Debate Now Did Trump Really Violate The Law?

[White 6]

Do you want to live by the precept "failed to live with their laws"?

Do we want to live by the letter of the law or with justice?

If someone acts outside the law, and they do repeatedly, should the state simply live with it with certain people, if others have been prosecuted for the offence?

What makes him worthy to skate? Has he shown any respect for laws, for people, for business dealing, or has he repeatedly gamed the system all the way back to real estate days and tenement housing and bankruptcies leaving others holding the bag. This is the same guy, jacking up the value of his properties for financial deals, simultaneously understating for tax purposes, a man who has repeatedly used lawsuit after trivial lawsuit to harass and threaten people over BS. He has gained a reputation of not playing by the rules and rightfully so. Even in office, he surrounded himself with the most convicted or confess criminals in any presidential administration history, and went out of his way to piss people off repeatedly. You can only get away that, for only so long, than find you live in a glass house, where people can actually see what you do.

Why does it shock you, he was caught in criminal acts, now? It is kind of "who he is".

 

[SweetSue92]

If someone acts outside the law, and they do repeatedly, should the state simply live with it with certain people, if others have been prosecuted for the offence?

What makes him worthy to skate? Has he shown any respect for laws, for people, for business dealing, or has he repeatedly gamed the system all the way back to real estate days and tenement housing and bankruptcies leaving others holding the bag. This is the same guy, jacking up the value of his properties for financial deals, simultaneously understating for tax purposes, a man who has repeatedly used lawsuit after trivial lawsuit to harass and threaten people over BS. He has gained a reputation of not playing by the rules and rightfully so. Even in office, he surrounded himself with the most convicted or confess criminals in any presidential administration history, and went out of his way to piss people off repeatedly. You can only get away that, for only so long, than find you live in a glass house, where people can actually see what you do.

Why does it shock you, he was caught in criminal acts, now? It is kind of "who he is".

Two issues here:

1. Is Trump an upstanding person in business and personally and

2. Was his conviction fair

Those are separate issues. If they're not, our nation is over. I'm not overstating.

 

[BackAgain]

Trump isn’t a damn saint. He has plenty of warts.

One need not particularly like Trump or his manner of communicating to appreciate the fact that he is striving to correct the course of our ship of state.

Potato is a lame ass brain dead scumbag. His positions on most issues is just plain wrong. He is the Captain deliberately steering us toward the iceberg.

Potato is a mentally defective danger.

Trump actually wants America to prevail.

 

[Care4all]

Incorrect
There wasn't a single Republican on the jury.
Just 12 libtards.

Two Trumpers were jurists.... One used truth social as their main news source, the other Fox as their main news source, from all that I've read......???

 

[White 6]

Two issues here:

1. Is Trump an upstanding person in business and personally and

2. Was his conviction fair

Those are separate issues. If they're not, our nation is over. I'm not overstating.

Having had Trump University, and the scandal involving misuse of charity funds to the extent of him and his family being forbidden from running them anymore, it hard to consider him an upstanding man in business or personally.

He was found guilty by 12 of his peers including profession peoples, that pass muster of his own lawyer, that had opportunity to question them as well as the 100 part questionnaire used to sort out those of prejudice. By all accounts, the jury paid close attention, definitely not falling asleep in court, as he did. He picked his lawyers. It is not as if these were random newbies of the court appointed lawyer from the state. He had the opportunity to tell his side, himself, but with his lack of self-control, it is probably best he did not, though he may be regretting not taking the stand in his own defense, now, but it was his choice. His choice, just as it was his choice on the handling of the payoffs and how they were recorded in the corporate books. It is of note, this is the same corporation found guilty of multiple tax felonies, back in 2022. It fits a pattern, and the State had records and testimony from people in or involved in his organization, producing evidence of the crimes, beyond the shadow of a doubt in the eyes of the jury.

I figure he was found guilty, fair and square by people that probably do not conduct business that way, under penalty of law in that state, so do not think others should.

 

[SweetSue92]

Having had Trump University, and the scandal involving misuse of charity funds to the extent of him and his family being forbidden from running them anymore, it hard to consider him an upstanding man in business or personally.

He was found guilty by 12 of his peers including profession peoples, that pass muster of his own lawyer, that had opportunity to question them as well as the 100 part questionnaire used to sort out those of prejudice. By all accounts, the jury paid close attention, definitely not falling asleep in court, as he did. He picked his lawyers. It is not as if these were random newbies of the court appointed lawyer from the state. He had the opportunity to tell his side, himself, but with his lack of self-control, it is probably best he did not, though he may be regretting not taking the stand in his own defense, now, but it was his choice. His choice, just as it was his choice on the handling of the payoffs and how they were recorded in the corporate books. It is of note, this is the same corporation found guilty of multiple tax felonies, back in 2022. It fits a pattern, and the State had records and testimony from people in or involved in his organization, producing evidence of the crimes, beyond the shadow of a doubt in the eyes of the jury.

I figure he was found guilty, fair and square by people that probably do not conduct business that way, under penalty of law in that state, so do not think others should.

You can spare yourself typing all the ways you think DJT is a cad. I understand you believe that and I agree with you on a lot of it. But that's not how we run our justice system. We don't say oh you're an ass, conviction for you.

