Election Interference | Donald Trump + Stormy Daniels hush money case

[ChiGoose]

1 hour ago, All_Pro_Bills said:

Sure, but she perpetrated a hoax that influenced the election and inhibited the functioning of the Trump administration for the entire 4 year term while creating a lasting false narrative the faithful still believe to this day.  And she continues to lie about it.  So it's okay to lie and fabricate disinformation on the opposition candidate as long as the campaign pays for it?  

 

As for Trump I could argue no harm, no foul.  So the payment was classified "legal expenses".  So what?  What harm or damage did the State of New York incur?  Nothing.  Or anyone else?  Nothing.  The money was not used or derived from any criminal activity or enterprise.  There was no crime or illegal act before or after the payment.  The payment itself was not illegal or was the NDA.  No taxes or payments to any government or private individual were missed or mis-calculated.  There was no victim, period.  So the charge is a violation of the law that caused no harm to anyone.  That seems utterly foolish.  But representative of the times we live in today where critical and logical thinking is optional.  

 

Even if there is a conviction which is likely given the stacked jury, an appeals court will most certainly reject the States argument and dismiss the case.  But the goal would have already been achieved.  Not to send Trump to prison but to tie him up in court and keep him off the campaign trail for as long as possible to give that feeble old fool enough slack to maybe pull off a re-election bid.  A diabolical but effective plan.  

You seem to be conflating your view on the impacts of their actions with the actual violations of law. 
 

The Clinton Campaign violated federal election law and was fined for it by the FEC. 
 

Trump violated NY criminal law and was indicted for it. Ironically, his actions almost certainly also violated federal election law but for some reason, the FEC has done nothing about it. 
 

Also, on what grounds do you believe any conviction of Trump in the Manhattan case will be overturned on appeal?

Edited April 24 by ChiGoose

[Doc]

1 hour ago, All_Pro_Bills said:

Sure, but she perpetrated a hoax that influenced the election and inhibited the functioning of the Trump administration for the entire 4 year term while creating a lasting false narrative the faithful still believe to this day.  And she continues to lie about it.  So it's okay to lie and fabricate disinformation on the opposition candidate as long as the campaign pays for it?  

 

As for Trump I could argue no harm, no foul.  So the payment was classified "legal expenses".  So what?  What harm or damage did the State of New York incur?  Nothing.  Or anyone else?  Nothing.  The money was not used or derived from any criminal activity or enterprise.  There was no crime or illegal act before or after the payment.  The payment itself was not illegal or was the NDA.  No taxes or payments to any government or private individual were missed or mis-calculated.  There was no victim, period.  So the charge is a violation of the law that caused no harm to anyone.  That seems utterly foolish.  But representative of the times we live in today where critical and logical thinking is optional.  

 

Even if there is a conviction which is likely given the stacked jury, an appeals court will most certainly reject the States argument and dismiss the case.  But the goal would have already been achieved.  Not to send Trump to prison but to tie him up in court and keep him off the campaign trail for as long as possible to give that feeble old fool enough slack to maybe pull off a re-election bid.  A diabolical but effective plan.  

 

Any (ridiculous) way they can try and get him, they're all for it. 

[ChiGoose]

7 minutes ago, Doc said:

 

Any (ridiculous) way they can try and get him, they're all for it. 

If that was true, he’d already be behind bars. 

[BillStime]

[All_Pro_Bills]

10 hours ago, ChiGoose said:

You seem to be conflating your view on the impacts of their actions with the actual violations of law. 
 

The Clinton Campaign violated federal election law and was fined for it by the FEC. 
 

Trump violated NY criminal law and was indicted for it. Ironically, his actions almost certainly also violated federal election law but for some reason, the FEC has done nothing about it. 
 

Also, on what grounds do you believe any conviction of Trump in the Manhattan case will be overturned on appeal?

The Clinton campaign did more than violate election law.  They created an entirely false narrative to lie and deceive the American public on an epic and historical scale.

