d2jsp
Log InRegister
d2jsp Forums > Off-Topic > General Chat > Political & Religious Debate > The Trial Of Donald Trump 2023
Prev1262728293039Next
Add Reply New Topic New Poll
Member
Posts: 66,666
Joined: May 17 2005
Gold: 17,384.69
Apr 4 2023 07:31pm


hello hello ! :lol:




This post was edited by Meanwhile on Apr 4 2023 07:37pm
Member
Posts: 19,232
Joined: Oct 23 2003
Gold: 7,104.95
Apr 4 2023 07:53pm
damn he looks SCARED lol
Member
Posts: 8,545
Joined: Oct 4 2021
Gold: 281.64
Apr 4 2023 08:57pm
Quote (TiStuff @ 30 Mar 2023 15:00)
gona be another leftie clown show caring trump to the finish line
https://media.tenor.com/I_a26hec7qgAAAAC/honkler-clown.gif


We call that the "majority" in a democracy.
Member
Posts: 21,058
Joined: Jun 3 2019
Gold: 930.45
Warn: 10%
Apr 4 2023 09:01pm
Quote (Meanwhile @ 4 Apr 2023 21:31)


i turned on a stream for ~30 sec today, and it was that exact moment

blessed
Member
Posts: 50,759
Joined: Jan 20 2010
Gold: 5,146.00
Apr 4 2023 09:03pm
So the big question in the last few days, raised in this thread a few times, was whether the indictments would bring a curveball- unexpected new facts or evidence. The f5'o'clockers thought that Trump would finally be sunk by new damning facts previously unknown
Well we have the answer: No. Absolutely nothing new, its the exact baloney charge we expected on the exact same basis, the tortured legal theory that doesn't even hold up on a prima facie case.

So from this indictment we can see;

1) The exact same crime would apply to Hillary Clinton in the same election, where she has already been found guilty of violating FEC campaign finance fraud, and tried to cover it up by falsifying business records, in a New York jurisdiction, but was never charged by Bragg. Unlike Trump, her fraudulent campaign expenses were actually campaign expenses under the FEC's definition

2) The indictment takes the exact opposite definition of whether hush money should be a campaign expense or personal expense than the existing precedent in the John Edwards prosecution. This means that it has retroactively redefined the law, provably made it overly vague and selectively prosecuted it against only Trump, violating the 5th amendment in a whole host of ways. And notably, since the NY statute is for a strict 'intent' standard, they need to prove that Trump intended to violate campaign finance requirements when Trump was following the FEC's own definition of what was required, which Bragg just retroactively changed. Effectively charging Trump with not being a time traveling mind reader.

3) The conflicting definitions used by Bragg ('anything related to a campaign') and the FEC ('only expenses that would not exist irrespective of a campaign') result in all expenses caught between these now becoming de facto illegal activities. Not just hush money, but virtually all personal expenses of every kind during a campaign will now be criminal because they cannot be paid with either personal or campaign funds without committing a crime in one of the two jurisdictions. That includes food, clothing, travel, housing, legal expenses, etc. Meal costs, haircuts, rent, etc cannot be paid by politicians OR anyone involved in a campaign. The result is that campaigning itself has become de facto criminal under Bragg's legal theory, which violates the 1st amendment.
Member
Posts: 50,759
Joined: Jan 20 2010
Gold: 5,146.00
Apr 4 2023 09:09pm
And I love me my comparisons to Beria, so I'll say this: Lavrentiy Beria was not a moron. That serial rapist was distinguished in math and science as a student and demonstrated himself a capable administrator. As physicist Yuli Khariton penned, “This man personified evil in the country’s modern history and possessed at the same time tremendous vigor and efficiency. It was impossible not to admit his intellect, willpower, and purposefulness. He was a first class manager able to bring every job to its conclusion.”

This is more like kirkland brand mouthbreathing Beria
Member
Posts: 27,144
Joined: Mar 11 2016
Gold: 9.77
Warn: 10%
Apr 4 2023 09:22pm
Quote (Goomshill @ 4 Apr 2023 23:03)
So the big question in the last few days, raised in this thread a few times, was whether the indictments would bring a curveball- unexpected new facts or evidence. The f5'o'clockers thought that Trump would finally be sunk by new damning facts previously unknown
Well we have the answer: No. Absolutely nothing new, its the exact baloney charge we expected on the exact same basis, the tortured legal theory that doesn't even hold up on a prima facie case.

