Politics Thread

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bobbiemcgee

Did I say anything that isn't true? Nope.

---

Mostly all true and you left out plenty. We can all agree that Trump is a disgusting human being. However, that is basically all you ever post about. Unless you consider it therapeutic for your severe TDS, why do you waste your time here?

Here's an idea, instead of blah blah blah Orangeman bad, start posting in support of the leftist progressive policy that your party is perpetrating on the American people. Focus on the important stuff like, Border policy, DEI, Criminal Justice reform, Law enforcement policy, Social Justice, war on fossil fuels, Foreign policy etc. I am sure you and your group of Leftist here, can detail approval of all wonderful results O'Biden has accomplished! Maybe win over some people...change some votes.

Unless something changes, we are are faced with choosing between two worthless candidates, so the vote has to be almost entirely weighted on Policy of which both have a clear track record.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by noteggs

I understand, but has the been “the other/another crime” to warrant the felony? Has this been presented?

---

https://www.nysenate.gov/legislation/laws/ELN/17-152

Falsifying business records to cover up this activity is the felony charged.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GoMuskies

And I'm happy to say it just as loudly in reverse.

The more you realize what a mushbrain Joe Biden is, the more it makes clear how shameful it is that Donald Trump was nominated to be his opponent.

---

Meh, I’m still trying to wrap my head around exactly what law Trump broke.

BTW, excessive bail is a violation of the 8th Amendment. Is case any of you care about it.

Edit: Ms. Daniel’s or whatever has denied the affair happened. In writing.

In the current criminal trial, the defendant was released on his own recognizance.
Other defendants like Bankman-Fried had their bail revoked with conduct we see now...and went to jail.

The bail in Georgia was not excessive for a billionaire (?) and he only had to put up 10% of the $200,000.

The surety bonds in the civil cases are standard procedures when a verdict has been issued, and is being appealed.
Even there he got a break and reduction of the normal amount.
They are treating him with kid gloves, like the kid he is.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by paulxu

In the current criminal trial, the defendant was released on his own recognizance.
Other defendants like Bankman-Fried had their bail revoked with conduct we see now...and went to jail.

The bail in Georgia was not excessive for a billionaire (?) and he only had to put up 10% of the $200,000.

The surety bonds in the civil cases are standard procedures when a verdict has been issued, and is being appealed.
Even there he got a break and reduction of the normal amount.
They are treating him with kid gloves, like the kid he is.

---

What’s the crime again Paul? It’s confusing. Please explain it in your own words.

I’m not talking about GA. The bail in NY and you know it. Stop being stupid.

And bail is not nor should it be set based on means for a non-violent offense. And he’s not a flight risk.

Edit: $200k for a phone call in GA? Ok Paul.

I’m happy to see Trump is competent to stand trial. Some can’t apparently.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by paulxu

https://www.nysenate.gov/legislation/laws/ELN/17-152

Falsifying business records to cover up this activity is the felony charged.

---

Oh, the second charge of misdemeanor finally dropped on the second day of trial. Good to know (yes I know how this can turn into a felony). Is it strange to find out this late in the ballgame? Does it put the defense at a disadvantage? Lawyer people?

Also, can someone explain to me how this is different from what Hillary did in the same election? Assuming NY didn’t want to bring charges on their former Senator? Sounds like selective prosecution.

The crime, as I noted above and provided reference to, is falsifying business records to cover up the underlying crime of a conspiracy to promote an election.

If you are talking about the civil case, it's not "bail" but a surety bond placed while an appeal on the verdict is filed and awaiting hearing.
Very standard for it to be the amount of the verdict plus interest. That's what it was. The appeals court gave him a break.

A "phone call" to ask a Secretary of State to "find" some votes seems to me to be a huge problem. But that's just me.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by paulxu

The crime, as I noted above and provided reference to, is falsifying business records to cover up the underlying crime of a conspiracy to promote an election.

If you are talking about the civil case, it's not "bail" but a surety bond placed while an appeal on the verdict is filed and awaiting hearing.
Very standard for it to be the amount of the verdict plus interest. That's what it was. The appeals court gave him a break.

A "phone call" to ask a Secretary of State to "find" some votes seems to me to be a huge problem. But that's just me.

---

Great, you’ve identified the issue. Explain/prove how he committed the crime.

It is just you Paul.

This absolutely is selective prosecution, just like the case brought by the State of NY. Does anyone really think Trump is the first, and only, developer to exaggerate the value of property to get more favorable terms from a bank? Is the State looking for others to prosecute for the same thing? Of course not! The only reason for that trial was to hurt Trump. Nothing else.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Strange Brew

Great, you’ve identified the issue. Explain/prove how he committed the crime.

It is just you Paul.

---

You can watch along with me as they introduce the evidence of fabricated "legal fees" to explain paying a porn star through an intermediary in a "catch and kill" scheme to prevent negative press and promote his election. It's been interesting to hear Pecker describe the false negatives they came up with to harm his opponents. I particularly liked the fake photo of Cruz's dad and Lee Harvey Oswald.

Of course, perhaps it's not his signature on the checks.

The jury will have to decide if the prosecution makes its case. That's often how it works. And the grifted are paying for his legal team, and I'm sure he's well represented.