Candidate for POTUS claims indicted opponent should not be allowed to run

[Deluge]

1 minute ago, robosmith said:

Too good ^YOUR OPINION means NOTHING in COURT.

Your cult is going to burn.  

[Moonbox]

7 hours ago, CdnFox said:

One could just as easily say that the percent that does believe it was fair do so because they are the same woke mindless buffoons who have lost the ability to think for themselves and simply parrot whatever the democrats say.

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.  

13 hours ago, CdnFox said:

And yes, the American people are losing faith in the court system and in the political system. The evidence is everywhere. And no it's not trump.

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.  🤡

[CdnFox]

21 minutes ago, Moonbox said:

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.  

Sure they do . Constantly.  Hell you're here trying to convince everyone that its perfectly ok for judges and for court actions to be motivated by politics and not by law or impartiality. That's folding a lot of reality. 

And worse 9 years of 'russian collusion' despite pretty overwhelming evidence it didn't happen. that's not just 'folding' reality, that's origami. 

Those people are utterly insane.  But the point was you can't just dismiss people because YOU disagree with them. 

24 minutes ago, Moonbox said:

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!  

Half of America are low level donkeys?  Oh  did you mean to say 'the deplorables'?

What kind of hate filled cultist do you have to be to say that?  Let me guess, they're also "bigots and misogynists' right?

The evidence is that americans are losing faith in the justice and political system.  So here's what happens - that 'other side' decides to start to strike back and up the ante and pull the same tricks on dems. And very quickly democracy comes to a crashing halt. 

And many democrats supporters, such as yourself, are arguing there's nothing wrong with it. But I bet you sing a different tune when they start pushing back. And that will happen

You have to be far more insane than any trump supporter not to be able to see that and to see that it's a bad thing. You're literally trying to justify weaponizing the courts to suppress your political opponents and once that's 'normal' there's no turning it back. 

[Moonbox]

3 hours ago, CdnFox said:

Sure they do . Constantly.  Hell you're here trying to convince everyone that its perfectly ok for judges and for court actions to be motivated by politics and not by law or impartiality. That's folding a lot of reality. 

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.  😑

[CdnFox]

Just now, Moonbox said:

Hardly.  Head prosecutors are politically elected, and they outline in their campaigns the types of crimes they will pursue. 

That would be great if I'd mentioned prosecutors rather than judges. And while prosecutors and judges can both sometimes talk about the types of crimes they will like to pursue they're not supposed to actually name a person as someone they're going to get one way or another.

It's one thing to say I'm going to put an end to jaywalking. It's another thing entirely to say I will lock up Donald Trump for something even if I don't know what yet.

2 minutes ago, Moonbox said:

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.

So charge him for that. But that's not what they did.

They took an almost never used law that was past the expiration date and shoehorned a charge out of a nebulous other crime that they never had to prove existed, and they did this by waiting until he had declared his intent to run for president and not in all of the years between 2016 and now.

Sorry bud, I know you don't like the guy but that's not what our laws are based on. And to wait until he is running for president to try and pull a case that is so completely made up as this, After running a campaign saying that one way or another you will get trump for something, there's nothing short of election interference and the weaponization of the court system.

And it's hilarious that you and the democrats support that kind of thing considering that We both know you're going to be the first in line to complain when the republicans choose to bend the rules to strike back. I've helped the dams if the trump campaign wins the election regardless of this interference.

[Moonbox]

11 hours ago, CdnFox said:

That would be great if I'd mentioned prosecutors rather than judges. And while prosecutors and judges can both sometimes talk about the types of crimes they will like to pursue they're not supposed to actually name a person as someone they're going to get one way or another.

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.  

11 hours ago, CdnFox said:

It's one thing to say I'm going to put an end to jaywalking. It's another thing entirely to say I will lock up Donald Trump for something even if I don't know what yet.

Okay, but nobody said anything like that.  That's just something you made up.  🙃

14 hours ago, CdnFox said:

They took an almost never used law that was past the expiration date and shoehorned a charge out of a nebulous other crime that they never had to prove existed,

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).  

[CdnFox]

13 minutes ago, Moonbox said:

First off, what are we complaining about the judge for, again? 

Because that's what the discussion was about.  You were the one who tried to change it to the prosecutor.  

Quote

Trump's own star lawyer went on record saying he had no problem with who was assigned the case.

Right - and then tried to change the venue because he had such faith in him    LOLOLOL!!!  Nice try  

 

 

Quote

As for the prosecutors, there are no rules/regulations/standards about not naming people, and nobody said what you're pretending they did.  