 

But as for this problem, falsifying business records?  People charged with falsifying business records perform the act of falsifying business records in order to obscure, misrepresent, or hide a previously performed criminal act.  Like embezzlement.  Is anyone suggesting the source of funds Trump used was illegally gained?

 

Otherwise, the source of funds being legal there was no criminal act leading up to the payment. The payment itself was legal.  Lying and calling it "legal expenses" was a lie but is lying illegal here.  That's the point of contention.  And that point is trivial and not worthy of legal action by the State.  But the State believes its a standalone "crime" and charge to make a legal payment and classify the payment on your internal accounting records as something else.

 

Entering into a NDA is not a crime.  Neither is making a payment to another party.  Neither is legally transferring monies to your lawyers escrow account.  Neither is the lawyer using the funds to make a payment to another party.

Edited April 24 by All_Pro_Bills

[ChiGoose]

56 minutes ago, All_Pro_Bills said:

The Clinton campaign did more than violate election law.  They created an entirely false narrative to lie and deceive the American public on an epic and historical scale.

 

But as for this problem, falsifying business records?  People charged with falsifying business records perform the act of falsifying business records in order to obscure, misrepresent, or hide a previously performed criminal act.  Like embezzlement.  Is anyone suggesting the source of funds Trump used was illegally gained?

 

Otherwise, the source of funds being legal there was no criminal act leading up to the payment. The payment itself was legal.  Lying and calling it "legal expenses" was a lie but is lying illegal here.  That's the point of contention.  And that point is trivial and not worthy of legal action by the State.  But the State believes its a standalone "crime" and charge to make a legal payment and classify the payment on your internal accounting records as something else.

 

Entering into a NDA is not a crime.  Neither is making a payment to another party.  Neither is legally transferring monies to your lawyers escrow account.  Neither is the lawyer using the funds to make a payment to another party.

You still seem to be confusing what you think the law should be with what the law actually is. 
 

As I previously stated, all Trump needed to do was pay the money out of the Trump Campaign. 
 

If he did, he would be facing an FEC fine at worst, but most likely no penalty. 

[BillsFanNC]

Fact check: True

 

 

[BillsFanNC]

 

[Tiberius]

So a porn star, a bible salesman and a guy named ***** walk into a courtroom….

[Doc]

6 hours ago, All_Pro_Bills said:

The Clinton campaign did more than violate election law.  They created an entirely false narrative to lie and deceive the American public on an epic and historical scale.

 

But as for this problem, falsifying business records?  People charged with falsifying business records perform the act of falsifying business records in order to obscure, misrepresent, or hide a previously performed criminal act.  Like embezzlement.  Is anyone suggesting the source of funds Trump used was illegally gained?

 

Otherwise, the source of funds being legal there was no criminal act leading up to the payment. The payment itself was legal.  Lying and calling it "legal expenses" was a lie but is lying illegal here.  That's the point of contention.  And that point is trivial and not worthy of legal action by the State.  But the State believes its a standalone "crime" and charge to make a legal payment and classify the payment on your internal accounting records as something else.

 

Entering into a NDA is not a crime.  Neither is making a payment to another party.  Neither is legally transferring monies to your lawyers escrow account.  Neither is the lawyer using the funds to make a payment to another party.

 

Don't bother.  They care about more about the process than the crime itself.

[daz28]

trump tweets 'Americans can see through what these liberals are doing. This is lawfare, and the real election interference!', and MAGA loves it.  10 minutes later, Trump goes on TV, and says "Americans know this is a hoax, and it's making me do great.  Just look at the polls".  Maga Loves it.  Well which is it?  Being logical, if the 'real election interference' is going so well for you, wouldn't you want more?  I'd feel like a sheep if I couldn't spot the contradiction in that.  

