|
|
Post by str8shooter on May 30, 2024 16:04:23 GMT -6
No Conservative is safe in any Blue State. Trump guilty on all 34 counts when the crime was never pointed out. No Republican can be safe in any Blue State for business and no one can be safe for what they do in filing their taxes. The only way that this lawfare ends is for Republicans to start indicting Democrats. That is right. In a sense, this is now war between liberals and conservatives. Again, no Republican or Conservative is safe in any Blue State. There is no evidence of Trump being tied to any payments. One thing that Republicans are going to have to do is make this clear that Republicans and Conservatives have to get out of Blue States. |
|
|
|
Post by str8shooter on May 31, 2024 15:20:02 GMT -6
I was just thinking about the verdict against Trump. Remember when Comey said that he could not go after Hillary Clinton because he could not have her prosecuted on "intent." He said, "Now let me tell you what we found:
Although we did not find clear evidence that Secretary Clinton or her colleagues intended to violate laws governing the handling of classified information, there is evidence that they were extremely careless in their handling of very sensitive, highly classified information."
So, Hillary Clinton was let off. In this case against Trump, this judge said that the jurors were to find him guilty of intent.
|
|
|
|
Post by stiffy1957 on Jun 2, 2024 17:44:43 GMT -6
Why do you waste time with these silly posts? The Constitution spells out the requirements for being a President. Nothing you wrote impacts that: Qualifications seem light don't they? He couldn't get hired at most companies in the U.S. but can serve as President just as long as he's a Natural Born Citizen and 35 years old. That's all it takes to have your finger on the nukes and be read in on all the national secrets and securities. It really is a disgrace that a criminal could be President. And he is a criminal. Time for reforms and amendments to pick a legitimate candidate. The office of president should have some more picky standards. |
|
|
|
Post by stargatebabe on Jun 2, 2024 17:49:34 GMT -6
I was just thinking about the verdict against Trump. Remember when Comey said that he could not go after Hillary Clinton because he could not have her prosecuted on "intent." He said, "Now let me tell you what we found: Although we did not find clear evidence that Secretary Clinton or her colleagues intended to violate laws governing the handling of classified information, there is evidence that they were extremely careless in their handling of very sensitive, highly classified information." So, Hillary Clinton was let off. In this case against Trump, this judge said that the jurors were to find him guilty of intent.  |
|
|
|
Post by stiffy1957 on Jun 3, 2024 19:36:25 GMT -6
The only way that this lawfare ends is for Republicans to start indicting Democrats. That is right. In a sense, this is now war between liberals and conservatives. Again, no Republican or Conservative is safe in any Blue State. There is no evidence of Trump being tied to any payments. One thing that Republicans are going to have to do is make this clear that Republicans and Conservatives have to get out of Blue States. Anyone who commits a crime, even after the Whitehouse counsel tells him it is illegal should all go to jail.. These people are our public servants. Not Our dictators. |
|
|
|
Post by stiffy1957 on Jun 3, 2024 19:38:09 GMT -6
I was just thinking about the verdict against Trump. Remember when Comey said that he could not go after Hillary Clinton because he could not have her prosecuted on "intent." He said, "Now let me tell you what we found: Although we did not find clear evidence that Secretary Clinton or her colleagues intended to violate laws governing the handling of classified information, there is evidence that they were extremely careless in their handling of very sensitive, highly classified information." So, Hillary Clinton was let off. In this case against Trump, this judge said that the jurors were to find him guilty of intent. This was not about intent. This was cooking the books to commit another crime. |
|
|
|
Post by str8shooter on Jun 3, 2024 19:57:09 GMT -6
That is right. In a sense, this is now war between liberals and conservatives. Again, no Republican or Conservative is safe in any Blue State. There is no evidence of Trump being tied to any payments. One thing that Republicans are going to have to do is make this clear that Republicans and Conservatives have to get out of Blue States. Anyone who commits a crime, even after the Whitehouse counsel tells him it is illegal should all go to jail.. These people are our public servants. Not Our dictators. What crime? Two misdemeanors that were not charged by the federal government? You mean the law that the judge refused an expert to testify to that what was done was not a crime? Oh, can you say Kangaroo Court. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 3, 2024 20:05:58 GMT -6
Trump was not convicted of a hush money pymt. The hush money was, in effect & intent, a campaign expense to avoid highly unflattering news about his tryst w/ Daniels in the month before election. That motive was established at trial. The crime was not reporting the campaign expense, along w/ a conspiracy in support to cover it up w/ fraudulent documents & instruments of pymt.
