Page 38 of 67 FirstFirst ... 3637383940 ... LastLast
Results 445 to 456 of 798

Thread: Trump Trials

  1. #445

    Re: Trump Trials

    Quote Originally Posted by Greg View Post
    And really? Even if he were guilty of something here it isn't worth trying him during a campaign given what it is doing to our political system and the confidence people have in it.
    Are you implying that the threat of violent reprisal from Trumpers should protect trump from legal repercussions for crimes he is guilty of?

    Wow what a stance.
    I believe in Devontez Walker





  2. #446
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Balt-Wash corridor
    Posts
    25,331

    Re: Trump Trials

    Quote Originally Posted by Forgettable1 View Post
    An "Intent to commit another crime"
    ...
    Then it must prove the intent to commit another crime. I know your intent to commit that other crime when you demonstrate to me that your mental state aligned with the mental state mentioned in the other crime.
    ...
    If you show me had the mindset to commit these other crimes then Iíll believe that he intended to commit those crimes.
    You're talking like jurors never have to determine intent. It's common enough. Murder One or Manslaughter, for example.

    Merchan's jury instructions include a page on intent, which seems to be New York boilerplate:
    (Page 28 in the PDF I linked earlier.)


    INTENT means conscious objective or purpose. Thus, a person acts with intent to defraud when his or her conscious objective or purpose is to do so. Intent does not require premeditation. In other words, intent does not require advance planning. Nor is it necessary that the intent be in a person's mind for any particular period of time. The intent can be formed, and need only exist, at the very moment the person engages in prohibited conduct or acts to cause the prohibited result, and not at any earlier time.

    The question naturally arises as to how to determine whether a defendant had the intent required for the commission of a crime.

    To make that determination in this case, you must decide if the required intent can be inferred beyond a reasonable doubt from the proven facts.

    In doing so, you may consider the person's conduct and all of the circumstances surrounding that conduct, including, but not limited to, the following:

    what, if anything, did the person do or say;
    what result, if any, followed the personís conduct; and
    was that result the natural, necessary and probable consequence of that conduct.

    Therefore, in this case, from the facts you find to have been proven, decide whether you can infer beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant had the intent required for the commission of this crime.


    Like it or not, "intent" is part of a lot of crimes.


    Quote Originally Posted by Forgettable1 View Post
    Well, why stop at listing three intended crimes? How about twelve crimes?
    Cute hyperbole. There are plenty of limitations: the facts have to plausibly support, they are limited by "multiplicity" (multiple crimes on one act), etc.
    There was pre-trial briefing on this. The defense had their say. Merchan rejected one of the prosecutions attempted "predicates".


    Quote Originally Posted by Forgettable1 View Post
    Yet, by Merchanís instruction...
    The thing you're calling "Merchan's instruction" is actually the law in New York. Merchan is bound by it. He didn't just make it up. Can't.





  3. #447
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Balt-Wash corridor
    Posts
    25,331

    Re: Trump Trials

    Quote Originally Posted by Greg View Post
    In your argument, yes. In our society, the reversal will mean nothing.

    You know exactly what I meant. Who wins your argument isn't important.
    It has some importance to me.


    Quote Originally Posted by Greg View Post
    The effect on our civilization is immense.
    This I agree with. A second Trump term would be catastrophic for the republic and for the rule of law.

    "Only a tyrant on the first day" is not a joke.





  4. #448

    Re: Trump Trials

    Quote Originally Posted by JimZipCode View Post
    It has some importance to me.


    This I agree with. A second Trump term would be catastrophic for the republic and for the rule of law.

    "Only a tyrant on the first day" is not a joke.
    Project 2025 would change america as we know it. A government purge is outlined and as well as increasing presidential power.

    I wish we could get the John McCain types back but MAGA has overtaken the republican party.
    I believe in Devontez Walker





  5. #449
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Balt-Wash corridor
    Posts
    25,331

    Re: Trump Trials

    Quote Originally Posted by Greg View Post
    Merchan gave to the Biden campaign and something called "Stop Trump." His daughter hauls in hundreds of millions raising money on anything and everything anti-Trump.

    Fair trial? The guy should have never been anywhere near this case.
    Did you ever look at that list I proposed? Got anything to add to it?
    I only want to go thru such a list once.


    Quote Originally Posted by Greg View Post
    And while Trump has a friend in Dershowitz, Dershowitz is biased in the other direction. Again, he voted for Hillary and Biden.
    I know you believe that political affiliations drive every person's decision in all matters. But Dersh has a more binding loyalty: his clients. Trump is/was a client. Dershowitz is full-throated in championing his clients.

