ChiGoose Posted May 16 Share Posted May 16 20 minutes ago, Joe Ferguson forever said: splain please. If Trump had paid from his campaign, there would be no need to falsify the Trump Org business records (since it wouldn’t have been involved at all), so the NY case could not exist. As people have pointed out, there’s nothing inherently illegal about an NDA. But campaigns are required to report information about contributions and spending. If Trump paid through the campaign, he’d have to report it, which would be public information so people could find out, defeating the entire purpose of the exercise. So if he wanted to do a little crime and still achieve his goal, he could have paid through the campaign (thus avoiding the NY business records issue) but lie about the purpose in the FEC filings. By the time it would be discovered, the campaign would likely have been over anyway. Plus, the FEC is a broken institution so the worst he’d face is a fine. Instead, he paid through the Trump Org, falsified business records to conceal it, for the intent of benefiting his campaign. 1 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
L Ron Burgundy Posted May 16 Share Posted May 16 5 minutes ago, ChiGoose said: If Trump had paid from his campaign, there would be no need to falsify the Trump Org business records (since it wouldn’t have been involved at all), so the NY case could not exist. As people have pointed out, there’s nothing inherently illegal about an NDA. But campaigns are required to report information about contributions and spending. If Trump paid through the campaign, he’d have to report it, which would be public information so people could find out, defeating the entire purpose of the exercise. So if he wanted to do a little crime and still achieve his goal, he could have paid through the campaign (thus avoiding the NY business records issue) but lie about the purpose in the FEC filings. By the time it would be discovered, the campaign would likely have been over anyway. Plus, the FEC is a broken institution so the worst he’d face is a fine. Instead, he paid through the Trump Org, falsified business records to conceal it, for the intent of benefiting his campaign. My favorite posts round here are the ones certain this is all a sham yet clearly do not comprehend any of this. (Not to say I did before you explained it) 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joe Ferguson forever Posted May 16 Share Posted May 16 5 minutes ago, ChiGoose said: By the time it would be discovered, the campaign would likely have been over anyway. Plus, the FEC is a broken institution so the worst he’d face is a fine. amazing that the FEC is so weak. my wife wrote a check for a Tim Kaine event. His staff asked if she was a citizen. When we said no, they refused the check so I wrote it. remarkable that some can follow the law so closely and others shite on it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChiGoose Posted May 16 Share Posted May 16 8 hours ago, L Ron Burgundy said: My favorite posts round here are the ones certain this is all a sham yet clearly do not comprehend any of this. (Not to say I did before you explained it) It’s not a very intuitive case. When it was first filed, the general consensus was that it was weird and weak. But it’s important to remember that most of the legal commentariat are federal practitioners. Which I why I really liked the work done by Just Security to look into how this law is typically charged and prosecuted by the state. They found that it is very common and that several politicians have been prosecuted for similar facts. As the trial has gone on, people have started to see that it’s actually a pretty strong case (though not impervious) even if most wouldn’t consider it the most important Trump case. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doc Posted May 16 Share Posted May 16 36 minutes ago, ChiGoose said: It’s not a very intuitive case. When it was first filed, the general consensus was that it was weird and weak. But it’s important to remember that most of the legal commentariat are federal practitioners. Which I why I really liked the work done by Just Security to look into how this law is typically charged and prosecuted by the state. They found that it is very common and that several politicians have been prosecuted for similar facts. As the trial has gone on, people have started to see that it’s actually a pretty strong case (though not impervious) even if most wouldn’t consider it the most important Trump case. It still is. It's something that should have been addressed 8 years ago. It took them this long to fabricate some whacky charge. But it's in the hands of a "jury of his peers." Who likely have no idea what the case is even about. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChiGoose Posted May 16 Share Posted May 16 56 minutes ago, Doc said: It still is. It's something that should have been addressed 8 years ago. It took them this long to fabricate some whacky charge. But it's in the hands of a "jury of his peers." Who likely have no idea what the case is even about. It’s actually not. The prosecution has put on a pretty strong case. 