Or we didn't used to.

This case is such a sham it's not even worth the effort to type it out. I just want to know if it is reversed on appeal, are you going to have the same respect for the system? What if 5 justices on the SC overrule it?

 

[Slade3200]

You all love the New America, where we live by the Stalinist maxim "Give me the man and I"ll find you the crime". You are of such low imagination you don't believe it will ever be turned on you.

27 Republican AG.

You opened the Pandora's Box.

Remember that.

Again… what in the world does this have to do with the debate in this thread? Sounds like an off topic emotional rant. Can you address the substance I posted or not?

 

[Slade3200]

Two issues here:

1. Is Trump an upstanding person in business and personally and

2. Was his conviction fair

Those are separate issues. If they're not, our nation is over. I'm not overstating.

Did you think the indictment of Michael Cohen was fair?

 

[White 6]

You can spare yourself typing all the ways you think DJT is a cad. I understand you believe that and I agree with you on a lot of it. But that's not how we run our justice system. We don't say oh you're an ass, conviction for you.

Or we didn't used to.

This case is such a sham it's not even worth the effort to type it out. I just want to know if it is reversed on appeal, are you going to have the same respect for the system? What if 5 justices on the SC overrule it?

That is not what happened here, either. There is not denying, the squeaky wheel sooner or late get the grease, as it keep drawing the attention.

 

[SweetSue92]

That is not what happened here, either. There is not denying, the squeaky wheel sooner or late get the grease, as it keep drawing the attention.

The New America is going to be fascinating

 

[forkup]

It looks like this is only valid when a crime has taken place though. Using money for your own campaign that you earned (if that's indeed what happened that is) is not a crime.

Actually it is. If you don't report that payment, and the amount is over a certain limit. In 2016 that limit was 2700 dollars.

That's the point.

 

[frigidweirdo]

Actually it is. If you don't report that payment, and the amount is over a certain limit. In 2016 that limit was 2700 dollars.

That's the point.

It's not a crime if I do it, it's only a crime if YOU do it.

 

[White 6]

The New America is going to be fascinating

No "New America". He is simply not that important and getting caught fits patterns of behavior. Most people realize this, who look at it with any logic, not predicated on partisanship.

 

[forkup]

Two issues here:

1. Is Trump an upstanding person in business and personally and

2. Was his conviction fair

Those are separate issues. If they're not, our nation is over. I'm not overstating.

You are right those are separate issues. In this context only number 2 should count.

So what is fair?

To me that's a trial. A trial where Trump gets all the benefits of a criminal defendant and NO MORE. What is fair to you?

 

[SweetSue92]

You are right those are separate issues. In this context only number 2 should count.

So what is fair?

To me that's a trial. A trial where Trump gets all the benefits of a criminal defendant and NO MORE. What is fair to you?

Justice, which is not going just by the letter of the law but considering how others are treated in the same circumstances.

But that's dead now in america, so whatever I guess.

 

[Slade3200]

Justice, which is not going just by the letter of the law but considering how others are treated in the same circumstances.

But that's dead now in america, so whatever I guess.

What are your thoughts on the Michael Cohen conviction? Fair or unfair?

 

[forkup]

Justice, which is not going just by the letter of the law but considering how others are treated in the same circumstances.

But that's dead now in america, so whatever I guess.

Ah I see. So how where others treated?

Cohen went to jail for his part in the payments.

Other people have been charged with falsification of business records, so the charge isn't new.

And finally John Edwards a Democrat was indicted for similar things by none other than Jack Smith. (Trying to hide a payment to a mistress by using a third party)

So I know of at least one other person who went to jail over this particular crime. I know that the charge itself is commonly prosecuted. And I know of another politician of the other side who was indicted under a similar fact set.

So why is this not fair? If precedent is your determining factor.

 

[White 6]

Justice, which is not going just by the letter of the law but considering how others are treated in the same circumstances.

But that's dead now in america, so whatever I guess.

I would not be surprised if he got fines and probation, like any other first time offender on crimes of this sort. I could be wrong on outcome, but usually not by much.

 

[forkup]

I would not be surprised if he got fines and probation, like any other first time offender on crimes of this sort. I could be wrong on outcome, but usually not by much.

I don't know actually.

First time offender or not, when determining sentencing aggravating factors are also considered. Contrition, how egregious the consequences of the crime where, behavior during the proceeding.

I'll remind you that Cohen, also a first time offender went to jail, and he plead guilty. So I don't see anything besides his status as first time offender that would suggest leniency.

 

[White 6]

I don't know actually.

First time offender or not, when determining sentencing aggravating factors are also considered. Contrition, how egregious the consequences of the crime where, behavior during the proceeding.

I'll remind you that Cohen, also a first time offender went to jail, and he plead guilty. So I don't see anything besides his status as first time offender that would suggest leniency.

I see what you are saying and it has valid points. Maybe, I don't see it, simply because he is running for President and that is a screwed up way of looking at it, but not sure that it is the wrong way of looking at it. I will support, whatever the judge decides, if others have been sentenced for this crime similarly in that state, in the past.