Trump indicted. Commies celebrate. Pelosi: Trump has right to trial to prove innocence. Lol..

[The Frankish Reich]

36 minutes ago, B-Man said:

In other words, no crime took place.

Of course a crime took place. It doesn’t even appear that Trump’s defense team is going to argue that the falsification of business records didn’t happen. 
They’re already arguing that these were misdemeanor offenses and that the statute of limitations has long run on them (typically 2 years under NY law). 
Now as to whether they are provable as felonies? That’s a good (and open) question. As to whether the DA ought to be charging them at all? Even a better question. 
But that’s not the same thing as being innocent of all wrongdoing or lawbreaking. 

[SoCal Deek]

16 minutes ago, The Frankish Reich said:

Of course a crime took place. It doesn’t even appear that Trump’s defense team is going to argue that the falsification of business records didn’t happen. 
They’re already arguing that these were misdemeanor offenses and that the statute of limitations has long run on them (typically 2 years under NY law). 
Now as to whether they are provable as felonies? That’s a good (and open) question. As to whether the DA ought to be charging them at all? Even a better question. 
But that’s not the same thing as being innocent of all wrongdoing or lawbreaking. 

Please tell me you’re not a lawyer. Obviously the defense is pushing for the misdemeanor! With the statute of limitations having run out it means the case is immediately dismissed. That’s not the least bit shocking or indicative of  ANYTHING! That’s exactly what every defense lawyer attempts to do for their client. 

[Joe Ferguson forever]

Somebody on the far right must have something on Dershowitz but his opinion here seems reasonable and likely:

https://humanevents.com/2023/04/05/alan-dershowitz-tells-charlie-kirk-he-believes-trump-will-be-convicted-but-verdict-will-be-overturned-on-appeal

[BillsFanNC]

 

[Doc]

9 hours ago, redtail hawk said:

yeah, who cares if he broke the law.  It's who we fascists wanted to win.  

 

We'll have to see if he broke any laws.  Stayed tuned...

[The Frankish Reich]

31 minutes ago, SoCal Deek said:

Please tell me you’re not a lawyer. Obviously the defense is pushing for the misdemeanor! With the statute of limitations having run out it means the case is immediately dismissed. That’s not the least bit shocking or indicative of  ANYTHING! That’s exactly what every defense lawyer attempts to do for their client. 

Yes, I am a lawyer. And yes, I understand this strategy very well:

- get the felony charges dismissed

- that leaves the DA with nothing since he can’t fall back on misdemeanor charges. 
Easier said than done! They alleged a nexus to campaign finance violations (a shaky theory on legal grounds, given that federal election law may be found to be exclusive here), but also a nexus to planned (apparently NOT claimed) NYS tax violations (shaky on factual grounds, although if proved the legal theory is fine). 
BUT you’re missing my point: no one is even arguing that he didn’t commit the misdemeanor offenses. It’s just that they’re not chargeable. That’s kind of different than “I did nothing illegal.”

[Warcodered]

36 minutes ago, redtail hawk said:

Somebody on the far right must have something on Dershowitz but his opinion here seems reasonable and likely:

https://humanevents.com/2023/04/05/alan-dershowitz-tells-charlie-kirk-he-believes-trump-will-be-convicted-but-verdict-will-be-overturned-on-appeal

Doesn't sound like he's giving a legal opinion, he's going full conspiracy, unless he for some reason thinks it'll be easier for Trump to win an appeal which is generally the opposite of how that goes.

[Joe Ferguson forever]

1 minute ago, Warcodered said:

Doesn't sound like he's giving a legal opinion, he's going full conspiracy, unless he for some reason thinks it'll be easier for Trump to win an appeal which is generally the opposite of how that goes.

I think they've got some epstein stuff on him.  He's gone from a respected legal mind to a fringe nut case.  but I think he predicted conviction for a reason.  Maybe to prepare the base for it.  Pure speculation on my part for both scenarios.

[SoCal Deek]

45 minutes ago, The Frankish Reich said:

Yes, I am a lawyer. And yes, I understand this strategy very well:

- get the felony charges dismissed

- that leaves the DA with nothing since he can’t fall back on misdemeanor charges. 
Easier said than done! They alleged a nexus to campaign finance violations (a shaky theory on legal grounds, given that federal election law may be found to be exclusive here), but also a nexus to planned (apparently NOT claimed) NYS tax violations (shaky on factual grounds, although if proved the legal theory is fine). 
BUT you’re missing my point: no one is even arguing that he didn’t commit the misdemeanor offenses. It’s just that they’re not chargeable. That’s kind of different than “I did nothing illegal.”