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tommy Callahan Posted May 16 Share Posted May 16 The fact that the entire narrative has moved to the debates kinda shows how badly this pr warfare is going for the left 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChiGoose Posted May 16 Share Posted May 16 Tommy Eyerolls playing to the script as usual. Maybe one day he’ll contribute something of value, maybe even an actual original thought. Just don’t hold your breath. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pokebball Posted May 16 Share Posted May 16 11 hours ago, L Ron Burgundy said: My favorite posts round here are the ones certain this is all a sham yet clearly do not comprehend any of this. (Not to say I did before you explained it) Agree, it's clearly political and some of you on this board do not comprehend any of it 1 hour ago, ChiGoose said: It’s actually not. The prosecution has put on a pretty strong case. The case is very weak and is relying totally on activist prosecution, judge and jury. The case has no chance of winning on appeal, if these partisans in the case decide against Trump. None 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChiGoose Posted May 16 Share Posted May 16 5 minutes ago, Pokebball said: Agree, it's clearly political and some of you on this board do not comprehend any of it The case is very weak and is relying totally on activist prosecution, judge and jury. The case has no chance of winning on appeal, if these partisans in the case decide against Trump. None On what issue do you believe Trump’s team will be successful on appeal? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
L Ron Burgundy Posted May 16 Share Posted May 16 13 minutes ago, Pokebball said: Agree, it's clearly political and some of you on this board do not comprehend any of it The case is very weak and is relying totally on activist prosecution, judge and jury. The case has no chance of winning on appeal, if these partisans in the case decide against Trump. None Yeah! Every judge in every case against Trump is an activist or corrupt. It's all a witch hunt! He's the only one not corrupt. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pokebball Posted May 16 Share Posted May 16 36 minutes ago, L Ron Burgundy said: Yeah! Every judge in every case against Trump is an activist or corrupt. It's all a witch hunt! He's the only one not corrupt. Why do you even go here? No one is saying every judge in every case is. This one is and it's so obvious. My point is you and some others can't see this one is purely political. Sheesh, we all need some reasonable senses on politics these days. 50 minutes ago, ChiGoose said: On what issue do you believe Trump’s team will be successful on appeal? I've stated it a few times and I'm not going to repeat myself over and over with you. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BillStime Posted May 16 Author Share Posted May 16 2 minutes ago, Pokebball said: can't see Was it election interference? Yes or no. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pokebball Posted May 16 Share Posted May 16 3 minutes ago, BillStime said: Was it election interference? Yes or no. Ha? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BillStime Posted May 16 Author Share Posted May 16 2 minutes ago, Pokebball said: Ha? Exactly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pokebball Posted May 16 Share Posted May 16 2 minutes ago, BillStime said: Exactly. I have no clue what your talking about. Exactly accurate! 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BillStime Posted May 16 Author Share Posted May 16 5 minutes ago, Pokebball said: I have no clue what your talking about. Exactly accurate! What's this topic about? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChiGoose Posted May 16 Share Posted May 16 41 minutes ago, Pokebball said: I've stated it a few times and I'm not going to repeat myself over and over with you. Simply because you think everyone is biased? What objections raised by Trump’s team are going to be successful on appeal? Do you have any cases or precedent you can point to that would support this case being thrown out on appeal due to bias? Should be very easy to answer if you are 100% convinced of an overturn. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pokebball Posted May 16 Share Posted May 16 44 minutes ago, ChiGoose said: Simply because you think everyone is biased? What objections raised by Trump’s team are going to be successful on appeal? Do you have any cases or precedent you can point to that would support this case being thrown out on appeal due to bias? Should be very easy to answer if you are 100% convinced of an overturn. All this has been answered above 1 hour ago, BillStime said: What's this topic about? Well then, maybe Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChiGoose Posted May 16 Share Posted May 16 31 minutes ago, Pokebball said: All this has been answered above Not really. You’ve mostly just stated that the judge and jury are biased but failed to cite any applicable precedent that would lead one to think an appeal on such grounds would be successful. Then you loudly and clearly misstated the law applicable to this case. Gotta say, not very convincing stuff. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts