Moonbox

Defendant, in criminal cases, is the person accused of the crime. https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/defendant Next time, rather than barfing out a wall of useless bullshitting, save yourself the humiliation and do a 10 second google search, you absolute donkey.

You heard it here, folks. "They did not have a defense - but rather competent legal representation." Look at the muppet spinning his wheels. 🤣

Sure, sure, excellent dictation software. 🙄 The point remains, you're "dictating" +40 posts a day, throughout the entire day, confirming you have nothing and nobody else around you. If you're a paralyzed quad, I humbly apologize. Otherwise:

Yes, and if you'd have thought before you posted, you'd realize how pathetic you look telling people you dictate: "ROFLMAO exclamation mark exclamation mark exclamation mark exclamation mark smiley-face-emoji." into your phone for 40+ posts a day, unwittingly confirming that you are alone all day, every day. It goes without saying that nobody else is around to witness that sort of "brilliance". 🤣

Over 90% of civil and criminal cases never go to trial. According to your mental gymnastics, +90% of them didn't have 'defense', even the ones where attorneys torpedoed the prosecution's case and successfully argued the charges should be dropped.

I am struggling to understand why you insist on using this forum as your diary of half-baked thoughts.

You drop ~40 posts a day into this forum, full of spastic emoji-spam, via dictation into your cellphone? Maybe you should consider the practicality of that claim, and try to walk it back. 😐

So the defense team isn't present during arraignment, the long months of discovery and pre-trial motions etc? That's really not how it works, lol. When you start off with something like that, how do you expect anyone to take you seriously and read your subsequent wall of text?

Reality. Morality. Common sense.

This is starting to sound like useless babble. There's a real choice when you vote, that aggregates with everyone else's real choices. Whether the choice brings the change you want depends on everyone else's choices, and the effectiveness and convictions of the people empowered by the voters. One of the problems we've had lately is the centralization of power in the PM's office. The Prime Minister's actual power over MPs is what's illusory. Most of them have been cowed into silence and acting as rubber stamps for the PMO. I always admired Michael Chong. If I lived 15km north he'd be my MP. He stands up for what he believes and even stood up to Harper (losing his cabinet position as a result). The small town folk who have kept him in office for the last 20 years respect that. Most MPs do nothing but nod their heads.

They didn't teach him morality, nor did they teach him basic reasoning. That's why he contradicts himself every second post. This is easily one of the dumbest people on the whole forum. 👌

Because the point was that the defense team had their star attorney publicly contradicting Donald's whining about the judge for almost a year, and he was never fired. In in the real world, this would undermine the argument, but in the reality distortion bubble, it fades from view along with the fact that Donald cries wolf and complains about the judge/jury/prosecutor etc as a matter of habit. All you're doing here is proving that you don't actually know what you're talking about: § 175.10 Falsifying business records in the first degree. A person is guilty of falsifying business records in the first degree when he commits the crime of falsifying business records in the second degree, and when his intent to defraud includes an intent to commit another crime or to aid or conceal the commission thereof. The elevating crimes technically don't even need to have been committed at all, as long as you can prove beyond reasonable doubt that was the intention. Intention is important. It's what can elevate something like trespassing from a simple fine or misdemeanor to a serious felony. If you're caught trespassing in a Balaclava with bolt-cutters and a gun, now you're in the shit.

What were you saying about mental blocks?

We don't limit the choice of candidates. The list of candidates that people pay attention to is limited.

I never said it was his trial lawyer. I said his lawyer, because that's what he was when Judge Merchan was appointed as the judge for the case. No, they don't need Trump to be guilty of those other crimes. Other people can be guilty of those crimes. All that's required here is that Trump was knowingly involved in trying to hide them for his own benefit. This is one of the reasons why novel legal methods are often required for rich dirtbags and criminals who get patsies to do their dirty work and take the fall for them. In the reality distortion field, Cohen, Bannon, Navarro, Manafort, Papadopoulos, Roger Stone, Rick Gates etc were all convicted for committing crimes to help their boss, but their boss totally had nothing at all to do with them, rrright? 🙄

The sentiment isn't bad, even if it's overwritten. Here's my summary: Our dysfunctional politics are a direct result of our apathy and/or ignorance, resulting from but also encouraged by bad-faith politicians on either side who are more interested in enriching themselves. Why? Nobody holds them accountable. Instead, we get a performative pantomime where one side just points the finger at the other, whips up rage and emotion, whilst offering nothing positive or honest themselves. This is easiest to see in the USA, where you have obvious figures like Nancy Pelosi trying to defend how Congress' and their family's stock market portfolios outperform the indexes by ~12% per year because of insider trading, but that this should continue to be allowed because of "mumble mumble, something about free markets." Like...yeah, Donald Trump is a nightmare, but you're absurdly crooked too.

