Jump to content

America officially becomes a banana republic indicating a presidential candidate, likely jail time


Recommended Posts

56 minutes ago, WestCanMan said:

Statute of limitations, dummy: 

https://www.newsweek.com/has-statute-limitations-run-out-stormy-daniels-payment-depends-how-you-count-opinion-1789338 

https://www.vox.com/politics/2023/4/4/23648390/trump-indictment-supreme-court-stormy-daniels-manhattan-alvin-bragg

There was no calculation of whether or not the case was past it's due date, just an arbitrary ruling from a Democrat judge. 

WCM...and all of us who still care about freedom and justice.

Save your band width with these rotten souls. They are beyond reason. 

Simply let them know that what comes around...goes around.

Edited by Nationalist
Link to comment
Share on other sites

26 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

If you make peaceful revolution impossible you make violent revolution inevitable. 

-JFK

Sure.

The Libbies in both Canada and the USA, have laid their cards on the table. The "new normal"...take control of the justice system and aim it right at your opposition.

Political opposition Is obsolete now. The more apt term is adversary...or even enemy.

Edited by Nationalist
  • Like 1
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, WestCanMan said:

Hey stupid, it was hoboy who said that the FEC chair wasn't an expert witness here, not me. Get your head out of your arse for once.

So whta? He's still an expert witness, dummy.

So you were WRONG, AGAIN as usual.

11 hours ago, WestCanMan said:

He wasn't guilty of election fraud, you're right.

Because he wasn't TRIED for election fraud, not because he didn't commit it as the jury determined.

11 hours ago, WestCanMan said:

He's not really guilty of anything because the state of NY didn't have any charges to lay that were within their statute of limitations. This was just another witch hunt.

Felonies in NY state have a 5 yr limit, dummy. 

You don't get to determine the requirements for statute of limitations. This indictment was rendered within 5 years of the last violation, and the length of the limitations were temporarily INCREASED due to COVID. Duh

 

11 hours ago, WestCanMan said:

I just schooled you, id10t.

Your IGNORANCE was pwned here lDIOT. 

11 hours ago, WestCanMan said:

Thanks for proving my point against hoboy, stupid. Thanks for just saying a whole bunch of stupid things again, you make the rest of us look like geniuses.

ONLY in your mind.

11 hours ago, WestCanMan said:

Hey dummy, what's the statute of limitations on felonies in NY state (aside from violent felonies, like murder and rape)?

Normally 5 years for the INDICTMENT, but they were temporarily extended to 6 years due to COVID. Now you know.

11 hours ago, WestCanMan said:

Oh, can't answer, because it will prove that your trial was bogus?

G'nite loser. Hit the skids. 

My trial? Thanks for proving YOU'RE DELUSIONAL

12 hours ago, Hodad said:

Lol. No, they didn't have to prove it was part of "election fraud " Again, it appears you have no idea of the details of this case. Only that you're big orange crush was convicted and it's making you cranky. 

Honestly, why would you even "debate" a case you didn't understand? You just look like a petulant child.

Solve the issue. Go read the case. Read the jury instructions. Hell, even read some real news sources if that's too hard. 

He should start by READING THE LAW.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, WestCanMan said:

You're so dumb that you watched his trial for 2 hrs a day and still don't have the foggiest clue what happened. Typical leftard.

You clearly STILL have NO IDEA about what happened.

Maybe if you TRIED to find EVIDENCE for your OPINIONS, you might figure out that FOS LIES.

2 hours ago, Nationalist said:

What comes around...goes around.

Only in your dreams. We understand you're desperately trying to escape from your nightmare. LMAO

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, WestCanMan said:

Statute of limitations, dummy: 

https://www.newsweek.com/has-statute-limitations-run-out-stormy-daniels-payment-depends-how-you-count-opinion-1789338 

https://www.vox.com/politics/2023/4/4/23648390/trump-indictment-supreme-court-stormy-daniels-manhattan-alvin-bragg

There was no calculation of whether or not the case was past it's due date, just an arbitrary ruling from a Democrat judge. 

