Should Donald Trump be Sentenced to Jail for 34 Felonies?

[Pogo]

It included a payment, which Daniels obviously thought was acceptable. She agreed to it, and accepted money as well.
But she also sells her body for money, so she's a great witness for the prosecution and liberals nationwide to use as a role model.

None of which is relevant to my post.

 

[Laniakea]

Election interference, campaign donation violations, tax violations, IIRC, take your pick.

And those are the things Daniels was able to do? She wanted to interfere in the election? Was she donating to a campaign? Did she not pay taxes on the payment she accepted?
Come on, make some sense!

 

[Pogo]

And those are the things Daniels was able to do? She wanted to interfere in the election? Was she donating to a campaign? Did she not pay taxes on the payment she accepted?
Come on, make some sense!

What LaLa land are you in now, it was never about what Stormy Daniels did.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Get your facts straight before posting again. I know it's late, but come on man!

My facts are straight. What did I get wrong. Please prove it.

By the way, I can see why you did not support your bogus claim about Trumps nondisclosure agreement. It was not valid. A court rule so, but before that ruling could even go into effect Trump agreed not to prosecute Daniels for breaking it making the court decision of no use. He could see that he was losing that case so rather than "lose" he stopped pressing charges.

I could provide a source. I have one handy.; Do I need to provide it?

 

[Subduction Zone]

And those are the things Daniels was able to do? She wanted to interfere in the election? Was she donating to a campaign? Did she not pay taxes on the payment she accepted?
Come on, make some sense!

No, Daniels was not a candidate. She cannot break that law. That law applies to candidates, and there employees.

 

[Laniakea]

What LaLa land are you in now, it was never about what Stormy Daniels did.

And yet you agree that the "hush money" was paid to her. You said it was to "cover up" his crimes. When I asked what they were, you said: "Election interference, campaign donation violations, tax violations, IIRC, take your pick."

So how did a payment to Daniels cover up any of those things?
(Go ahead and stretch however you feel the need to)

 

[Laniakea]

My facts are straight. What did I get wrong. Please prove it.

By the way, I can see why you did not support your bogus claim about Trumps nondisclosure agreement. It was not valid. A court rule so, but before that ruling could even go into effect Trump agreed not to prosecute Daniels for breaking it making the court decision of no use. He could see that he was losing that case so rather than "lose" he stopped pressing charges.

I could provide a source. I have one handy.; Do I need to provide it?

Oh my! I already provided it. Do I need to show you again?

 

[Laniakea]

No, Daniels was not a candidate. She cannot break that law. That law applies to candidates, and there employees.

Ordinary citizens who aren't candidates cannot break the law? That would explain why all the shoplifting happens in broad daylight.

 

[Subduction Zone]

And yet you agree that the "hush money" was paid to her. You said it was to "cover up" his crimes. When I asked what they were, you said: "Election interference, campaign donation violations, tax violations, IIRC, take your pick."

No, no, no. The hush money was to cover up his cheating on his wife when she had just given birth to "Baron". That was not illegal. What was illegal was how it was paid for. How many times have you been told this?

So how did a payment to Daniels cover up any of those things?
(Go ahead and stretch however you feel the need to)

Wow! It kept the story out of the news until after the election. In fact if you had followed the trial you would have known this. In fact it was testified that Trump has said that if they can keep from paying Stormy off until after the election they would not have to pay her at all.

 

[We Never Know]

And those are the things Daniels was able to do? She wanted to interfere in the election? Was she donating to a campaign? Did she not pay taxes on the payment she accepted?
Come on, make some sense!

Actually those are good questions.

1. Did she pay taxes on the money she received? If not that's tax fraud which is illegal..
2. Did she do it to interfere with the election and/or extortion. Pay me or else. That's blackmail and illegal.

But lets overlook those things. Its about Trump right?

 

[Laniakea]

No, no, no. The hush money was to cover up his cheating on his wife when she had just given birth to "Baron". That was not illegal. What was illegal was how it was paid for. How many times have you been told this?

And yet someone else believe it was:

Election interference, campaign donation violations, tax violations, IIRC, take your pick.

So I ask you as well, which is it?

Wow! It kept the story out of the news until after the election. In fact if you had followed the trial you would have known this. In fact it was testified that Trump has said that if they can keep from paying Stormy off until after the election they would not have to pay her at all.

So what? Is a candidate required to make sure every negative story about him that could be told needs to be in the news before an election? Geez, then Bill Clinton should be hit with the same lawsuit for not telling us about Monica Lewinski ahead of time. Or Joe Biden for not announcing to the country that his son is a crack addict. But he made sure his son didn't even get tried for his crimes until his own presidential term was about to end.[/QUOTE]

 

[Pogo]

And yet you agree that the "hush money" was paid to her. You said it was to "cover up" his crimes. When I asked what they were, you said: "Election interference, campaign donation violations, tax violations, IIRC, take your pick."

So how did a payment to Daniels cover up any of those things?
(Go ahead and stretch however you feel the need to)

The falsification of the business records was the coverup, You obviously have no idea what is going on.

 

[Laniakea]

AAc

Actually those are good questions.

1. Did she pay taxes on the money she received? If not that's tax fraud which is illegal..
2. Did she do it to interfere with the election and/or extortion. Pay me or else. That's blackmail and illegal.

But lets overlook those things. Its about Trump right?

Seems to be the case.
And the fact that she came out with all this just as it looked likely Trump would once again be the Republican nominee for president, she is actually the one trying to influence an election.

 

[Pogo]

And yet someone else believe it was:

So I ask you as well, which is it?