This one resigned from Trump's legal team in January, citing his "compass". You can't have one if you're working for Trump...that's why there's a long parade of lawyers who've quit/resigned from defending him. LOLOL!!! Nice try. I was responding directly to your quote...about prosecutors. 😑 Because that's not what was adjudicated. The fraud is the crime. Predicate offenses have already been proven. Michael Cohen went to jail for some. David Pecker's company admitted to others. They're the motive behind the fraud which elevates it from misdemeanor to felony. All the prosecutor had to prove was knowledge of and attempt to hide them. Appear to the folks living in their reality distortion bubble, who magically forgot that this is exactly what Trump campaigned on in 2016, or that he spent his entire presidency demanding the FBI and DoJ investigate his political opponents. "Lock her up! We should lock her up! We're going to lock her up!" etc etc.. -Trump, 2016 "I never said lock her up" - post conviction Trump, 2024. 🤣

First off, what are we complaining about the judge for, again? Trump's own star lawyer went on record saying he had no problem with who was assigned the case. The fact that he resigned and cut ties with Trump months later is probably part of the conspiracy...right!? As for the prosecutors, there are no rules/regulations/standards about not naming people, and nobody said what you're pretending they did. Okay, but nobody said anything like that. That's just something you made up. 🙃 Novel application of the law just means a new avenue of legal argument. There's nothing wrong with it. Giuliani brought down the NY mob with novel application of RICO, for example, and now that's the gold standard. Filthy rich criminals spent lavish sums on large legal and accounting teams to conceal and obfuscate what they're doing. Clever lawyers work around that. The trial was about the fraud, not the predicate offenses. All the prosecutor had to prove was that the fraud was committed, and that there was knowledge of it and the intent was to conceal those other offenses (some of which were already proven in other cases).

Hardly. Head prosecutors are politically elected, and they outline in their campaigns the types of crimes they will pursue. There's therefore always some manner of political motivation in their agendas. They're afforded a large margin of non-judicial discretion by the Courts for how their offices will employ their resources, and this is by intentional design. That is objective reality, and it's always been the case. Bogus, politically motivated prosecutions made in bad faith are not permitted, but political motivation isn't some magical disqualifier. The idea that Donald Trump didn't offer ample reason to investigate him, that he didn't betray and bully a long list of people who offered up evidence against him, and that he couldn't keep his dumb mouth shut and avoid incriminating himself - that's the reality-folding we're talking about. 😑

You can say whatever your little heart pleases, but none of those folks have to fold reality in on itself to shield themselves from basic facts on the ground, or to reconcile with the compulsive and obvious lying of a bullshit artist who's still complaining about make-believe election fraud. The evidence is that the low-information donkeys who hang on every word Trump says have been convinced by 8 years of his deliberate and constant undermining of the legal system. Go figure! It's no mystery why most of the folks who believe this trial was unfair are the same folks who still believe the election was stolen. 🤡

Because the <40% who don't think it's fair are the same MAGA donkeys who believe absolutely everything that fat orange baboon says no matter what. They're the same unthinking rubes who still believe the election was stolen. They were never going to think it was fair, nor will they think it's fair if he loses the election. Justice...against the people we don't like. Democracy...but only if our guy wins. That's the dopey logic you're peddling here. The American public didn't lose faith in the legal system. Donald Trump's MAGA apes did, because he spent the last 8 years doing everything he could to undermine their faith in it, and they can't think for themselves. Everything is crooked, everything is rigged - the election, the jury, the trial, the WHO - it's all out to get poor Donald. 🙄 They didn't have to bend the law. Donald Trump leaves a trail of folks he's ripped off, bullied or betrayed wherever he goes, and he's too dumb to not talk himself into trouble. Michael Cohen was his fall guy back in 2018, and now he's reaping his whirlwind.

Of course it was politically motivated. It was election-related fraud by a former president whose made a career out lying and talking trash. He has the emotional self-control of a 5-year old and can't stop himself from saying dumb shit that gets him in trouble. He couldn't have made himself a more obvious and welcome target for investigation if he'd been trying. Politically motivated, however, is not the same thing as unfair. Imagine that. Folks who blindly follow a man who's spent the last 8 years undermining the legal system, have lost faith in the legal system. Everyone else? Different story: They actually changed the laws to be able to go after Al Capone. He was an obvious criminal who flouted and ridiculed the law, but he had expensive lawyers and accountants and could spend his way out of trouble and hide his trail. Sounds like someone someone we know... They've already lost their goddamn minds. If they're only going to trust the election results if their guy wins, they don't actually believe in democracy, do they? Why are they all bragging about the polls right now?

He didn't say you did. He said your loser source should hang out with another loser source. Why would you link a macgregor podcast here, when we're making fun of you for being dumb enough to believe anything he says? You find new ways to make yourself look stupid every day. 👍

Good one. You see what you've done here, right?

Paying them back was the problem you donkey. That's what makes them "straw donors". If he didn't pay them, then they used their own money, which makes them just...donors. As for who they were, it was his assistant (employee) and his mistress. 🤡 Not as far over the limits as D'Souza, and she did it openly, with no attempts to disguise. The worst you can say about her is that she's stupid. The hiding of what you're doing is the problem. That's how they know you're breaking the law on purpose. 🫠