[Doc]

47 minutes ago, daz28 said:

trump tweets 'Americans can see through what these liberals are doing. This is lawfare, and the real election interference!', and MAGA loves it.  10 minutes later, Trump goes on TV, and says "Americans know this is a hoax, and it's making me do great.  Just look at the polls".  Maga Loves it.  Well which is it?  Being logical, if the 'real election interference' is going so well for you, wouldn't you want more?  I'd feel like a sheep if I couldn't spot the contradiction in that.  

 

Both can be true.  And then there's that little thing of pesky trials and money wasted.

[Pokebball]

22 hours ago, ChiGoose said:

If that was true, he’d already be behind bars. 

a "ridiculous way" gonna need you to work harder

[ChiGoose]

7 minutes ago, Pokebball said:

a "ridiculous way" gonna need you to work harder

He has violated his gag orders so frequently that Judge Merchen could take him into custody today. When defending Trump, his lawyers could not point to any case that supported their theory that he hadn’t violated his gag order. It was that bad. 
 

Aside from that, the entire second half of the Mueller Report is just documenting Trump crimes. Merrick Garland could have indicted Trump on day one and likely secured a conviction ages ago. 
 

It’s incredible that people think that there’s a grand conspiracy to prosecute Trump when in reality he has been treated with kids gloves that none of us would ever have benefited from. 

[Doc]

7 minutes ago, ChiGoose said:

He has violated his gag orders so frequently that Judge Merchen could take him into custody today. When defending Trump, his lawyers could not point to any case that supported their theory that he hadn’t violated his gag order. It was that bad. 
 

Aside from that, the entire second half of the Mueller Report is just documenting Trump crimes. Merrick Garland could have indicted Trump on day one and likely secured a conviction ages ago. 
 

It’s incredible that people think that there’s a grand conspiracy to prosecute Trump when in reality he has been treated with kids gloves that none of us would ever have benefited from. 

 

Right.  So instead they dredge up the Stormy Daniels thing from even longer ago...

[Pokebball]

18 minutes ago, ChiGoose said:

He has violated his gag orders so frequently that Judge Merchen could take him into custody today. When defending Trump, his lawyers could not point to any case that supported their theory that he hadn’t violated his gag order. It was that bad. 
 

Aside from that, the entire second half of the Mueller Report is just documenting Trump crimes. Merrick Garland could have indicted Trump on day one and likely secured a conviction ages ago. 
 

It’s incredible that people think that there’s a grand conspiracy to prosecute Trump when in reality he has been treated with kids gloves that none of us would ever have benefited from. 

Yeah, keep trying harder

[T master]

On 3/18/2024 at 5:31 PM, BillStime said:

The legal proceedings concerning the election interference by Donald Trump are pending. What is notable about this case is that even though the presiding judge has decided to delay the hearing for a period of 20 days from its initial scheduled date, there is already a palpable escalation in the intensity and complexity of the case.

 

 

 

 

 

So how many times can you be tried for the exact same thing ? Come hell or high water these liberal SOB's will try to do anything to keep him from running, but don't follow up on the check Joe signed or find out where the cocaine came from that was in the white house or the documents illegally taken by then VP Biden none of that matters just pull out every way you can think possible to keep the orange man under raps ...

 

Now that's American governmental justice at it's best for you right there . And it might be different if those that are prosecuting him didn't blatantly say they were going to go after him with everything they had while being elected 

[njbuff]

2 minutes ago, T master said:

 

So how many times can you be tried for the exact same thing ? Come hell or high water these liberal SOB's will try to do anything to keep him from running, but don't follow up on the check Joe signed or find out where the cocaine came from that was in the white house or the documents illegally taken by then VP Biden none of that matters just pull out every way you can think possible to keep the orange man under raps ...

 

Now that's American governmental justice at it's best for you right there . And it might be different if those that are prosecuting him didn't blatantly say they were going to go after him with everything they had while being elected 

 

You know none of this matters to BillSlime.