    Which is fine! Admirable, even. But certainly impacts his "reliability" as a narrator.


    Quote Originally Posted by Greg View Post
    I don't need to believe in Merchan's bias. If I thought Trump was actually guilty of something I would move onto another candidate.
    You are full of shit here. If you're not lying to me then you're doing the thing balbomb accused me of: lying to yourself. You've got your fingers in your ears chanting "I'M NOT LISTENING!" as evidence wafts thru the media.

    Trump is slam-dunk guilty of the retention-of-national-defense-documents crime he's accused of in Florida, and the obstruction around that. It's not a remotely close case. Trump needs Aileen Cannon to run out the clock for him there, because the evidence is beyond overwhelming, and there is no defense case whatsoever.

    Only a brainwashed dupe could possibly "believe" Trump is innocent there.


    Quote Originally Posted by Greg View Post
    I am not a Republican and I disagree with Trump on a number of issues. I will vote for him because both sides of the establishment hate him. I am not married to Trump, and I am simply against the establishment.
    Got it: government bad, outsiders good.

    Dude literally fills his administration with ring-kissing cronies and nepo-appointees, and you think Dems are acting like dictator-strongmen. Alla' you are insane.


    Quote Originally Posted by Greg View Post
    And as I see it, this trial is nothing but an establishment play to get rid of him.

    And really? Even if he were guilty of something here it isn't worth trying him during a campaign given what it is doing to our political system and the confidence people have in it.
    It's not doing any harm to our political system. Literally none.

    Possibly it's revealing harm that irresponsible propaganda outlets like Fox & OAN have done to pretty much break our politcal system over the last ~25 years (with the eager complicity of goons like Mitch McConnell). But I think that harm was pretty obvious four and eight years ago.

    Trump himself used threats and intimidation, and even inciting a riot, to try to forestall the peaceful transfer of power ó probably THE bedrock foundational principle the republic rests on, even more so than free speech, which is not an opinion I would've entertained five years ago. And y'all want him back! Just to piss off the Establishment and pwn the Libs! It's the craziest thing I've ever lived thru.

    Airing the facts and applying the law are remedial steps toward repairing out political system. Not sufficient, but necessary. Screeching hysterical Trumpists are an indication that the treatment is probably on course.


    Quote Originally Posted by Greg View Post
    And finally, just admit this, if Trump had used campaign money to pay for this you would want him tried for using campaign money for a personal matter. He is guilty either way.
    That's a funny example to use, because I think that's actually a crime too? Smells like a form of embezzlement.

    Campaign money is supposed to go to campaign expenses. Personal expenses are supposed to be paid out of personal money. The dollars people donate to campaigns are not supposed to into candidate pockets, like to put in a swimming pool or go on vacation.


    Quote Originally Posted by Greg View Post
    It's pure Stalin, show me the man and I will show you the crime.
    Sorry, that is not what is happening with the charges in New York, WashDC, Florida and Atlanta. They indicted him because they have evidence he actually did commit serious crimes.





  6. #450
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Balt-Wash corridor
    Posts
    25,331

    Re: Trump Trials

    Quote Originally Posted by ShadeRaven View Post
    Are you implying that the threat of violent reprisal from Trumpers should protect trump from legal repercussions for crimes he is guilty of?

    Wow what a stance.
    I don't think he means to imply that.

    He said a few weeks ago in this thread, that he thinks candidates shouldn't be prosecuted during an election cycle. Too much opportunity for political harassment / weaponizing law enforcement / etc.

    I tried to probe for some limit to that principle. Like if Larry Hogan went out and murdered a bunch of people at a local McDonalds, should he REALLY not be prosecuted til after the election cycle? He refused to answer the question.

    But I definitely think he means something more along those lines, than along the lines of what you interpreted.





  7. #451
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Balt-Wash corridor
    Posts
    25,331

    Re: Trump Trials

    Quote Originally Posted by ShadeRaven View Post
    Project 2025 would change america as we know it. A government purge is outlined and as well as increasing presidential power.

    I wish we could get the John McCain types back but MAGA has overtaken the republican party.
    OH MY GOD.

    Just looked that up. I'd never heard of it. I kinda wish I still hadn't.




    wow





  8. #452

    Re: Trump Trials

    Quote Originally Posted by ShadeRaven View Post
    Project 2025 would change america as we know it. A government purge is outlined and as well as increasing presidential power.