So Mr Lawyer if the statute of limitations has run out then is it actually wrong to claim you did nothing illegal? 

[The Frankish Reich]

18 minutes ago, redtail hawk said:

I think they've got some epstein stuff on him.  He's gone from a respected legal mind to a fringe nut case.  but I think he predicted conviction for a reason.  Maybe to prepare the base for it.  Pure speculation on my part for both scenarios.

Dershowitz, for many reasons, has been marginalized. Did the Epstein thing drive him toward Trump? Or did his marginalization from the academic world do it? Who knows. 
Unpopular opinion: I think he still has it (the legal chops) as evidenced by the rather clever arguments he made at the impeachment hearings. Those weren’t popular arguments (they had kind of a “he’s a scoundrel but it’s not an impeachable offense” tone), but to my ears they were pretty well thought out. Kind of what Trump needs now. Politically, Trump understands his fanboys - “I could shoot someone in the middle of 5th Avenue and they’d still vote for me” - so is there really any downside to admitting his proclivity for hookers, err “adult film performers?” Admit you’re a creep but argue that there’s no chargeable criminal offense here. 

7 minutes ago, SoCal Deek said:

So Mr Lawyer if the statute of limitations has run out then is it actually wrong to claim you did nothing illegal? 

Yes! 
When you talk about so-and-so “committing a crime,” do you add the caveat “provided he’s arrested and charged before the statute of limitations runs”? Those are two different things. There’s a lot of people who committed crimes - even admitted they committed crimes - and then avoided criminal consequences because of a statute of limitations, illegal search and seizure, etc. Think Bill Cosby. 

[SCBills]

3 hours ago, BillStime said:

 

I guess you have never been to the suburbs outside NYC - like Fairfield County in CT, Westchester County in NY, and a number of incredibly wealthy towns in New Jersey just outside the city.

 

Buckhead wishes they had that wealth - AND - proximity to the ocean.

 

Remind me again when New York State incorporated CT and NJ?

[SoCal Deek]

4 minutes ago, The Frankish Reich said:

Dershowitz, for many reasons, has been marginalized. Did the Epstein thing drive him toward Trump? Or did his marginalization from the academic world do it? Who knows. 
Unpopular opinion: I think he still has it (the legal chops) as evidenced by the rather clever arguments he made at the impeachment hearings. Those weren’t popular arguments (they had kind of a “he’s a scoundrel but it’s not an impeachable offense” tone), but to my ears they were pretty well thought out. Kind of what Trump needs now. Politically, Trump understands his fanboys - “I could shoot someone in the middle of 5th Avenue and they’d still vote for me” - so is there really any downside to admitting his proclivity for hookers, err “adult film performers?” Admit you’re a creep but argue that there’s no chargeable criminal offense here. 

Yes! 
When you talk about so-and-so “committing a crime,” do you add the caveat “provided he’s arrested and charged before the statute of limitations runs”? Those are two different things. There’s a lot of people who committed crimes - even admitted they committed crimes - and then avoided criminal consequences because of a statute of limitations, illegal search and seizure, etc. Think Bill Cosby. 

Again, I’m not a lawyer but if the statute of limitations runs out, then there by definition isn’t a trial. And without a trial or verdict you are considered innocent….no? Or as a lawyer do you subscribe to the Pelosi Doctrine where you have to prove your innocence? 

[Unforgiven]

10 hours ago, Andy1 said:

Lindsey Graham is collecting donations for the orange guy in his time of great need. It’s time for all you fanboys to open up your wallets and give him your credit card number for your recurring monthly donations. It’s up to you.

another commie roach or another alt, same *****.

[SCBills]

5 hours ago, SUNY_amherst said:

 

WTF did I just read

 

"Guys let's use sex apps as proof women are ugly. Then let's tie it to politics somehow so I can sprinkle in my ignorant take". LOL

 

--

 

Here's my mostly-serious take on the situation. Most women (hot OR ugly) are liberal and most trump-supporters are middle aged white dudes.

