To all you calling BS on the Trump indictment…

[Slade3200]

Rocket scientists. ^^^

You can’t explain it?

 

[BackAgain]

Oh, well that’s exactly what the Dems would say if any Republican prosecutor went after Biden after office.

Pure hypothetical. But in the Trump case, honest and objective people can already see it.

And you’d defend it the same way the Dems are defending the prosecution of Trump. Right?

I don’t know. It would depend on the alleged “facts” and on the law.

Don’t you see these are just Pardison games?

I believe you mean “partisan.” And the answer is “it depends.” The current Democrap miscarriage of Justice in NYC isn’t just partisan games. It’s a real life display of prosecutorial overreach for partisan political reasons, not justice.

Or if Trump committed crimes and there’s evidence of those crimes you will get busted.

Try English. If there were any evidence of actual crimes, we’d see it already. Instead, we have this nonsense.

That’s a good thing. If Biden committed crimes and there’s evidence of crimes, he should get busted.

Yes. It is supposed to require actual evidence a a rational basis for application of a law or laws.

Drain the swamp, right?

I suppose you think you just made a coherent point?

We don’t expect a participant in the swamp, like Brandon, to ever try to drain it.

 

[Slade3200]

Pure hypothetical. But in the Trump case, honest and objective people can already see it

Of course your perception of honest and objective is very different than mine.

Do you think Trump broke any laws?

 

[BackAgain]

Of course your perception of honest and objective is very different than mine.

Yes. It would have to be. You can’t define it any better than libtards can define “woman.”

Do you think Trump broke any laws?

I don’t know. But if he did, they don’t seem to be anything under indictment in NYC, or under “investigation” in GA or by the “special” counsel for the DOJ.

I realize that you libturds prefer to be told who to accuse and you’ll “find the crime.” But that’s just evidence that don’t know shit about justice, either.

 

[Slade3200]

Yes. It would have to be. You can’t define it any better than libtards can define “woman.”

I don’t know. But if he did, they don’t seem to be anything under indictment in NYC, or under “investigation” in GA or by the “special” counsel for the DOJ.

I realize that you libturds prefer to be told who to accuse and you’ll “find the crime.” But that’s just evidence that don’t know shit about justice, either.

If the evidence does show that Trump did commit crimes should he be punished or no?

 

[scruffy]

You can’t explain it?

Why the fuck do you keep trying to TAX me, stupid leftard?

I owe you nothing.

'Xcept maybe a good swift kick in the rear.

On your way out the door.

 

[Faun]

Why the fuck do you keep trying to TAX me, stupid leftard?

I owe you nothing.

'Xcept maybe a good swift kick in the rear.

On your way out the door.

LOL

A shame you're not capable of even that.

 

[Slade3200]

Why the fuck do you keep trying to TAX me, stupid leftard?

I owe you nothing.

'Xcept maybe a good swift kick in the rear.

On your way out the door.

Because you keep writing checks your butt can’t cash and it’s amusing to see you twist your way out of simply explaining yourself

 

[emilynghiem]

The case requires taking biased sides where there are conflicts in the law and interpretations.

1. First, the conflict between state jursidiction and federal.
The argument relies on taking federal laws regarding election campaign financing and reporting
then applying that back to state jurisdiction.

The misdemeanor of misreporting Cohen's transaction under state law occurred in the past.

The accusation of wrongdoing is based on reimbursing Cohen later,
citing federal laws and trying to tie that back to the previous breach under state laws.

2. Another key point is the issue of "statute of limitations"
and trying to extend this by citing a condition of "Trump being out of the state"
which is supposed to mean he was not available.

(But these charges were not even pursued until later, and earlier during the time
he was "out of state" his whereabouts were known publicly, so he could have been served.
Thus, this is also debatable whether the exception to the statute of limitations applies to this case.)

3. Most critical is the issue of how to interpret Trump's payment to his lawyer.

The settlement/NDA that Cohen paid for was transacted in the past where the statute of limitations has run.
Trump was already making partial payments over time, as many people pay their lawyers or other business contractors.
The amount that Trump paid back Cohen wasn't just "legal expenses" as incorrectly reported, but was for the amount of the settlement.

The issue is whether Trump paying back Cohen WHILE TRUMP WAS RUNNING FOR PRESIDENT,
counts as a "campaign expense/contribution" or not. Trump paid Cohen as part of their attorney-client relationship.

If Cohen had paid a "campaign expense" then he should have reported it as a donation.
If Trump was paying for a "campaign expense" then he should have reported it.

However, Trump considered it a legal settlement and legal cost between him and his attorney.
(Trump argues that Cohen's testimony against him is compromised by political pressure to use him against Trump,
because of the plea bargain that Cohen was cornered into requiring him to make statements the prosecution wants him to say.)

For the prosecution's arguments to work, all THREE debated conflicts would have to be decided
in favor of prosecution and against the defense.

For Trump's defense to win, only ONE of these three conflicts needs to be decided in favor of rejection.