And that's what counts in THIS CASE. MAYBE the appeals court will agree with you but that would be a miracle since you're entirely IGNORANT about NY state law..

1 hour ago, Nationalist said:

WCM...and all of us who still care about freedom and justice.

Save your band width with these rotten souls. They are beyond reason. 

Simply let them know that what comes around...goes around.

We'll let you know how desperate your predictions come off.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, WestCanMan said:

You're so dumb that you watched his trial for 2 hrs a day and still don't have the foggiest clue what happened. Typical leftard.

Way to prove the point, halfwit. You know nothing about this trial outside of Trump's press tantrums. 

It wasn't even televised.🙄

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Nationalist said:

WCM...and all of us who still care about freedom and justice.

Save your band width with these rotten souls. They are beyond reason. 

Simply let them know that what comes around...goes around.

Since when have we ever stooped to their level? Why start now? 

I'll never lie and slither like a God-damned leftard, and I don't want conservatives to convert any bogus allegations into convictions. 

You can't wrestle these pigs in the mud, they're experts down there.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

27 minutes ago, Hodad said:

Way to prove the point, halfwit. You know nothing about this trial outside of Trump's press tantrums. 

It wasn't even televised.🙄

It makes sense that they'd keep that sh1t hidden from public, sunlight being the best disinfectant and all... Nevertheless, I know that you followed it daily, just to come up empty-handed in the fact department

Link to comment
Share on other sites

40 minutes ago, robosmith said:

Because he wasn't TRIED for election fraud, not because he didn't commit it as the jury determined.

You don't get to determine the requirements for statute of limitations. This indictment was rendered within 5 years of the last violation, and the length of the limitations were temporarily INCREASED due to COVID. Duh.

You are so stupid I feel sorry for you. 

Trump was tried for misdemeanours, and the S-O-L for them was 2 years. The only way for the alleged crimes to be considered felonies is if they were committed in conjunction with other crimes, hence the need for the jury to consider it all tied to federal election fraud. 

An expert witness would have proven that wasn't the case, but the democrat activist running the show trial wouldn't let him address the topic. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

47 minutes ago, robosmith said:

You clearly STILL have NO IDEA about what happened.

Maybe if you TRIED to find EVIDENCE for your OPINIONS, you might figure out that FOS LIES.

Only in your dreams. We understand you're desperately trying to escape from your nightmare. LMAO

😀

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, WestCanMan said:

You are so stupid I feel sorry for you. 

Trump was tried for misdemeanours, and the S-O-L for them was 2 years. The only way for the alleged crimes to be considered felonies is if they were committed in conjunction with other crimes, hence the need for the jury to consider it all tied to federal election fraud. 

An expert witness would have proven that wasn't the case, but the democrat activist running the show trial wouldn't let him address the topic. 

Thanks for demonstrating your IGNORANCE AGAIN.

Elevating the status of misdemeanor falsification does NOT REQUIRE a conviction of the aggravating circumstance, ONLY the jury to determine that the intent existed. Read the law dumbass.

Just now, Nationalist said:

😀

^Looks like you found a "bankrupt" emoji. LMAO

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, WestCanMan said:

Statute of limitations, dummy: 

https://www.newsweek.com/has-statute-limitations-run-out-stormy-daniels-payment-depends-how-you-count-opinion-1789338 

https://www.vox.com/politics/2023/4/4/23648390/trump-indictment-supreme-court-stormy-daniels-manhattan-alvin-bragg

There was no calculation of whether or not the case was past it's due date, just an arbitrary ruling from a Democrat judge. 

So, no, apparently saying it slower can't help you. You instead went looking for very old articles instead of reading the pre-trial motion. I guess stupid likes to stay stupid.🤦‍♂️

Link to comment
Share on other sites

41 minutes ago, WestCanMan said:

It makes sense that they'd keep that sh1t hidden from public, sunlight being the best disinfectant and all... Nevertheless, I know that you followed it daily, just to come up empty-handed in the fact department

And you didn't follow it at all and know nothing about it. Hence you just repeat the shit Trump spewed in his press tantrums. Makes sense. You've swallowed all of his other lies, so why would I expect more of you now?

