All who demanded that Trump's crimes be proven in a court of law... Rejoice!

Hey, he goes with what he knows.

Which ain't much.

 

No idea what "arguments" you're talking about. Every thread has the facts that prove the premise I make and which relate to THAT thread. THIS thread is to let Trump loyalists who demanded that their "idol" come before a judge and a jury to demand his guilt be proven in a court of law. That is the ONLY argument I have made. I don't know what "arguments" you're demanding unless you are denying that Trump WILL be indicted.

Your post looks like a pre-canned response that you feel you can use EVERY time you can't respond to facts. It doesn't work this time because the arguments I'm making here are not even in dispute. Trump IS going to be in a trial, and Trump loyalists HAVE demanded it.

If you want to ever make a meaningful contribution, pre-canned responses are too transparent, and won't accomplish that. You would have to quote WHAT it is you are rebutting, and then produce a rebuttal. If you can't do that, better not jump in because your pre-canned responses only highlight your lack of arguments.

 

I can agree with that. But if we look at the case, we know that one person has already been found guilty and served time for this crime. Why wouldn't the man who, purportedly, ordered that crime be tried for it as well?

And are we going to see the same criticisms of Fani Willis and Jack Smith? I think so - but don't know for sure.

 

We were nowhere near losing our Democracy on January 6. But we DO come closer to losing it if we don't hold accountable EVERYBODY who participated in the failed insurrection. Particularly the main instigator. It would establish a precedent for future "Trump wannabees" that would provide a blueprint as to how to establish a dictatorship.

 

I'm glad at least that you're not one of the more extreme hysterics.

I don't know your age, but we went through this same nonsense during the Watergate aftermath. It was as ridiculous then as it is now.

 

I'm not certain of your predicate.

Michael Cohen went to prison for committing several federal crimes, yes, 8 to be exact, including tax evasion and making false statements to a bank, 6 of which had nothing to do with Trump or his organization.

Here are the details:

https://www.justice.gov/usao-sdny/p...ral-court-eight-counts-including-criminal-tax

Now, here's the money shot in his judicial confession, if one's goal is to see Trump convicted:

COHEN caused and made the payments [to the women] described herein in order to influence the 2016 presidential election. In so doing, he coordinated with one or more members of the campaign, [notice he does not name Trump himself, not here at least] including through meetings and phone calls, about the fact, nature, and timing of the payments. As a result of the payments solicited and made by COHEN, neither Woman-1 nor Woman-2 spoke to the press prior to the election.

Or that's what Cohen claimed in his judicial confession. The problem is, he's a liar. Regardless, the question now is Trump's motive in approving the payment, not Cohen's. If Trump had no other motive (embarrassment, divorce?) in agreeing to the payment, he violated the law as well. But if there was any other motive, he's not guilty.

So, was there any other motive? Might the jury have some reasonable doubt? Do you, or can you read Trump's mind?

The real hard amd maybe unknowable question is, to what extent did the campaign violation affect Cohen's sentence? They do this thing called grouping in the federal sentencing system. With rare exceptions, you dont go "2 years for this, then 2 more years for that."

If Cohen's sentence would have been exactly the same without the campaign finance violation, then he did not really go to prison for that, or we can't really know.

According to the federal sentencing guidelines, an illegal contribution of $130,000 (without any other convictions), would put a defendant right on the edge between incarceration and probation, depending on several other factors like his acceptance of responsibility.

But Trump is in state court, and God knows what the state judge will do. Since Trump has no criminal record, he'll likely get probation at worst.

 

I don't care much about him either.

Nancy doesn't drink except for a 'sip during a toast'? You have something to back that up?

 

Someone being elected the president that you don't like is not a criminal offense.

 

First on google search
Nancy Pelosi Doesn't Drink But Cawthorn Accuses Her of 'Alcoholism' Anyway
https://www.newsweek.com/nancy-pelosi-doesnt-drink-cawthorn-accuses-her-alcoholism-anyway-1687965

Forgive me if I don't look for specific references to her acceding to a sip for toasts, something I read years ago.

 

If she doesn't drink, then there really is no explanation for some of her actions, lol.

 

Just like the Trump University case……. Ooops! Sorry he lost that one
And the Trump charity case……….Ooops! Sorry! Lost that one!
And the Trump business fraud/tax case………Ooops! Sorry he lost that one!
And the time he tried to sue Scotland and lost (which also explains his ongoing hatred of Windmills

He is not really “Teflon Don” or the Messiah he is just a naughty boy

A summary of the legal entanglements https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legal_affairs_of_Donald_Trump

 

From the speculation around this it has to do with the “Catch and Kill” actions but we shall see.

 

Oh! Please the man has been in more courtrooms than hooker bedrooms!!!

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legal_affairs_of_Donald_Trump

 

I was in my early teens during Watergate, but followed it attentively. And you didn't have to be an adult at the time to know history. In fact, if you had lived through the scandal and never bothered and never bothered to check facts (like Nixon supporters refused to do at the time, and Trump's are refusing to do now), you would never spot the process. Nixon was a very important precedent for Trump. He hid behind many of the protections that Nixon received, including the DOJ policy to not prosecute a sitting President. Except Trump wanted to add more. Which would have failed, but would have served as precedent for the next wannabe dictator. So it's clear you're not grasping the danger of the process.