 

When you wear one of those red hats you can figure out which of those 2 groups will be more impressed haha

 

 

 

 

I do think most women are liberal, obviously, the polling indicates such. 
 

Im also telling you most of them, at least in my experience, simply think that’s what they are.  
 

Then, as they get older.. get married.. have kids.. look at the polling on who those women support.  They start leaning right .. which would support my view that many of them simply “think” they’re liberal.  

 

If they don’t… they seem to become even more dyed in the wool blue. 

[BillStime]

16 minutes ago, SCBills said:

Remind me again when New York State incorporated CT and NJ?

 

Oh wait, we can ONLY talk about SUBURBS in the state of NY and not the ones literally JUST OUTSIDE the CITY that happen to be in two other STATES?  gtfoh lmao

 

 

 

 

[Boatdrinks]

4 hours ago, SUNY_amherst said:

 

yeah it is mostly an IQ test than anything else. If you hardcore support the reality TV guy you have a low IQ. As we know though there isn't a high correlation between IQ and looks either way.

 

So some of the trump-humping freaks might actually be good looking broads, or not, but when the audience is 80+% dudes you are looking at slim pickins. Cheers fellas

 

 

Can’t disagree more with your “analysis” . This isn’t surprising as you’re clearly an idiot. Yes, most young women in WNY - college age + 1-10 years   are liberal due to brainwashing throughout their education. They have little actual understanding of politics or how it affects them. The amount of such women “ protesting” the SC decision on abortion in BUF was incredible. It was if they had no idea that they were in NY - where abortion is guaranteed and always will be. The concept of the ruling putting the issue back to the States was lost on them. They tend to be pro BLM- also a deal breaker for those of us with a brain. In my personal experience - even with recent College graduates - the ones who shifted to Trump did so when they actually looked into what communism is , Marxism is and realized that BLM and the Dem party is Anti Caucasian. Anti - law enforcement is another issue, followed by Covid . It takes a strong personality to go against the masses and the weak minded at that time in one’s life. Generally women of that age want to drink and get laid, which is great. However they haven’t delved into political issues beyond what their wing-nut professors have spoon fed them .They believe the lie that being liberal is just what you have to be if you’re a “ good person”. Now, a lot of women are into older guys, and that’s all good for a hookup. If it starts  getting more serious , yeah you have to go with the IQ test : If they’re into BLM or they’re Anti Trump - you’ve gotta ghost em. 

[The Frankish Reich]

28 minutes ago, SoCal Deek said:

Again, I’m not a lawyer but if the statute of limitations runs out, then there by definition isn’t a trial. And without a trial or verdict you are considered innocent….no? Or as a lawyer do you subscribe to the Pelosi Doctrine where you have to prove your innocence? 

You are playing a bizarre semantic game here. 
Let’s say OJ needs money (again). Let’s say someone pays him $10 million and he gives a detailed interview about exactly how he killed Ron and Nicole. I think 99.99% of us would say “he committed a horrific crime” notwithstanding the fact that he was acquitted by a jury and can never again be put on trial for that. 

[Joe Ferguson forever]

29 minutes ago, SCBills said:

I do think most women are liberal, obviously, the polling indicates such. 
 

Im also telling you most of them, at least in my experience, simply think that’s what they are.  
 

Then, as they get older.. get married.. have kids.. look at the polling on who those women support.  They start leaning right .. which would support my view that many of them simply “think” they’re liberal.  

 

If they don’t… they seem to become even more dyed in the wool blue. 

Hmmm...I'm really questioning your authority on this issue.

[SoCal Deek]

Just now, The Frankish Reich said:

You are playing a bizarre semantic game here. 
Let’s say OJ needs money (again). Let’s say someone pays him $10 million and he gives a detailed interview about exactly how he killed Ron and Nicole. I think 99.99% of us would say “he committed a horrific crime” notwithstanding the fact that he was acquitted by a jury and can never again be put on trial for that. 

No…it’s you who are playing with semantics, Mr Lawyer. In THIS case there would be no trial, no defense, and thus no verdict or crime. 

[SCBills]

1 minute ago, redtail hawk said:

Hmmm...I'm really questioning your authority on this issue.

Go ahead .. but the polling literally backs up what I’m saying.  
 

https://katv.com/amp/news/nation-world/gop-favored-by-married-people-while-dems-strongly-supported-by-unmarried-women-exit-polls