So what? Is a candidate required to make sure every negative story about him that could be told needs to be inm the news before an election? Geez, then Bill Clinton should be hit with the same lawsuit for not telling us about Monica Lewinski ahead of time. Or Joe Biden for not announcing to the country that his son is a crack addict. But he made sure his son didn't even get tried for his crimes until his own presidential term was about to end.

[/QUOTE]
someone here cannot follow the logic and realities of this trial seemingly no matter how often it is explained and it isn't us.

I suspect the confusion is listening to Fox and Carlson etc who are misleading their viewers.

 

[We Never Know]

And yet someone else believe it was:

So I ask you as well, which is it?



So what? Is a candidate required to make sure every negative story about him that could be told needs to be in the news before an election? Geez, then Bill Clinton should be hit with the same lawsuit for not telling us about Monica Lewinski ahead of time. Or Joe Biden for not announcing to the country that his son is a crack addict. But he made sure his son didn't even get tried for his crimes until his own presidential term was about to end.

Now slow down. They just gave you an out.

"The hush money was to cover up his cheating on his wife when she had just given birth to "Baron"

Trump claimed that's what the money was for. To protect his wife.

So they basically just agreed with why Trump said he did it. It wasn't about the election, it was about his wife. That's been Trumps claim. You should take that as a plus.

 

[We Never Know]

Seems to be the case.
And the fact that she came out with all this just as it looked likely Trump would once again be the Republican nominee for president, she is actually the one trying to influence an election.

"Trump would once again be the Republican nominee"

You lost me here. This came out when Trump was the republican nominee for the first time.
However it wasn't prosecuted until Trump would be the republican nominee for the second time.

 

[Sargonski]

Right, the payoff wasn't the crime. The crime was trying to influence an election, and the means to do that crime was tax fraud, campaign finance crimes, and record keeping fraud. And it was a conspiracy, which tends to be a felony as well. The election interferance crime makes the other crimes felonies.

This is right wing rhetoric that has no basis in fact or reality, so we throw it out. Many right wingers are getting whipped up into a fury because they are being duped by right wing disinformation. There are plenty of reputable sources to get your news.

.. there was no such crime "Influencing the Election -- The claim that a politician hiding things from the electorate .. or speaking falsehood is a felony crime is laughable nonsense on hyperbolic steroids .. near every politician would be in Jail if that were the case.

What a legal joke .. as is crying out "Right wing rhetoric" .. when these statements are coming not from me but from High Profile Democrate Lawyer ..

Its the fact that there is no specific crime .. makes this kangaroo Justice .. the Jury was never given a specific crime called election interference on which to judge guilty or innocent .. .. Kangaroo jury instructions ..

and I am no "right winger" either .. you havn't the faintest clue about red or blue .. desperate Ad Hom fallacy gibberish .. and your no classical liberal either .. some kind of woke cancel the rule of law and principles of Justice when ever they feel like it joke .. Go listen to the woke joke chick in the video if you want to see pathetic argument .. disgusting actually .. stumping for collectivist totalitarian security state .... throwing the Rule of Law and the founding principle into the toilet and flushing ..

Do you know what the Rule of Law is mate ? how about Arbitrary Justice is kangaroo justice ? ... evey judge just gets to make new stuff up as they go in the woke cancel show ... Right ! go go go ... until Red picks up the precident and runs with it .. ohhh .oohh .. then the wailing and the tears .. abortion being a prime example ... My body my choice no more from the woke cancel club .. Gov't gonna tell you what to do with your body .. Right .. isn't that the new woke cancel joke ? .. gonna jump in with a "me too" !!

 

[Sargonski]

So........You are suggesting that we should not seek justice if a president is guilty of multiple crimes because it makes our country look like a banana republic. You want the United States Of America to be governed by an Autocrat so we don't look bad...,interesting.

You have things backwards .. got everything all turned upside down friend .. I suggested that we seek Justice .. you are the one suggesting the perverse reverse .. the one who wants the USA to be a Fascist Regime with no respect for the Rule of law .. founding priciple .. constitutional republic .. 3rd world kangaroo security state .. for shame .. for shame

 

[fantome profane]

That phrase, "Hush money payment" is the one liberals want everyone to use. I

On this point I agree with you and have said the same thing. This case should not be referred to as the "hush money" case, it should be referred to as an election finance case. But people insist on calling it the hush money case.

And yet you agree that the "hush money" was paid to her.

The money was paid to benefit Trump's political campaign, and then not declared as a campaign expense. That is illegal. And the point you and others need to understand is that it doesn't matter what the money was spent on, it only matters that the money was spent to benefit the campaign. It would be exactly the same, from a legal perspective, if the money was spent on television commercials and then falsely reported as legal expense.

 

[Subduction Zone]

And yet someone else believe it was:

Where did you get that conclusion from? It was how he paid the money that made it illegal. It was not the payment itself. Your reading comprehension is failing agai.

So I ask you as well, which is it?



So what? Is a candidate required to make sure every negative story about him that could be told needs to be in the news before an election? Geez, then Bill Clinton should be hit with the same lawsuit for not telling us about Monica Lewinski ahead of time. Or Joe Biden for not announcing to the country that his son is a crack addict. But he made sure his son didn't even get tried for his crimes until his own presidential term was about to end.

The money paid to Daniels was by the nature of the payment a campaign expense. Campaign expenses have to be very clear.. They tried to hide the fact that it was a campaign expense. It would have been fine if the made a payment for Daniels and is purpose to be public, instead he hid it which made it so that Trump had to pay twice as much as he would have had to have paid if he was honest. It was the fact that he tried to hide the payment in the manner that he did that made him guilty of all of those charges.