 

HOAX

 

 

[ChiGoose]

42 minutes ago, T master said:

 

So how many times can you be tried for the exact same thing ? Come hell or high water these liberal SOB's will try to do anything to keep him from running, but don't follow up on the check Joe signed or find out where the cocaine came from that was in the white house or the documents illegally taken by then VP Biden none of that matters just pull out every way you can think possible to keep the orange man under raps ...

 

Now that's American governmental justice at it's best for you right there . And it might be different if those that are prosecuting him didn't blatantly say they were going to go after him with everything they had while being elected 

He hasn’t been tried for election interference once. 
 

He is slated to be tried for defrauding the US in DC but who knows when that’s actually going to happen. 

52 minutes ago, Pokebball said:

Yeah, keep trying harder

Sorry reality doesn’t match up to your fantasy. But that’s a you problem. 

1 hour ago, Doc said:

 

Right.  So instead they dredge up the Stormy Daniels thing from even longer ago...

Right. Makes absolutely no sense if there was a widespread conspiracy to get Trump. Just charge him with the crimes documented by Mueller and be done with it. 

Could have had the guy already into his second year in jail not worrying about any of this today. 

[Pokebball]

4 minutes ago, ChiGoose said:

Sorry reality doesn’t match up to your fantasy. But that’s a you problem. 

Reality is that the dems have been using lawfare against Trump for over 7yrs now. I really do not like Trump at all. But what you Dems have done to our country these past 7yrs is really sad. We'll never recover.

[ChiGoose]

1 minute ago, Pokebball said:

Reality is that the dems have been using lawfare against Trump for over 7yrs now. I really do not like Trump at all. But what you Dems have done to our country these past 7yrs is really sad. We'll never recover.

I’m glad we don’t actually live in the world you think we do. 
 

Do crimes, get charged. If you didn’t want your president to get charged with crimes, don’t elect a criminal. 

[T master]

8 minutes ago, ChiGoose said:

He hasn’t been tried for election interference once. 
 

He is slated to be tried for defrauding the US in DC but who knows when that’s actually going to happen. 

Sorry reality doesn’t match up to your fantasy. But that’s a you problem. 

Right. Makes absolutely no sense if there was a widespread conspiracy to get Trump. Just charge him with the crimes documented by Mueller and be done with it. 

Could have had the guy already into his second year in jail not worrying about any of this today. 

 

If the evidence was so damming & proof BEYOND A SHADOW OF A DOUBT that he indeed commited those crimes then why isn't he already in jail ? 

 

I bet he bought off the judge right ? Or he knows somebody in high places is that it ? I just would like to know .

[daz28]

1 hour ago, Doc said:

 

Both can be true.  And then there's that little thing of pesky trials and money wasted.

You're implying that they thought the lawfare plot would hurt him, but it didn't?  It's laughable to believe that after his supporters say Russia, Russia, Russia every third post, that the deep state made a bungle thinking they'd turn on him, but didn't.  🤣

[ChiGoose]

4 minutes ago, T master said:

 

If the evidence was so damming & proof BEYOND A SHADOW OF A DOUBT that he indeed commited those crimes then why isn't he already in jail ? 

 

I bet he bought off the judge right ? Or he knows somebody in high places is that it ? I just would like to know .

Because the Dems, by and large, are feckless cowards. 
 

When Biden won, they thought to themselves “well, that’s the end of Trump” because they are dumb. 

[Pokebball]

7 minutes ago, ChiGoose said:

I’m glad we don’t actually live in the world you think we do. 
 

Do crimes, get charged. If you didn’t want your president to get charged with crimes, don’t elect a criminal. 

We're living it daily

4 minutes ago, daz28 said:

You're implying that they thought the lawfare plot would hurt him, but it didn't?  It's laughable to believe that after his supporters say Russia, Russia, Russia every third post, that the deep state made a bungle thinking they'd turn on him, but didn't.  🤣

How do you know if it's hurting him or not? You can't imply that either

4 minutes ago, ChiGoose said:

Because the Dems, by and large, are feckless cowards. 
 