    I wish we could get the John McCain types back but MAGA has overtaken the republican party.
    Lol liberals are so spoiled they want to pick their opponents too. The days of screaming homophobia or racism and thinking conservatives will shut up is over.





  9. #453

    Re: Trump Trials

    Answering all of Jim's points, my answers are in bold

    I know you believe that political affiliations drive every person's decision in all matters. But Dersh has a more binding loyalty: his clients. Trump is/was a client. Dershowitz is full-throated in championing his clients.

    Which is fine! Admirable, even. But certainly impacts his "reliability" as a narrator.

    Unless you know something I don't, he was once part of his impeachment council in 2020, as has no connection since. This obviously hasn't stopped various former Trump lawyers to give their opinion in far different ways, and I don't think it would overly impact him here


    You are full of shit here. If you're not lying to me then you're doing the thing balbomb accused me of: lying to yourself. You've got your fingers in your ears chanting "I'M NOT LISTENING!" as evidence wafts thru the media.

    Trump is slam-dunk guilty of the retention-of-national-defense-documents crime he's accused of in Florida, and the obstruction around that. It's not a remotely close case. Trump needs Aileen Cannon to run out the clock for him there, because the evidence is beyond overwhelming, and there is no defense case whatsoever.

    Only a brainwashed dupe could possibly "believe" Trump is innocent there.

    I mean I think Greg was just referring to this trial, and I think you know that. Even the records case he is as guilty as every other President on both sides going at least as far back as Bill Clinton. It is quite disingenuous that the current President still had records sitting in his garage, in a college, that should not have been there but only one President was hit with an FBI raid with guns drawn.


    Got it: government bad, outsiders good.

    Dude literally fills his administration with ring-kissing cronies and nepo-appointees, and you think Dems are acting like dictator-strongmen. Alla' you are insane.

    One of the biggest problems in 2016 was that he was so much of an outsider it was very difficult to find people with any experience in Washington that also aligned with his beliefs. I think people on both sides of the aisle would agree his appointees for the most part were his weakness, but when you are a true outsider and guys that were recommended to you turn out to be disasters (I mean this all started with Manafort being recommended by Republican insiders to Trump), you tend to trust people that you know are loyal and hopefully competent. What the Democrats are doing is far more dangerous to me, because we simply have no idea who is running the country. I know for a fact the old guy with Alzheimers is not running the country, I know the idiot VP is not running the country, so what group of unelected people are truly making all of the decisions? You can call Trump any bad name you want, but at least you know those decisions were his.


    It's not doing any harm to our political system. Literally none.

    Possibly it's revealing harm that irresponsible propaganda outlets like Fox & OAN have done to pretty much break our politcal system over the last ~25 years (with the eager complicity of goons like Mitch McConnell). But I think that harm was pretty obvious four and eight years ago.

    Again you are showing your bias. At a very basic level you are taking time away from campaigning. The optics also are terrible of Trump constantly in a courtroom and not in front of his supporters. Additionally, the fear the left is putting in any reasonable Republican who might want to run for office but fears the consequences of upsetting a power hungry AG who will sit them in front of 12 liberal voters is scary.

    To say that somehow this is exposing conservative media is a nutty thought. Liberals have control of over 90% of consumed media, the same media that fails to pressure Democrat politicians. Btw, that same conservative media was responsible for calling Arizona on election night in 2020, something that violated every rule that decision desk has used for 20+ years, which led to the early call of Biden as the winner. Also McConnell is closer to a democrat than he is any Trump voter.



    Trump himself used threats and intimidation, and even inciting a riot, to try to forestall the peaceful transfer of power — probably THE bedrock foundational principle the republic rests on, even more so than free speech, which is not an opinion I would've entertained five years ago. And y'all want him back! Just to piss off the Establishment and pwn the Libs! It's the craziest thing I've ever lived thru.

    I mean we can have an exhausting debate about this, but you certainly aren't allowed to just assert these as facts. We all know that any black lives matter rally in this country was far more scary and more violent than one day in January 3 years ago. We also know that the so called committee was purely a production studio that tried to create a movie made up of only Trump haters, and went on to destroy evidence that showed any truth about what happened.


    Airing the facts and applying the law are remedial steps toward repairing out political system. Not sufficient, but necessary. Screeching hysterical Trumpists are an indication that the treatment is probably on course.

