The dirty Dems wanted to get Trump for something so they created this whole thing. Making a felony out of a misdemeanor past the statue of limitations. Way to go libtards.
 
PadawanWarrior

PadawanWarrior

Well-known member
This somewhat explains it in layman's terms. Everyone knows it's bullsh*t.

He was found guilty of a misdemeanor that carries small fine : he documented his payments to his lawyer for a legal issue as a legal expense instead of a campaign expense.

What elevates it to a felony was that the court decided that his improper documentation was used to illegally alter the outcome of the election. Some of us are scratching our heads over that since the checks and the documentation didn’t exist until after the election was over.

Then there are other oddities, like a judge whose daughter works for the democrats, was somehow selected to preside over several other trials of Republican officials (a near statistical improbability), and reportedly asked to have this case, a jury that was selected from a 90+ percent Democrat voting area - a request to move to a more neutral area was declined, and on and on. Nothing blatantly wrong, but so much potential for wrong that the judge should have recused himself and the case should have been tried elsewhere.
 
HempKat

HempKat

Just A Simple Old Dirt Farmer
Veteran
PadawanWarrior said:
What exactly did Trump do that justifies 34 felony counts? Writing "Legal Fees" on his check? Even you know this was a reach by the prosecution. The dirty Dems wanted to get Trump for something so they created this whole thing. Making a felony out of a misdemeanor past the statue of limitations. Way to go libtards.
Click to expand...
It'd alresdy been explained several times in this thread so since you haven't understood it so far you're obviously refusing to accept anything but Trump's version and therefore there is no point in my trying to explain it to you. Th number of charges is basically irrelevent, that's just how they do things in court. Technically if they really wanted to screw someone over they could give the max sentence on each of the charges and run it consecutively but that would never happen pecause that would end up being 160 years in this case which would be a life sentence for anyone and they would never send someone away that long for this kind of a crime. So don't go getting yourself all twisted over the number of charges. Besides sentencing guidelines will dictate the sentence and because Trump is a first time felon the most likely sentence is going to be a few years of probation. At worst they might sentence him to an ankle bracelt and home confinement at one of his luxury homes.
 
PadawanWarrior

PadawanWarrior

Well-known member
HempKat said:
It'd alresdy been explained several times in this thread so since you haven't understood it so far you're obviously refusing to accept anything but Trump's version and therefore there is no point in my trying to explain it to you. Th number of charges is basically irrelevent, that's just how they do things in court. Technically if they really wanted to screw someone over they could give the max sentence on each of the charges and run it consecutively but that would never happen pecause that would end up being 160 years in this case which would be a life sentence for anyone and they would never send someone away that long for this kind of a crime. So don't go getting yourself all twisted over the number of charges. Besides sentencing guidelines will dictate the sentence and because Trump is a first time felon the most likely sentence is going to be a few years of probation. At worst they might sentence him to an ankle bracelt and home confinement at one of his luxury homes.
Click to expand...
Do you honestly think the charges and trial was fair?
 
HempKat

HempKat

Just A Simple Old Dirt Farmer
Veteran
PadawanWarrior said:
This somewhat explains it in layman's terms. Everyone knows it's bullsh*t.

He was found guilty of a misdemeanor that carries small fine : he documented his payments to his lawyer for a legal issue as a legal expense instead of a campaign expense.

What elevates it to a felony was that the court decided that his improper documentation was used to illegally alter the outcome of the election. Some of us are scratching our heads over that since the checks and the documentation didn’t exist until after the election was over.

Then there are other oddities, like a judge whose daughter works for the democrats, was somehow selected to preside over several other trials of Republican officials (a near statistical improbability), and reportedly asked to have this case, a jury that was selected from a 90+ percent Democrat voting area - a request to move to a more neutral area was declined, and on and on. Nothing blatantly wrong, but so much potential for wrong that the judge should have recused himself and the case should have been tried elsewhere.
Click to expand...
Wrong on almost every point. The misdemeanor can carry a brief sentence, misdemeaners are typically a year or less or it could be just a fine or it could be both, it is all dictated by sentencing guidelines which are pretty much universal for all states. What elevated it to a felony is that it was never a legal expense, it was a one time lump sum payment to hide a politically embarrassing story so that it wouldn't affect the outcome of the election. What made it fraud was they broke it up into 12 monthly payments to Cohen and since he was a lawyer they figured they could get away with labeling it as a legal expense when it was really a repayment of a one time in-kind campaign contribution.

The daughter doesn't work for the democrats, she has her own business of consulting/promoting campaigns and most of her customers are democrats. A judge being selected for a case is not a statistical improbabilty, judge are assigned to certain districts, in this case it was the bourgh of Manhattan. Districts typically only have a handful of judges and which one ends up presiding over a cases depends on who is available when a case comes up to be tried, much like how Trump just managed to get the one judge he hand picked (with very little previous experience) in the documents case in Florida. Judges can't ask to have a case they are assigned based on who is available when a case comes in. If they could just request the cases they wanted then there wouldn't even be a chance for a statistical anything since statistics wouldn't be a factor in a requested case. The percentage of registered democrats in New York city is 68% not 90% but since this case was just in Manhattan which does have clos to 90% democrats but even still there are 106,000 registered republicans. Since each side has 20 challenges of potential jurers there was plenty of opportunity for the defense to get at least one republican jurer. We don't really know the political affiliation of the jurers since the constant threats made to jurers, witness clerks of the courts, etc. by you yahoos required that the personal information of the jurers be kept annonymous. For all you or anyone knows there may have been multiple republicans on the jury. Not that it should matter because the idea of a jurer ruling in favor of their candidate is the kind of thing that gets a jurer disqualified not what they are registered as. The request for a change of venue was made because Trump felt too many people knew about his crime and therefore he couldn't get a fair trial in Manhattan. The reason it was denied is because of the fact that Trump drew so much media attention to himself and this trial that there was no other place in the US where he might find people that knew little or nothing about his case. "on and on is just you trying to make it sound like there was so much more that was wrong because there is nothing else you can specify.
 
HempKat

HempKat

Just A Simple Old Dirt Farmer
Veteran
PadawanWarrior said:
Do you honestly think the charges and trial was fair?
Click to expand...
It doesn't matter what I think or what you think it matters what the jury thinks, but yes according to the letter of the law it was a fair trial by every measure and the charges were valid otherwise it never would have made it to trial. The reason you and others are having such a hard time believing the charges were fair is because Trump has brainwashed you into beleving that this sort of thing is so common in business that nobody really care and therefore charges are seldom pressed which just isn't true. You just don't hear about all the other times this comes up because this is the first time this crime was ever commited by aformer president who is the current nominee for the republican party.
 
armedoldhippy

armedoldhippy

Well-known member
Veteran
PadawanWarrior said:
Do you honestly think the charges and trial was fair?
Click to expand...
yup. what is not "fair" is that Judge Cannon has essentially put Chumps trial there off until hell has an ice skating rink & heavy snowfall. other than your idol The Chump being the criminal in this case. what do you see as not "fair" ? they got Capone for taxes, you know. i'm sure HE thought it wasn't "fair" too..."so i cheated on my taxes. ALL rich people cheat on their taxes, it's good business..."
 
Zeez

Zeez

---------------->
ICMag Donor
th.jpeg
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Latest posts

Top