If Nixon had been imprisoned, so would Trump. If Trump had been removed by the Senate when they saw (and admitted they saw) all the evidence against him, January 6 would never had happened. If Trump is not held accountable, maybe the next candidate to dictator... or, if not that one, the next, or the next... might very well succeed.

I'm happy you notice that left wingers are not claiming what Tucker and other right-wing media are telling you. I wish I could say the same about you being one of the few on the Trump side that DO look at facts. But I can't.

 

Real or the fake ones?

Try and find one real photo of her drinking other than a toast and even those she often had a non-alcoholic beverage. You won't, they don't exist. Liars should be shunned not quoted. Particularly when it's a subject like this where millions of Americans are fighting a disease.

 

I've been much of a lurker on here, often don't have time to post or even read the comments... but I'm not really sure what you're really getting at here, other than what I view as a broad statement of irrelevance.

I don't think anyone here likely denies that Trump had an affair. This seems apropos with people who are wealthy beyond measure, and most politicians. It's only the Republicans who seem to have any kind of moral view on this as being a bad-thing. Democrats generally don't seem to view this as a problem. The act of doing this wasn't illegal, certainly... but the misrepresentation of this on his taxes would be at worst, a clerical error, or at best, a misdemeanor... which would likely result in a fine. The DA's authority to actually elevate this to a felony is tenuous at best, and there's no chance this would happen.

If you're referring to all the other Democrat claims of Russian collusion, or payoffs from China, I don't think any of that comes up in these discussions... so I am not sure what you are talking about. It is funny though, these claims from Democrats, once again, all turned out to be true for Democrats, not for Republicans.

What will not occur as a result of this... it's set a new standard, and a new precedence. Republicans are usually cowards... but don't be surprised that, like with everything else... there's nothing holding back Republican DAs from arresting / charging Democrat politicians moving forward. Should get really interesting. At least until our country collapses entirely, and we start blaming each other for who was the most responsible.

 

I'm referring to the hysteria over the impending loss of democracy, aka democracy. There was no chance of it then, and none now.

 

Real or the fake ones?

Try and find one real photo of her drinking other than a toast and even those she often had a non-alcoholic beverage. You won't, they don't exist. Liars should be shunned not quoted. Particularly when it's a subject like this where millions of Americans are fighting a disease.

 

Can a person who claims to serve the people say some of the things she has actually said, stone cold sober and of sound mind? I suppose so, if one is that far out of touch with reality and the people they supposedly represent. My perspective has nothing to do with what 'other' people have said.

I am aware of the conditions people battle, very up close.

 

I'll admit, I would never call what the demonstrators did on Jan 6th "poo poo" and she has gotten a lot of poo poo for that but it's the worst that I've heard from her.

 

Cite one court case where Trump was found criminally guilty.

 

January 6 was a bunch of twits acting like idiots.

'You have to pass it to see what's in it' (paraphrase) as a quick answer.

Other actions, I'll do short answers.
Tearing up Trump's speech
Clam clapping
Ice cream

In general, she believes she knows better what the people should have, rather than what the public actually needs. She is disconnected from reality and IMO, is beyond her 'use by' date.

 

I have said many times that, from what is known publicly, the Stormy Daniels case would be a misdemeanor. Which would be a good a start in holding Trump responsible for ALL his crimes... why not? But at this point we don't even know the charges. To say "there's no chance this would happen" means you are probably privy to information the rest of are aren't. Care to share?

Either that, or you're just jumping to unsubstantiated conclusions. Which the Trump media has been pushing Trump supporters to do for years. I hope you are not a victim of that too.

As for the rest, I'm pretty sure the Russia collusion that Mueller PROVED in his report is the least of Trump's problems. Colluding with Russia might be immoral, but I'm not sure it's even illegal.

I have ZERO concern about that. See the "Justice System as a Political Weapon" thread (link below). In fact, maybe even less than zero because I see nothing more than benefits to Republicans trying that.. Any Republican DA who fakes charges will either make a fool of themselves, and the clown will end in leaving in shame (like Durham), or they catch a criminal. Either way, the country wins.
http://www.politicalforum.com/index.php?threads/the-justice-system-as-a-political-weapon.609493/

In fact, I don't even understand why Republicans who believe Trump is innocent don't see it the same way. If Bragg is doing this for political purposes, the ONLY one who stands to win is Trump. He'd be President in a landslide.

 

Of course! I said that in the post you quoted (which you obvioiusly didn't read). There was no chance, and there is none now (less than at any time now). There IS in the future, if this goes unpunished. As Nixon set the precedent for Trump, if this goes unpunished, Trump will be the precedent for the next.... and so on until the danger BECOMES real.

All this was already explained in the post you quoted. Let me know if you're not going to read the posts you quote so I don't waste my time responding to you.

 

Did you say something?