So from this indictment we can see;

1) The exact same crime would apply to Hillary Clinton in the same election, where she has already been found guilty of violating FEC campaign finance fraud, and tried to cover it up by falsifying business records, in a New York jurisdiction, but was never charged by Bragg. Unlike Trump, her fraudulent campaign expenses were actually campaign expenses under the FEC's definition

2) The indictment takes the exact opposite definition of whether hush money should be a campaign expense or personal expense than the existing precedent in the John Edwards prosecution. This means that it has retroactively redefined the law, provably made it overly vague and selectively prosecuted it against only Trump, violating the 5th amendment in a whole host of ways. And notably, since the NY statute is for a strict 'intent' standard, they need to prove that Trump intended to violate campaign finance requirements when Trump was following the FEC's own definition of what was required, which Bragg just retroactively changed. Effectively charging Trump with not being a time traveling mind reader.

3) The conflicting definitions used by Bragg ('anything related to a campaign') and the FEC ('only expenses that would not exist irrespective of a campaign') result in all expenses caught between these now becoming de facto illegal activities. Not just hush money, but virtually all personal expenses of every kind during a campaign will now be criminal because they cannot be paid with either personal or campaign funds without committing a crime in one of the two jurisdictions. That includes food, clothing, travel, housing, legal expenses, etc. Meal costs, haircuts, rent, etc cannot be paid by politicians OR anyone involved in a campaign. The result is that campaigning itself has become de facto criminal under Bragg's legal theory, which violates the 1st amendment.


1. So you agree what trump did is bad and he should be arrested.
2.Trump says he had no knowledge of the hush money payments which is a proven lie. Everything else is null and void with his arguments. Hillary didnt lie to the govt, Trump did. It no longer matters about the money at all. Now he lied to the government. Thats a fucking no no.
3. Cry me a fucking river Trump is a criminal he is going to get shit on and joey balogna aint gonna stop much.

This post was edited by Crunkt on Apr 4 2023 09:24pm
Member
Posts: 27,144
Joined: Mar 11 2016
Gold: 9.77
Warn: 10%
Apr 4 2023 09:28pm
Just as a note to remind everyone that the US isnt the center of the universe...

Many presidents in democratic societies have been tried after leaving office. This is not a completely oddball event. These things happen. Even presidents get brought to justice in civilized society.

Quote
Several ex-leaders from wealthy democracies have also found themselves on trial in the past two decades.

Like Trump, Former French President Nicolas Sarkozy had his home searched after leaving office. He was convicted in two separate cases in 2021 and sentenced to prison (he's appealing).
In South Korea, former President Park Geun-hye was sentenced to 24 years for corruption. She was pardoned by her successor in December 2021 after serving five.
In Taiwan, former President Chen Shui-bian was convicted of bribery in 2009.

Lula isn't the only former leader for whom a trial or even conviction was not career-ending.

Former Italian Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi has been in and out of court for three decades and was temporarily barred from seeking office due to a tax fraud conviction, but remains a player in Italian politics at 86.


https://www.axios.com/2022/08/26/countries-where-former-leaders-jailed-charged

when these clowns on television tell you this is a first of its kind event.. it isn't. This happens. Also, Nixon was going to be charged. but pardoned by Ford

This post was edited by Crunkt on Apr 4 2023 09:36pm
Member
Posts: 15,802
Joined: Jul 31 2006
Gold: 24.06
Apr 4 2023 09:29pm
Quote (Crunkt @ Apr 4 2023 09:22pm)
1. So you agree what trump did is bad and he should be arrested.
2.Trump says he had no knowledge of the hush money payments which is a proven lie. Everything else is null and void with his arguments. Hillary didnt lie to the govt, Trump did. It no longer matters about the money at all. Now he lied to the government. Thats a fucking no no.
3. Cry me a fucking river Trump is a criminal he is going to get shit on and joey balogna aint gonna stop much.


“Hillary didn’t lie to the government” lmfao
Member
Posts: 27,144
Joined: Mar 11 2016
Gold: 9.77
Warn: 10%
Apr 4 2023 09:33pm
Quote (Landmine @ 4 Apr 2023 23:29)
“Hillary didn’t lie to the government” lmfao




Quote
In alleging Clinton lies, the president is spreading a falsehood: The FBI asserts that she did not lie to them.



"We have no basis to conclude she lied to the FBI," then-FBI Director James Comey testified under oath to the House of Representatives in July 2016 about Clinton's handling of classified information on a private email server. "I have no basis for concluding that she was untruthful with us."


https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/politics-news/fact-check-trump-accused-clinton-lying-fbi-said-she-did-n826361
Go Back To Political & Religious Debate Topic List
Prev1262728293039Next
Add Reply New Topic New Poll