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, WestCanMan said:

Since when have we ever stooped to their level? Why start now? 

I'll never lie and slither like a God-damned leftard, and I don't want conservatives to convert any bogus allegations into convictions. 

You can't wrestle these pigs in the mud, they're experts down there.  

Never bring a knife to a gun fight.

These Libbies have no conscience. No morality. Rules mean nothing to them. All they care about is power. They've learned that adults will do just about anything to stop a baby from screaming, so they've turned politics into a scream-fest. They lie and cheat at the top of their lungs, just waiting for the adults to go, "Ok OK, have it your way. Just stop screaming." They've turned it into a "swamp".

To "drain the swamp"...to coin a phrase...you have to be willing to get mud on your hands. These swamp creatures will never play straight. They must be removed.

Bureaucracies, FBI, DOJ, the politicians...all of these destructive b1tches.

They have set the legal and operational precedent. IMO, conservatives have to point their own "new normal" right at them. But this time, no empty threats. Pull the bloody trigger! Prosecute Hilary...follow through and send Hunter to jail...attack these Tweenkies with all the zeal and volume they use...and then some.

The Libbies have declared war. It's time we recognized that.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 hours ago, Hodad said:

And you didn't follow it at all and know nothing about it. Hence you just repeat the shit Trump spewed in his press tantrums. Makes sense. You've swallowed all of his other lies, so why would I expect more of you now?

Kid - go back and re read your own stuff.

You just find something with a headline and post it hoping that it turns out to be correct, but most of the Articles you posted turned out to be absolutely not what happened or why they consider it to be still within the statute of limitations.

In fact, the only way that these remain within the statute of limitations is if they are part of a greater crime that is still outside of the statute of limitations. In other words the only way these work is if there is some greater crime that they are part ofthese crimes are an accessory to that.

Which is exactly what they claimed. Only he was never charged with the greater crime. They have never proved the greater crime ever happened. They can't because that is a federal issue and not a state issue presumably. What the judge said is if you even believe that this greater crime happened then that's good enough. In fact you don't even have to all believe the same greater crime happened, as long as you think he did some sort of greater crime amongst these four categories we're going to give you, that's good enough.

It's a complete joke. And so are you for trying to make that defense.

The statue of limitations had expired unless there was some greater crime that is not subject to the statue of limitations, and they never proved that. That's why they call this a Franken case, you have to stitch together so many parts of different things to try and make it live. Nobody has ever done this before, this is unique

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

Kid - go back and re read your own stuff.

You just find something with a headline and post it hoping that it turns out to be correct, but most of the Articles you posted turned out to be absolutely not what happened or why they consider it to be still within the statute of limitations.

In fact, the only way that these remain within the statute of limitations is if they are part of a greater crime that is still outside of the statute of limitations. In other words the only way these work is if there is some greater crime that they are part ofthese crimes are an accessory to that.

Which is exactly what they claimed. Only he was never charged with the greater crime. They have never proved the greater crime ever happened. They can't because that is a federal issue and not a state issue presumably. What the judge said is if you even believe that this greater crime happened then that's good enough. In fact you don't even have to all believe the same greater crime happened, as long as you think he did some sort of greater crime amongst these four categories we're going to give you, that's good enough.

It's a complete joke. And so are you for trying to make that defense.

The statue of limitations had expired unless there was some greater crime that is not subject to the statue of limitations, and they never proved that. That's why they call this a Franken case, you have to stitch together so many parts of different things to try and make it live. Nobody has ever done this before, this is unique

You might as well be talking to a Dodge truck with a sport hood. The Hemi will keep on ticking.

These people are so entrenched in their hatred of Trump, logic and reason are nowhere to be found.

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 6/3/2024 at 9:57 AM, CdnFox said:

In fact, the only way that these remain within the statute of limitations is if they are part of a greater crime that is still outside of the statute of limitations. In other words the only way these work is if there is some greater crime that they are part of these crimes are an accessory to that.

Which is exactly what they claimed. Only he was never charged with the greater crime. They have never proved the greater crime ever happened. They can't because that is a federal issue and not a state issue presumably. What the judge said is if you even believe that this greater crime happened then that's good enough. In fact you don't even have to all believe the same greater crime happened, as long as you think he did some sort of greater crime amongst these four categories we're going to give you, that's good enough.

It's within what they want the statute of limitations to be, and feelings are all that matter to the cultists.

Quote

if you even believe that this greater crime happened then that's good enough. In fact you don't even have to all believe the same greater crime happened, as long as you think he did some sort of greater crime amongst these four categories we're going to give you, that's good enough.

"Believe that" is still just cultist-speak for 'feel like'. 

 

I think we'd all agree that Trump slept with a basic prostitute while his wife was pregnant, and that writing off an NDA as a legal expense isn't legitimate, but I'd also bet that hundreds of businessmen and politicians have done that. Maybe thousands. 

Most people don't pay that much for NDA's, and most people who accept an NDA don't rat the other person out, but I'm also not sold on the legality of a person entering into a legal to not talk about something and then testifying about it in court. 

Still, no matter how you slice it, it's definitely not worthy of "34 felony counts": the Dems and their owned judges are a total fraud, and an embarrassment to western democracies.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, WestCanMan said:

I think we'd all agree that Trump slept with a basic prostitute while his wife was pregnant, and that writing off an NDA as a legal expense isn't legitimate, but I'd also bet that hundreds of businessmen and politicians have done that. Maybe thousands. 

there is nothing illegal per se about writing off an NDA as legal expenses. 

It only becomes illegal when you do that in order to conceal a greater felony.  And here's where we run into trouble. 

The judge suggested it was done to commit a crime involving the election. But - such a crime would be federal law.  he's never been charged with that crime nor is the state judge allowed to charge him or prosecute on that crime.

So what the judge said was even though he has never been convicted and even though we can't prove it, as long as you believe that he committed some sort of crime in the election related to this payment then that makes these payments a crime.

He went on further to say there are four possible crimes that may have been committed in relation to the election. You don't even have to agree on what crime you think it was he may have committed, you can all think it was a different crime but as long as you all think some sort of crime happened I will consider that to be unanimous.

So the only reason this is a crime is because of some other crime which he was never charged with, which was never proven nor was evidence given, nor is this court even allowed to address it, and they couldn't even narrow it down to one the jury just had to believe that it was something.

That is the biggest problem with this case.

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 6/1/2024 at 3:34 PM, WestCanMan said:

You're so God-damned stupid, you think that Joe Biden doesn't control state prosecutors and judges. 

Well, Alvin Bragg is not a state or federal prosecutor.  Which should make you feel pretty ridiculous. 

Biden does control Federal prosecutors and he can fire them at his discretion… yet he has not fired the Trump-appointed prosecutor who is now bringing charges against his son Hunter this week.  Pretty much proves that you’re completely FOS, doesn’t it? 
 

 

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, CdnFox said:

there is nothing illegal per se about writing off an NDA as legal expenses. 

It only becomes illegal when you do that in order to conceal a greater felony.  And here's where we run into trouble. 

The judge suggested it was done to commit a crime involving the election. But - such a crime would be federal law.  he's never been charged with that crime nor is the state judge allowed to charge him or prosecute on that crime.

So what the judge said was even though he has never been convicted and even though we can't prove it, as long as you believe that he committed some sort of crime in the election related to this payment then that makes these payments a crime.

He went on further to say there are four possible crimes that may have been committed in relation to the election. You don't even have to agree on what crime you think it was he may have committed, you can all think it was a different crime but as long as you all think some sort of crime happened I will consider that to be unanimous.

So the only reason this is a crime is because of some other crime which he was never charged with, which was never proven nor was evidence given, nor is this court even allowed to address it, and they couldn't even narrow it down to one the jury just had to believe that it was something.