Ah desperately trying to change the story away from the judge again I see

Quote

Okay, but nobody said anything like that.  That's just something you made up.  🙃

Sure kid. 

 

Quote

Novel application of the law just means a new avenue of legal argument. 

You mean an unprecedented legal argument. That's never been done before. That was done against an individual that this judge has prejudices against and whose daughter is a fundraiser for his political opponents.

That was launched at a time right after he announced he was running for president despite the supposed crime happening 8 years prior.

That requires an argument which most lawyers are suggesting is pretty damn iffy at best.  That requires an additional crime to have been committed that he was never accused of or tried for. 

Sure.  Just your run of the mill coincidences there. Wow, what were the chances, who knew? 

Like i said - when they bend the rules to use the powers of the court or law enforcement to go after the people you like  don't come crying. You literally asked for it. 

The dems have normalized using the legal system and the FBI to target political opponents and it is childish to claim that this case doesn't appear to be exactly that. And it's hardly the only one. 

Edited June 6 by CdnFox

[impartialobserver]

Oh.. another thread about Trump. Wow.. earth shaking news. Its only the 1378th one and 9 more coming tomorrow. Can't wait to read another one that says exactly the same as the other 1378 and gets the same responses from the same folks.. smh

[robosmith]

16 hours ago, impartialobserver said:

Oh.. another thread about Trump. Wow.. earth shaking news. Its only the 1378th one and 9 more coming tomorrow. Can't wait to read another one that says exactly the same as the other 1378 and gets the same responses from the same folks.. smh

Really? You've seen another thread about Trump hypocritically saying that an indicted candidate for POTUS should not be allowed to run?

Maybe you can point that out, since I missed it, but I highly doubt that given your propensity for HYPERBOLE.

I know there hasn't been one SINCE Trump was INDICTED, cause he's NOT that stupid. LMAO

[impartialobserver]

19 minutes ago, robosmith said:

Really? You've seen another thread about Trump hypocritically saying that an indicted candidate for POTUS should not be allowed to run?

Maybe you can point that out, since I missed it, but I highly doubt that given your propensity for HYPERBOLE.

I know there hasn't been one SINCE Trump was INDICTED, cause he's NOT that stupid. LMAO

It was tongue in cheek. Responding so reflexively on your part shows your lack of maturity and intellect. But yes.. you create thread after thread about Trump... Each is in essence no different than the other. You say the same and somehow expect a different response. In the real world.. not your sheltered internet fantasy world.. folks tune out something after hundred and thousands of repetitions. 

[robosmith]

4 minutes ago, impartialobserver said:

It was tongue in cheek. Responding so reflexively on your part shows your lack of maturity and intellect. But yes.. you create thread after thread about Trump... Each is in essence no different than the other. You say the same and somehow expect a different response. In the real world.. not your sheltered internet fantasy world.. folks tune out something after hundred and thousands of repetitions. 

The truth has to be repeated over and over to counter the plethora of LIES.

I know your HYPERBOLE is a HUGE exaggeration and said so.

So much for your childish attack on my "maturity and intellect."

Do you not understand the meaning of HYPERBOLE?

[Moonbox]

15 hours ago, CdnFox said:

Right - and then tried to change the venue because he had such faith in him    LOLOLOL!!!  Nice try  

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.   

15 hours ago, CdnFox said:

Ah desperately trying to change the story away from the judge again I see

I was responding directly to your quote...about prosecutors.   😑

15 hours ago, CdnFox said:

That requires an argument which most lawyers are suggesting is pretty damn iffy at best.  That requires an additional crime to have been committed that he was never accused of or tried for. 

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. 

17 hours ago, CdnFox said:

The dems have normalized using the legal system and the FBI to target political opponents and it is childish to claim that this case doesn't appear to be exactly that.

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.   🤣

[myata]

"Don't do as I say!" What more could one add about a prolific, pathological liar?

[CdnFox]

2 minutes ago, Moonbox said:

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.   

Oh so you were being dishonest when you said this trial lawyer was fine with the judge. You meant his previous lawyer was

Swing and a miss kiddo  

 

 

Quote

I was responding directly to your quote...about prosecutors. 

 No, you brought up prosecutors and you have kept trying to change this channel from the judge. Attempting to change the channel is a pretty common trick of yours.

Quote

Because that's not what was adjudicated.  The fraud is the crime.  Predicate offenses have already been proven. 

Really! When were trump's trials for those? I miss them entirely

 

Quote

Michael Cohen went to jail for some.  David Pecker's company admitted to others. 

