Should Donald Trump be Sentenced to Jail for 34 Felonies?

[Subduction Zone]

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.
[/QUOTE]
I was wondering the same thing. Her quoted post did not support her conclusion at all.

 

[Subduction Zone]

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

No, you never did. You are an incredibly ineffective debater. You do not know how to reason rationally. You can never properly support any of the claims of the sort that you make. You are trying to copy me, but you ignore the crucial fact that I did show you to be wrong properly. You on the hand never have done that.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

It is the kangaroo justice clowns that should be punished with losing positions of influence and authority .. publicly shamed for turning our justice system into a 3rd world clown show.

The world is proud of America for convicting Trump of some of his crimes. America showed the world that even a former president is not above the law. It's Trump who shames the justice system with pardons for his cronies, calling J6 prisoners hostages, and his false complaint of rigged trials.

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

Sure they were, and Trump was convicted of it.

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

Yes. Also, convicted felon.

that supposed crime that was "covered up"? What was it?

You'd have to poll each juror to know what secondary crime or crimes they found Trump guilty of.

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.

I believed her. I also believed Cohen, Pecker, and Hill. And I believed E Jean Carroll in those trials.

 

[Subduction Zone]

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

Wow! Once again incredible reading comprehension problems and a red herring. Only people running for office or those working for people running for office can break campaign finance laws. Oh, one more, an individual that is not running or office or the employee of someone running for office could break that law if they made an illegal campaign contribution. Too break campaign finance laws you have to do an act that directly affects the finances of a campaign.

 

[Pogo]

Wow! Once again incredible reading comprehension problems and a red herring. Only people running for office or those working for people running for office can break campaign finance laws. Oh, one more, an individual that is not running or office or the employee of someone running for office could break that law if they made an illegal campaign contribution. Too break campaign finance laws you have to do an act that directly affects the finances of a campaign.

My conclusion is that some here have taken to heart that erroneously attributed W.C. Fields quote:

if you can't dazzle them with brilliance, baffle them with bull****​

 

[Twilight Hue]

Trump looks like a big orange clown.

And Biden looks like Pennywise.

 

[Twilight Hue]

My conclusion is that some here have taken to heart that erroneously attributed W.C. Fields quote:

if you can't dazzle them with brilliance, baffle them with bull****​

And others....

If you repeat a lie often enough, people will believe it, and you will even come to believe it yourself,"

 

[Pogo]

And others....

If you repeat a lie often enough, people will believe it, and you will even come to believe it yourself,"

Yeah that is one you really need to spend some time thinking about.

 

[Laniakea]

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.

It certainly can't be me either. I don't have cable TV, so I don't get Fox News or Tucker Carlson.

 

[Laniakea]

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.

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.

Dude, ANYthing could be considered to be a campaign expense if you want it to be. Protecting his wife from a porn actress's slanderous claim is hardly one of them.

 

[Laniakea]

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.


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.

That's one narrative you could use to spin the facts, I suppose.
But it's quite a bit of twisting and contorting to form a story to sound the way you want it to. Anything to go after the Republican candidate just before an election.
Hey! Maybe the prosecutors in these cases should be labeling their court costs as campaign expenses since the trials were intended to hurt Trump so he couldn't be on the campaign trail and gain support. If they don't label them that way, they need to be put away for felonies.

 

[Stonetree]

It certainly can't be me either. I don't have cable TV, so I don't get Fox News or Tucker Carlson.

Tiger Woods was money in the bank for the golf industry and the Golf cable station....
Your candidate is money to all cable news stations.

 

[Laniakea]

Tiger Woods was money in the bank for the golf industry and the Golf cable station....
Your candidate is money to all cable news stations.

Well, he has mastered the art of goading. I'll give him that much.

 

[fantome profane]

Dude, ANYthing could be considered to be a campaign expense if you want it to be.