The pretense that a crime had not been committed is belied by the elaborate scheme to evade detection. Trump wasn't moaniog about Cohen being sentenced to 3 years for basically the same crime - was he ?
|
|
|
|
Post by captbudman on Jun 3, 2024 20:08:52 GMT -6
Qualifications seem light don't they? He couldn't get hired at most companies in the U.S. but can serve as President just as long as he's a Natural Born Citizen and 35 years old. That's all it takes to have your finger on the nukes and be read in on all the national secrets and securities. It really is a disgrace that a criminal could be President. And he is a criminal. Time for reforms and amendments to pick a legitimate candidate. The office of president should have some more picky standards. Why don't the Democrats propose an amendment to the Constitution? You know -- something like prohibiting any Convicted Felons or people whose name end it Trump from being President, unless they are citizens of some other nation... |
|
|
|
Post by captbudman on Jun 3, 2024 20:09:54 GMT -6
Trump was not convicted of a hush money pymt. The hush money was, in effect & intent, a campaign expense to avoid highly unflattering news about his tryst w/ Daniels in the month before election. That motive was established at trial. The crime was not reporting the campaign expense, along w/ a conspiracy in support to cover it up w/ fraudulent documents & instruments of pymt. The pretense that a crime had not been committed is belied by the elaborate scheme to evade detection. Trump wasn't moaniog about Cohen being sentenced to 3 years for basically the same crime - was he ? When did a State get the power to prosecute a Federal Crime -- especially one that the Federal Government refused to prosecute because they knew it wasn't a crime? |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 3, 2024 20:17:25 GMT -6
Trump was not convicted of a hush money pymt. The hush money was, in effect & intent, a campaign expense to avoid highly unflattering news about his tryst w/ Daniels in the month before election. That motive was established at trial. The crime was not reporting the campaign expense, along w/ a conspiracy in support to cover it up w/ fraudulent documents & instruments of pymt. The pretense that a crime had not been committed is belied by the elaborate scheme to evade detection. Trump wasn't moaniog about Cohen being sentenced to 3 years for basically the same crime - was he ? When did a State get the power to prosecute a Federal Crime -- especially one that the Federal Government refused to prosecute because they knew it wasn't a crime? About 5 seconds of googling yielded this - the conspiracy spanned both state & federal laws - the feds actually cooperated w/ NYC in presenting evidence in this case. You're welcome.
Jurisdiction: The Power to Investigate, Prosecute, and Decide Cases
A state has jurisdiction over defendants who violate the laws of that state—the power to arrest, charge, try, and convict them. The federal government has power over defendants who commit criminal acts on federal property (for example, an assault in a national park) or whose criminal acts cross state lines (for example, a kidnapper who transports a victim from Iowa to Missouri). The federal government also has jurisdiction over a group of federally defined crimes, such as offenses related to immigration fraud and U.S. customs violations.
A state and the federal government can have "concurrent" power over a defendant when the same criminal activity violates both state and federal laws (for example, selling drugs or robbing banks). In those situations, state and federal prosecutors make case-by-case decisions as to whether a defendant will be prosecuted in state or federal court.