So they need for trump to be guilty of another crime to make these charges stick and your evidence that he is guilty of these crimes is that other people were convicted of different crimes

You don't need me to explain why that's ridiculous do you?

 

Quote

They're the motive behind the fraud which elevates it from misdemeanor to felony.  

So the motive is crimes that trump has never been charged with or convicted of. And in fact the jury was instructed that they didn't even have to agree on what the crimes were.

 

Quote

Appear to the folks living in their reality distortion bubble, who magically forgot that this is exactly what Trump campaigned on in 2016, 

And is being charged with 8 YEARS later just as he announced he's running again for president. 

uh huh. 

Look, it's painfully obvious that the only reason this utter nonsense of a case was put forward was to interfere with an election 

The dems have weaponized the courts to interfere with the democratic process and that is wrong.  It just is.  And it's not going to end here. 

There's nothing that you can say that somehow makes this NOT a political maneuver or somehow makes these charges reasonable and necessary. Trying someone for a concocted 'felony accounting' charge to knock him out of a presidental race is just wrong. It's disappointing that those of you on the left can't see what the repercussions will be.  

[Moonbox]

13 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

Oh so you were being dishonest when you said this trial lawyer was fine with the judge. You meant his previous lawyer was

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.  

13 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

So they need for trump to be guilty of another crime to make these charges stick and your evidence that he is guilty of these crimes is that other people were convicted of different crimes

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?  🙄

 

Edited June 7 by Moonbox

[CdnFox]

46 minutes ago, Moonbox said:

Quote

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.  

 

Then why bring it up if you know that his actual lawyer for the trial felt different?  Hell you could have even said ONE of his lawyers or his previous lawyer  But no - you tried to pass it of as "His Lawyer", without mentioning that was NOT his lawyer for the trial. 

So the correct answer is that trump's lawyer had a great deal of trouble with the judge and wanted to change venues before the trial started. Pretending that that didn't happen just makes you look bad.

 

Quote

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.  

They absolutely need trump to be 'guilty' of those crimes or at least believe he is. That is an absolute must. For these to be felony charges they have to believe that trump himself did this as part of committing those crimes.  If other people were the ones responsible for those crimes then this has nothing to do with him. 

The judge was clear, the jury doesn't have to agree WHICH crime, but they have to agree that trump was guilty of committing or trying to commit those crimes. 

Quote

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. 

Nope. That really doesn't happen much. What you're trying to claim is that sometimes it is necessary to completely pervert the law in order to get people you don't like even though they may not have actually committed a real crime or what normal people would consider to be one.

The democrats faked up a "Felony accounting" charge for the sole purpose of attacking a political rival. 

You keep dodging that, you keep wanting that to be ok, but it's not ok. You keep trying to excuse using the courts to interfere with your political opponent, saying "Sometimes "creative" law manipulation is necessary to get people we don't like", but that is NOT how a justice system is used. 

And now that' its "OK' to use it that way  don't be angry when it's used against people you DO like.  Because that will be coming. 

[reason10]

On 6/5/2024 at 2:00 PM, robosmith said:

Too good ^YOUR OPINION means NOTHING in COURT.

When Trump wins this fall, that KKKangaroo KKKourt is going to  be seeing some major changes. The Nazis who committed judicial misconduct will be disbarred and prosecuted.

Unlike LEGALLY ELECTED PRESIDENT TRUMP, these a holes actually committed crimes.

 

[Moonbox]

On 6/7/2024 at 3:56 PM, CdnFox said:

Then why bring it up if you know that his actual lawyer for the trial felt different?

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. 

On 6/7/2024 at 3:56 PM, CdnFox said:

They absolutely need trump to be 'guilty' of those crimes or at least believe he is. That is an absolute must.

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.  

[CdnFox]

6 minutes ago, Moonbox said:

Because the point was that the defense team had their star attorney publicly contradicting Donald's whining about the judge for almost a year,

But it wasn't the defense team. His defense team is the one that he took to trial. 

And obviously they disagreed or they woudln't have parted ways. 

 

Quote

All you're doing here is proving that you don't actually know what you're talking about:

no, all you're doing is proving you can't read, as we're about to see 

Quote

 

§ 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. 

 

In general sure but in this specific case they allege it happened. Not that he was thinking maybe he might do it, they say that it was done and that all they need to believe is why he did it which would make him guilty. 

They don't need to prove it in court  but they do need the jurors to believe he's guilty. If they don't believe that, if he's innocent of those crimes, then they can't find him guilty of this crime. 