When Biden won, they thought to themselves “well, that’s the end of Trump” because they are dumb. 

Dems are doing some pretty nasty things

[daz28]

1 hour ago, Pokebball said:

 

How do you know if it's hurting him or not? You can't imply that either

 

Look at my original post.  I quote the source, who happens to be trump.  The whole point was he plays both angles, and they eat it up, without the sense to notice the contradiction. 

[Pokebball]

Just now, daz28 said:

Look at my original post.  I quote the source, who happens to be trump.  The whole point was he plays both angles, and they eat it up, without the sense to notice the contradiction. 

This is a pivot. You said it is not hurting him. You don't know that?

[Tenhigh]

10 hours ago, ChiGoose said:

Because the Dems, by and large, are feckless cowards. 
 

When Biden won, they thought to themselves “well, that’s the end of Trump” because they are dumb. 

Your blind spot is so weird. 

10 hours ago, Pokebball said:

Dems are doing some pretty nasty things

He can't see it though, It's kind of crazy right?

[Pokebball]

3 hours ago, Tenhigh said:

Your blind spot is so weird. 

He can't see it though, It's kind of crazy right?

What the dems are doing will have a much more significant impact to the health of America. Impeachment is now commonplace. Lawfare against political opponents will now be commonplace. Think back in history, even recent history. Clinton? Regan? Kennedy? Nixon? Johnson? Apply what is being normalized today to any of our past elected officlals? Holy shyt are we in trouble now!

[ChiGoose]

4 minutes ago, Pokebball said:

What the dems are doing will have a much more significant impact to the health of America. Impeachment is now commonplace. Lawfare against political opponents will now be commonplace. Think back in history, even recent history. Clinton? Regan? Kennedy? Nixon? Johnson? Apply what is being normalized today to any of our past elected officlals? Holy shyt are we in trouble now!

The Dems are bad because law enforcement is enforcing the law. 
 

We cannot allow them to normalize law enforcement enforcing the law! Can you imagine!?!?

[Pokebball]

7 minutes ago, ChiGoose said:

The Dems are bad because law enforcement is enforcing the law. 
 

We cannot allow them to normalize law enforcement enforcing the law! Can you imagine!?!?

You're making the bed!

[ChiGoose]

1 minute ago, Pokebball said:

You're making the bed!

I’m 100% fine with the law being enforced against people who break the law, even against Dems.

Do you oppose the laws being enforced? Or do you think that some favored people should be above the law? 

[Pokebball]

3 minutes ago, ChiGoose said:

I’m 100% fine with the law being enforced against people who break the law, even against Dems.

Do you oppose the laws being enforced? Or do you think that some favored people should be above the law? 

Well, my caution to you and the dems, is that we'll shall see how your actions impact our future politics. We've already got an impeachment coming out of the repub controlled house. Now we have the dem controlled senate shelving the constitutionally required trial in regards to that impeachment.

 

We're circling the drain my friend. You're contributing to a ugly new normal.

[LarryMadman]

On 4/18/2024 at 6:48 PM, BillStime said:

 

I don't cheat on my wife, and I don't treat my marriage as a transaction.

 

Nevertheless, Christo, please tell us more about the sanctity of marriage.

Holy smokes, you found someone to marry you! Hahahahahaha.........OMG!

[The Frankish Reich]

8 minutes ago, LarryMadman said:

Holy smokes, you found someone to marry you! Hahahahahaha.........OMG!

He's got nuthin on me. I found two women to marry me (not at the same time)

[Doc]

14 hours ago, ChiGoose said:

Right. Makes absolutely no sense if there was a widespread conspiracy to get Trump. Just charge him with the crimes documented by Mueller and be done with it. 

Could have had the guy already into his second year in jail not worrying about any of this today. 

 

Try "they wouldn't have been able to prove beyond a reasonable doubt." You know, the Hur reason for not charging Biden for his ciminality.  