|
|
|
|
Post by lighthouse on Jun 3, 2024 20:21:34 GMT -6
That is right. In a sense, this is now war between liberals and conservatives. Again, no Republican or Conservative is safe in any Blue State. There is no evidence of Trump being tied to any payments. One thing that Republicans are going to have to do is make this clear that Republicans and Conservatives have to get out of Blue States. Anyone who commits a crime, even after the Whitehouse counsel tells him it is illegal should all go to jail.. These people are our public servants. Not Our dictators. When the Supreme Court told the Biden's administration that they couldn't forgive student's loans, but they ignored the courts and went forward to start forgiving student's loans. You're good with that, right? |
|
|
|
Post by str8shooter on Jun 3, 2024 21:22:58 GMT -6
Trump was not convicted of a hush money pymt. The hush money was, in effect & intent, a campaign expense to avoid highly unflattering news about his tryst w/ Daniels in the month before election. That motive was established at trial. The crime was not reporting the campaign expense, along w/ a conspiracy in support to cover it up w/ fraudulent documents & instruments of pymt. The pretense that a crime had not been committed is belied by the elaborate scheme to evade detection. Trump wasn't moaniog about Cohen being sentenced to 3 years for basically the same crime - was he ? Intent? Remember when Comey said that he could not seek prosecution of Hillary Clinton because he could not prove intent? Intent? WTF, there is no evidence that Trump's intent was introduced to the trial or proven. This Kangaroo Court set up a conviction and that is apparent. If the hush money payement was not important then why was it brought up? Cohen's testimony was the case and he lied. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 3, 2024 23:06:11 GMT -6
Trump was not convicted of a hush money pymt. The hush money was, in effect & intent, a campaign expense to avoid highly unflattering news about his tryst w/ Daniels in the month before election. That motive was established at trial. The crime was not reporting the campaign expense, along w/ a conspiracy in support to cover it up w/ fraudulent documents & instruments of pymt. The pretense that a crime had not been committed is belied by the elaborate scheme to evade detection. Trump wasn't moaniog about Cohen being sentenced to 3 years for basically the same crime - was he ? Intent? Remember when Comey said that he could not seek prosecution of Hillary Clinton because he could not prove intent? Intent? WTF, there is no evidence that Trump's intent was introduced to the trial or proven. This Kangaroo Court set up a conviction and that is apparent. If the hush money payement was not important then why was it brought up? Cohen's testimony was the case and he lied. ''everyone, including you, knows that Trump would screw anything that suited his fancy - Danials wasn't the first to have her story killed. When that story was killed in oct 16, Trump is on record discussing it in the context of the campaign w/ Peckar and others. OF COURSE that was his intent. The jurors agreed. Which was critical to the prosecution case. The access hollywood tapes were out there, it would have sunk him - he knew it and so did everyoe else. To view it as distinct from the campaign simply lacks plausibility. It was vitally intrinsic to his election prospects, instrumental to his victory. Why did he go to such lengths to evade reporting it as such ? He didn't want to suffer the consequences, and so tried as usual to sneak around the law. He got caught.
|
|
|
|
Post by str8shooter on Jun 4, 2024 6:50:59 GMT -6
Intent? Remember when Comey said that he could not seek prosecution of Hillary Clinton because he could not prove intent? Intent? WTF, there is no evidence that Trump's intent was introduced to the trial or proven. This Kangaroo Court set up a conviction and that is apparent. If the hush money payement was not important then why was it brought up? Cohen's testimony was the case and he lied. ''everyone, including you, knows that Trump would screw anything that suited his fancy - Danials wasn't the first to have her story killed. When that story was killed in oct 16, Trump is on record discussing it in the context of the campaign w/ Peckar and others. OF COURSE that was his intent. The jurors agreed. Which was critical to the prosecution case. The access hollywood tapes were out there, it would have sunk him - he knew it and so did everyoe else. To view it as distinct from the campaign simply lacks plausibility. It was vitally intrinsic to his election prospects, instrumental to his victory. Why did he go to such lengths to evade reporting it as such ? He didn't want to suffer the consequences, and so tried as usual to sneak around the law. He got caught.
The point, there wasn't any connection made between Trump signing any check for the payment. There are countless times Cohen said he did it on his own and witnesses who he told that to. It doesn't matter that he would screw anyone. Also, Congress has a fund to pay off hush money for those serving in Congress. It isn't illegal. You can't use someone's opinion without fact to convict anyone. Otherwsie, Biden is guilty of all of the money he is making off of China. See, that is how your assessment works. When he gets out of the WH, charges need to be brought by some activist AG in a Republican state where and in a city where 4% of the population voted for Biden. Expect from now on. You can't deny that Trump was guilty before this trial started in the minds of that jury. |
|