I mean think about it. How are they going to claim he's PLANNING to change the outcome of the 2016 election. They're claiming this stuff happened and it was intentional. 

Hope that's clear. 

So in this particular case you're wrong. They're not alleging he was THINKING of election financiing crimes for example, they're alleging they happened AND that he did it intentionally.  Guilty. 

I"m aware  It's this bizzare law that says you can only be found guilty beyond a reasonable doubt as long as you believe he was thinking of anohter crime which you can't prove beyond a reasonable doubt.  But they content he wasn't just thinking of it, he did these other crimes intentionally. 

But it's a bizarre law. It's like saying jaywalking is a felony if you think he might have been planning to cross the street to cheat on his taxes. 

Quote

 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.  

Mens rea is a component in many crimes, but here's the thing. In the example you provided the crime is trespassing. and in fact you don't need any of the rest of that stuff  you're guilty of the same crime whether you've got a bolt cutter or not. It eliminates some defenses but the crime of trespass is the same. It doesn't change. At most the bolt cutters might come up at sentencing. But if you're on the property without lawful excuse you're guilty regardless of what you're wearing. 

In this case, the crime of falsifying records is a minor misdemeanor.  But magically  it becomes an entirely different thing IF as they claim some OTHER crime that does not need to be proved happens or you THINK that maybe it happened and you believe that he did it intentionally  and in fact you don't even have to agree on WHICH crime you think may have happened and believe he did intentionally. 

And to top it off this is a charge that's extremely rare despite tonnes of businesses donating to politicians and such, and despite tonnes of election financing issues out there,  AND it was held onto for 8 years only to be pulled out 2 months after trump announced he'd run again. 

There is no angle that this looks legit from.  This is a nonsense charge that was cobbled together to interfere with trump's presidential run. 

 

[Moonbox]

18 hours ago, CdnFox said:

But it wasn't the defense team. His defense team is the one that he took to trial. 

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?  

[CdnFox]

7 minutes ago, Moonbox said:

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?  

The defense team goes to trial. It's right there in the court proceedings - the prosecution and the 'defense'.   Trump hired  a lawyer intending to use him for his defense lawyer. That lawyer was gone before they went to trial. Trump hired another lawyer intending to use him for his defense lawyer.  That lawyer actually defended trump at the trial and is the defense lawyer. At trial one lawyer (or team) prosecutes and one defends. The lawyers at trial make the case.  The lawyer who presented trump's defense wanted a change of venue. 

This really isn't complicated.  

 

So once again this is your usual trick where you've realized you've lost the argument so you're going to try to reduce it to some absurd technical point you think you can win. Honestly - stop being so childish. 

You claimed his defense lawyer was peachy-keen with the judge. He was not ok with the judge. Trump's defense lawyer wanted a change of venue. He had many issues with the judge. The judge refused a change of venue.  

 

Once again - from this angle and every other angle the trial looks terrible. It looks like a politically motivated crap show  that from beginning to end was a hit job which saw democrats and their supporters using the courts to interfere with the political process and to 'jail' a political rival. That is a bad thing for many reasons and you can't just wish that away. 

 

[Moonbox]

2 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

The defense team goes to trial. It's right there in the court proceedings - the prosecution and the 'defense'.   Trump hired  a lawyer intending to use him for his defense lawyer.

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.  

[CdnFox]

35 minutes ago, Moonbox said:

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.  

If they presented the defendant's defense, they're a defense lawyer for that person. If there's some sort of negotiated settlement and the charges are stayed and the case never goes to trial that there was no charges and there is no 'defense' against the charges presented so there's no 'defense' lawyer.  It's just a lawyer. Your lawyer negotiated a settlement and the crown (or equivilant) did not choose to proceed with charges and you never had to defend yourself. 

They may not have  had defense, but they did have competent legal representation. While in a very general sense all legal representation is sort of 'defense' but a 'defense' lawyer is the lawyer who is defending the defendant in court and there needs to be a 'defendant' for that to happen. 

That's not gymnastics - that's basic English. No defendant - no defense. 

 

And it's STILL true that from every angle This case reeks to high heaven of being a witch hunt for the political reason of jailing political opponents. And as much as you try and dodge the issue, jailing your political opponents is very bad.

[Moonbox]

You heard it here, folks.  "They did not have a defense - but rather competent legal representation."

Look at the muppet spinning his wheels.  🤣

[Moonbox]

58 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

While in a very general sense all legal representation is sort of 'defense' but a 'defense' lawyer is the lawyer who is defending the defendant in court and there needs to be a 'defendant' for that to happen. 

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.   

Edited June 11 by Moonbox