Even if the prosecution manages to get all THREE conditions decided in their favor,
this will clearly be so politically skewed and stretched, that anyone pursuing this will lose any remaining credibility.

It will more likely end in failure to convict, so the left can keep playing the victim card
arguing that Trump is buying his way out as the bad guy above the law who should have been punished.

Here is a good summary I found What legal experts say about Donald Trump's indictment Sorry if this was already posted:

What legal experts say about Donald Trump's indictment

Legal experts say there were "no surprises" in the charges brought against former President Trump Tuesday -- but that the "catch-and-kill" allegations are notable.

abcnews.go.com

 

[BackAgain]

If the evidence does show that Trump did commit crimes should he be punished or no?

Depends on what the alleged crime is and what it means when you say “if the evidence shows.”

 

[Slade3200]

Depends on what the alleged crime is and what it means when you say “if the evidence shows.”

Pretty simple. If evidence shows that Trump broke the law… should he be punished ?

 

[BackAgain]

Pretty simple. If evidence shows that Trump broke the law… should he be punished ?

Already answered.

 

[Slade3200]

Already answered.

You avoided answering because You wanted to know what I meant by “if evidence shows” that’s pretty self explanatory. But I’ll explain.

If the evidence presented to court shows without a reasonable doubt that Trump committed crimes. If that’s the case do you think he should be punished. Yes or no

 

[BackAgain]

You avoided answering because You wanted to know what I meant by “if evidence shows” that’s pretty self explanatory. But I’ll explain.mono.

What I meant was that what it means to you is likey very different than what it means to reasonable people.

If the evidence presented to court shows without a reasonable doubt that Trump committed crimes. If that’s the case do you think he should be punished. Yes or no

Again. It depends. Some alleged crimes don’t merit any punishment.

I understand what you’re attempting to grunt out. If actually credible evidence proved beyond a reasonable doubt all of the elements of a properly charged crime, and if that alleged crime was serious enough to warrant a criminal penalty, then like anyone else, it would likely also apply to a former President.

If you thought you were making a point, though, you were wrong.

 

[Slade3200]

What I meant was that what it means to you is likey very different than what it means to reasonable people.

Again. It depends. Some alleged crimes don’t merit any punishment.

I understand what you’re attempting to grunt out. If actually credible evidence proved beyond a reasonable doubt all of the elements of a properly charged crime, and if that alleged crime was serious enough to warrant a criminal penalty, then like anyone else, it would likely also apply to a former President.

If you thought you were making a point, though, you were wrong.

Wow, I hope you stretched before doing all those twists and turns to get out of being on record saying simply that Trump or anybody should be punished for breaking the law.

If a crime isn’t charged properly then it will be tossed out of court. If a court proceeding is corrupt or unjust then it can be appealed. If you really don’t trust our legal system then I don’t know what to tell you.

If trump broke the law and evidence show it then he should go down. If Biden broke the law and evidence shows it then he should go down too. Whether going down is a fine or community service or jail time will depend on the crime and degree of the offense. Why is that so difficult to agree with?

 

[BackAgain]

Wow, I hope you stretched before doing all those twists and turns to get out of being on record saying simply that Trump or anybody should be punished for breaking the law.

If a crime isn’t charged properly then it will be tossed out of court. If a court proceeding is corrupt or unjust then it can be appealed. If you really don’t trust our legal system then I don’t know what to tell you.

If trump broke the law and evidence show it then he should go down. If Biden broke the law and evidence shows it then he should go down too. Whether going down is a fine or community service or jail time will depend on the crime and degree of the offense. Why is that so difficult to agree with?

No twists. No turns. No stretches.

Jaywalking is technically against the law too. Folks don’t go to jail for it.

And the alleged crimes you seem to have in mind don’t even exist as they pertain to Trump. So, when you ask your valueless and baseless hypotheticals, you’re actually just exposing the lack of evidence at your disposal.

 

[Slade3200]

No twists. No turns. No stretches.

Jaywalking is technically against the law too. Folks don’t go to jail for it.

I never said anything about jail. I said held accountable or punished. That depends on the crime and its severity. It could be a warning, or a fine or community service or jail.

 

[Slade3200]

And the alleged crimes you seem to have in mind don’t even exist as they pertain to Trump. So, when you ask your valueless and baseless hypotheticals, you’re actually just exposing the lack of evidence at your disposal.

I didn’t ask a hypothetical. I asked a question based on principle. If somebody is caught committing a crime should they be held accountable. It’s an easy yes that you don’t want to give. Funny

 

[BackAgain]

I never said anything about jail. I said held accountable or punished. That depends on the crime and its severity. It could be a warning, or a fine or community service or jail.

People convicted of crimes usually do get some sentence.

 

[BackAgain]

I didn’t ask a hypothetical. I asked a question based on principle. If somebody is caught committing a crime should they be held accountable. It’s an easy yes that you don’t want to give. Funny

It’s a stupid question. But I’ve answered it.