    And just like Ex when he finally admitted that he would rather Lamar look good than the Ravens win, this is the honest statement you did not intend to make. You are flat out admitting that when you can't convince the voters of this country that the man is a criminal, you find ways to make him one.


    That's a funny example to use, because I think that's actually a crime too? Smells like a form of embezzlement.

    Campaign money is supposed to go to campaign expenses. Personal expenses are supposed to be paid out of personal money. The dollars people donate to campaigns are not supposed to into candidate pockets, like to put in a swimming pool or go on vacation.

    I agree this has been a major problem for awhile, can I assume you are knocking down the doors of Ilhan Omar, Menendez, Maxine Watters, and a host of other liberal politicians who have stolen far more than $160,000? I assume when the ny times endorsed Menendez despite in the same piece admitting he was a criminal that you were up in protest?


    Sorry, that is not what is happening with the charges in New York, WashDC, Florida and Atlanta. They indicted him because they have evidence he actually did commit serious crimes.

    Funny you include four states in your answer for real crimes. You did that because you can simply refer to the call with the governor in Georgia to at least make the claim he committed a crime, you can at least simply say he possessed sensitive items he should not have in Florida, yet in 30+ pages of this thread in exhaustive Q and As with yourself you are unable to show what the crime was in New York. I don't care how complicated insider trading violations, domestic abuse cases, dark web criminal cases, crytocurrency theft, in order to convict you are able to walk through how the actions of an individual resulted in the crime. In this case even if you somehow take the word of a felon who lied to multiple government agencies, there is no one to corroborate it. Heck the two people that could were not called because it would not help the prosecution's case. Even if I somehow say every word in the Cohen testimony is gospel, which we would be living in fantasy land, how does 160k to a pornstar result in federal or state election tampering?

    This only makes sense in one line of thinking, you cannot get rid of Trump through fair elections so you must use the judicial system and 12 jurors in a district that voted over 90% for Biden. This was the ugly truth you admitted, and it's the most important thing by miles that you wrote in 38 pages of nonsense cut and pasted from liberal talking points.





  10. #454
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Posts
    9,507
    Blog Entries
    1

    Re: Trump Trials

    “That's a funny example to use, because I think that's actually a crime too? Smells like a form of embezzlement.”

    So thank you for confirming that either way would/could have resulted in charges. Perfect example of what people have been pointing out. Show me the man, i will show you the crime. This is lawfare through and through.





  11. #455

    Re: Trump Trials

    Quote Originally Posted by Greg View Post
    Merchan gave to the Biden campaign and something called "Stop Trump." His daughter hauls in hundreds of millions raising money on anything and everything anti-Trump.

    Fair trial? The guy should have never been anywhere near this case.

    And while Trump has a friend in Dershowitz, Dershowitz is biased in the other direction. Again, he voted for Hillary and Biden.

    I don't need to believe in Merchan's bias. If I thought Trump was actually guilty of something I would move onto another candidate. I am not a Republican and I disagree with Trump on a number of issues. I will vote for him because both sides of the establishment hate him. I am not married to Trump, and I am simply against the establishment.

    And as I see it, this trial is nothing but an establishment play to get rid of him.

    And really? Even if he were guilty of something here it isn't worth trying him during a campaign given what it is doing to our political system and the confidence people have in it.

    And finally, just admit this, if Trump had used campaign money to pay for this you would want him tried for using campaign money for a personal matter. He is guilty either way. It's pure Stalin, show me the man and I will show you the crime.
    Now I donít need to type anything because you nailed it.

    100% this would be a misuse of campaign funds if thatís what he used. And that part I actually agree with as well.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk





  12. #456

    Re: Trump Trials

    Quote Originally Posted by JimZipCode View Post
    That's a funny example to use, because I think that's actually a crime too? Smells like a form of embezzlement.

    Campaign money is supposed to go to campaign expenses. Personal expenses are supposed to be paid out of personal money. The dollars people donate to campaigns are not supposed to into candidate pockets, like to put in a swimming pool or go on vacation.

    Thank you, this is what we have been saying.

    Do this current case is nothing but a fog and pony show because Trump paid his lawyer to take care of a PERSONAL expense, not a campaign expense. Legal Feed are the most obvious journal entry for such a transaction.

    This is so slam dunk obvious and simple in these terms that you just agreed withÖ


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk





Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Link To Mobile Site
var infolinks_pid = 3297965; var infolinks_wsid = 0; //ó->