Sir, Anything that is done for the purpose of aiding the campaign is a campaign expenses. And you are correct if you believe that this is a very broad definition, but it is intended to be. If you buy a round of coffee for your campaign staff, that is a campaign expense. If someone else buys coffee for your campaign staff that is an in-kind donation to your campaign and needs to be recorded as such.

Protecting his wife from a porn actress's slanderous claim is hardly one of them.

And this was an issue that was raised in the trial. It is my opinion that this money was paid to aid the campaign, it might be your opinion that this money was paid to "protect his wife". But our opinions do not matter. There was a trial, the prosecution presented their evidence and made their arguments, the defense presented any evidence they wanted to present and made their arguments, and then the Jury reached a verdict.

Our opinions do not matter, the twelve opinions of the Jurors do. And in their opinion this money was paid for the purpose of aiding the campaign.

That is the reality of the situation. You can decide to accept reality, or not.

 

[Laniakea]

Sir, Anything that is done for the purpose of aiding the campaign is a campaign expenses. And you are correct if you believe that this is a very broad definition, but it is intended to be. If you buy a round of coffee for your campaign staff, that is a campaign expense. If someone else buys coffee for your campaign staff that is an in-kind donation to your campaign and needs to be recorded as such.

Porn stars aren't a campaign expense.

And this was an issue that was raised in the trial. It is my opinion that this money was paid to aid the campaign, it might be your opinion that this money was paid to "protect his wife". But our opinions do not matter. There was a trial, the prosecution presented their evidence and made their arguments, the defense presented any evidence they wanted to present and made their arguments, and then the Jury reached a verdict.

Our opinions do not matter, the twelve opinions of the Jurors do. And in their opinion this money was paid for the purpose of aiding the campaign.

That is the reality of the situation. You can decide to accept reality, or not.

Sounds like you're saying I'm not allowed to discuss it. Not very democratic.

 

[fantome profane]

Porn stars aren't a campaign expense.

In this specific case, yes she was.

Sounds like you're saying I'm not allowed to discuss it. Not very democratic.

Not saying anything like that. Just pointing out that this "discussion" does not change reality.

The "discussion" that happened in that courtroom made Trump a convicted felon.

 

[Laniakea]

In this specific case, yes she was.

What part of his campaign was she?

Not saying anything like that. Just pointing out that this "discussion" does not change reality.

The "discussion" that happened in that courtroom made Trump a convicted felon.

Discussions can happen afterwards as well and aren't meant to change reality, but to help people understand it.

 

[Subduction Zone]

That's one narrative you could use to spin the facts, I suppose.
But it's quite a bit of twisting and contorting to form a story to sound the way you want it to. Anything to go after the Republican candidate just before an election.
Hey! Maybe the prosecutors in these cases should be labeling their court costs as campaign expenses since the trials were intended to hurt Trump so he couldn't be on the campaign trail and gain support. If they don't label them that way, they need to be put away for felonies.

More unsupported nonsense. Too bad that the few times that you have tried to support your claims the articles usually when against you. I can see why you would want to post only claims when that constantly happens to you.

 

[Laniakea]

More unsupported nonsense. Too bad that the few times that you have tried to support your claims the articles usually when against you. I can see why you would want to post only claims when that constantly happens to you.

Wow! Once again incredible reading comprehension problems and a red herring.

 

[Subduction Zone]

What part of his campaign was she?

She was an expense because they paid her to keep quite about Trump's past. The evidence from the trial showed that he did not pay her so that he did not get in trouble with Melania. There was evidence of that in the trail:

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/donald-trump/live-blog/trump-hush-money-trial-day-16-michael-cohen-live-updates-rcna151898

"In short, Cohen is testifying about the delays to say: Trump told him to string Stormy Daniels along as long as possible — preferably until after the election. Because if he could keep her holding on that long, the story would stay secret and if he won, then it wouldn't matter because the election was over. And if he lost, then he wouldn't care if the story became public."

Discussions can happen afterwards as well and aren't meant to change reality, but to help people understand it.

And we are trying to help you to understand the reality since you obviously did not pay any attention to the trial.