That is the biggest problem with this case.

 

You are not correct.  The charges were raised to felony by the PROSECUTORS, not the judge, because the they aided in the violation of a New York State law, to wit:

”Prosecutors said that other crime was a violation of a New York election law that makes it illegal for "any two or more persons" to "conspire to promote or prevent the election of any person to a public office by unlawful means.”

So it boils down to this: Why did Trump pay Stormy Daniels? To protect his marriage, his business, his social reputation… or, was it to prevent a scandal which could have cost him the election? That was the key question, and at least two witnesses, Cohen and Pecker, testified that the election was the reason for the payments, and THAT is what raised the charges to felony, under New York State law, not federal law.  

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Rebound said:

Well, Alvin Bragg is not a state or federal prosecutor.  Which should make you feel pretty ridiculous. 

What does that have to do with the price of tea in China?

Do you not know how a banana republic works? FYI it works just like America, because America is one.

Alvin Bragg's upward or downward career mobility is tethered to his adherence to the whim of the DNC. That's it. Not professionalism, not ethics, not competence, not hard work, diligence, integrity or anything else that you'd a decent person would consider virtuous.

When the DNC comes out with a new narrative, it's Bragg's job to change the direction of his prosecutorial staff in that way, regardless of the democratically arrived at laws of the land. 

Eg, if the Dems don't want people prosecuted for assaults during the BLM riots, people like Bragg simply ignore the laws on the books and decide not to prosecute. 

If the DNC really wants a political opponent t be prosecuted, it's the job of people like Alvin Bragg who concoct a plot to indict and hopefully convict them of something.

In the most recent case in NYC, Bragg went after the Dems primary political opponent for some alleged misdemeanours, which were beyond their statute of limitations, and tied them to federal charges, which are beyond Bragg's purview, and ran a show trial in front of a DNC judge who allowed a convicted perjurer to take the stand as his main witness and prevented the expert testimony of one of the most qualified and respected people in the country. The Dems could have brought a witness who was just as qualified as the FEC chair that Trump wanted to use as a witness, but they chose not to.

The DNC chose a trial in ignorance, and ignorance carried the day for them. Now cultists like you are revelling in it. 

Quote

Biden does control Federal prosecutors and he can fire them at his discretion… yet he has not fired the Trump-appointed prosecutor who is now bringing charges against his son Hunter this week.  Pretty much proves that you’re completely FOS, doesn’t it? 

The trial is in Delaware. Guess what state Biden represented as a Senator, dummy...

That judge for that trial has already ruled in favour of the Bidens in one case, dummy.

Guess what Joe Biden can do if Hunter gets convicted, dummy...

Quote

Pretty much proves that you’re completely FOS, doesn’t it? 

I pretty much proved that you're a cultist halfwit, didn't I...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Rebound said:

You are not correct.  The charges were raised to felony by the PROSECUTORS, not the judge, because the they aided in the violation of a New York State law, to wit:

The judge has to sign off on that and he was in fact the one who instructed the jury and advised that they didn't all have to agree for him to consider it a majority. 

If you want to get technical, sure it was the prosecutors. one of which used to work for the dems and biden until just a month or so before the charges were laid, who made the charge.  But in this case we're talking about the same people, they worked very hard together to make it happen. Thats why the judge allowed it, that's why the judge refused to dismiss, that's why the judge refused a change of venue (can't have impartial people judging it after all).  

This was a joke of a trial with a charge that so obviously bent the law into a pretzel to try to prevent a man from running for president that it isn't funny. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Tell a friend

    Love Repolitics.com - Political Discussion Forums? Tell a friend!
  • Member Statistics

    • Total Members
      10,771
    • Most Online
      1,403

    Newest Member
    joebialek
    Joined
  • Recent Achievements

    • Matthew earned a badge
      One Month Later
    • CouchPotato earned a badge
      Week One Done
    • CouchPotato went up a rank
      Contributor
    • Akalupenn earned a badge
      First Post
    • CouchPotato went up a rank
      Explorer
  • Recently Browsing

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...