 

14 hours ago, daz28 said:

You're implying that they thought the lawfare plot would hurt him, but it didn't?  It's laughable to believe that after his supporters say Russia, Russia, Russia every third post, that the deep state made a bungle thinking they'd turn on him, but didn't.  🤣

 

The Dems thought the lawfare plot would hurt him.  It had the opposite effect (not that Biden's terribleness isn't doing the most to help him).  It still doesn't mean it isn't a PITA to have to go to court and pay millions of dollars defending himself.

[ChiGoose]

15 minutes ago, Pokebball said:

Well, my caution to you and the dems, is that we'll shall see how your actions impact our future politics. We've already got an impeachment coming out of the repub controlled house. Now we have the dem controlled senate shelving the constitutionally required trial in regards to that impeachment.

 

We're circling the drain my friend. You're contributing to a ugly new normal.

Nah man, the Dems aren’t pulling all these strings behind the scenes, forcing law enforcement to do things. 
 

If they were that competent, they would have never lost to an idiot conman in 2016. If they had that kind of power and desire to do away with Trump, he would have already been convicted of multiple felonies that he absolutely committed. They would have enforced the emoluments clause while he was in office taking in foreign money through his hotel. 
 

What’s actually happening here is that a long time criminal committed a bunch of crimes and now he’s facing the consequences of that. 
 

If the new normal is criminals get charged with crimes, I’m not sure why you’re so worried about it. 

[Joe Ferguson forever]

On 4/23/2024 at 7:27 PM, All_Pro_Bills said:

Sure, but she perpetrated a hoax that influenced the election and inhibited the functioning of the Trump administration for the entire 4 year term while creating a lasting false narrative the faithful still believe to this day.  And she continues to lie about it.  So it's okay to lie and fabricate disinformation on the opposition candidate as long as the campaign pays for it?  

 

As for Trump I could argue no harm, no foul.  So the payment was classified "legal expenses".  So what?  What harm or damage did the State of New York incur?  Nothing.  Or anyone else?  Nothing.  The money was not used or derived from any criminal activity or enterprise.  There was no crime or illegal act before or after the payment.  The payment itself was not illegal or was the NDA.  No taxes or payments to any government or private individual were missed or mis-calculated.  There was no victim, period.  So the charge is a violation of the law that caused no harm to anyone.  That seems utterly foolish.  But representative of the times we live in today where critical and logical thinking is optional.  

 

Even if there is a conviction which is likely given the stacked jury, an appeals court will most certainly reject the States argument and dismiss the case.  But the goal would have already been achieved.  Not to send Trump to prison but to tie him up in court and keep him off the campaign trail for as long as possible to give that feeble old fool enough slack to maybe pull off a re-election bid.  A diabolical but effective plan.  

your arguments sound a lot like those of Mr Sauer (Trumps lawyer in front of Scotus right now).  In both cases, let's let the system play out.  Of course you don't trust the system in NY because it's a blue area.  Do you similarly distrust SCOTUS cuz it's R dominated?

[The Frankish Reich]

Gorsuch is making some good points here. He asks: "For every first term president, can't every action he takes be seen as in service of his own reelection."

There is a serious issue here, and it's about what are "official acts" and what aren't. Seems to me the SCt is going to send it back to the trial judge to make a determination on what alleged Trump actions were "official acts" and what were "private acts." The devil will be in the details of that decision - how to decide that issue. For example: "actions should be considered official acts if they arguably fall within the President's powers." That would be a huge Trump win. On the other hand, a decision like "actions that are undertaken for a primarily personal electoral motive should be considered private acts" would be a huge win for the Special Counsel.

[Joe Ferguson forever]

7 minutes ago, The Frankish Reich said:

For example: "actions should be considered official acts if they arguably fall within the President's powers." That would be a huge Trump win. On the other hand, a decision like "actions that are undertaken for a primarily personal electoral motive should be considered private acts" would be a huge win for the Special Counsel.

Couldn't both be true?