Jump to content

The fix is in for Hunter Biden


Recommended Posts

7 hours ago, User said:

No, that is not what he said. It was reported that he discussed with a lawmaker saying Judges need more money or 1-2 might leave. 

So what?

Judges are allowed to talk about their pay conditions. 

No, you are conflating this timeline. He had no business before the court; that money was over 20 years of friendship. They were friends for years before Thomas made any comment about needing more pay. 1996 - Became friends. 2000 was when he commented about needing more pay. 2005 was the court case that Crows parent company had a non controlling interest in and that Crow himself had nothing to do with.

Seriously, you are a complete waste of time. You just spew garbage and then run away when I repeatedly have to correct you in thread after thread.
 


So what? That was not a violation for Thomas. 

And no, there are limitations on gifts, but none like you say for all federal judges:https://www.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/vol02c-ch06.pdf

 

This is absurd nonsense. A politicians entire life could impact the election outcome. They need a house to live in... they need to eat... 

You are being absurd. 

What's absurd is you comparing a payment to silence a sex scandal to "need a house." 

One is SOLELY to affect the election as the intent was proven in court. The other is COMMON living expenses.

You've just destroyed your credibility.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

56 minutes ago, Aristides said:

BC imported 20% of its power last year because of drought and this year will likely be worse but can supposedly double its generating power with run of river. There really is no real place left to dam the Peace, east of the Rockies it is a slow flowing river without a deep valley or much elevation change. 

 

As i demonstrated last time we discussed this there are other places they can place a dam, and the cite c resivoir has not even been filled yet. It's expected to be filled this year, that's a lot of extra water and power generation.  So there's a lot more room for capacity and additional dams. So in fact this year is actually likely to be better. And that's despite record building and population growth. 

but the point is more about dishonesty. Constantly making false claims in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary. 

That's usually when i start calling people liars.  Anyone can be wrong once - but if you persist in the face of the evidence or if you deliberately misrepresent facts then you're being dishonest.  For some reason a lot of people on the left go that route. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, robosmith said:

What's absurd is you comparing a payment to silence a sex scandal to "need a house." 

No, that was an extension of your logic. 

2 minutes ago, robosmith said:

One is SOLELY to affect the election as the intent was proven in court. The other is COMMON living expenses.

No, the motivations could have been numerous, and again... almost anything can affect an election, that doesn't make it a campaign expense. And no, that was not what was proven in court. 

3 minutes ago, robosmith said:

You've just destroyed your credibility.

You just ignored the majority of my response, in which I picked apart your ignorant, if not dishonest, claims. Worry about your own credibility. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, robosmith said:

What's absurd is you comparing a payment to silence a sex scandal to "need a house." 

One is SOLELY to affect the election as the intent was proven in court. The other is COMMON living expenses.

You've just destroyed your credibility.

It wasn't actually proven in court. What was proven is that he Recorded the payment as a legal expense. That becomes a felony if he did it in regards to another crime, but the judge proposed three possible crimes and said the jury only had to believe that one of them had happened and they didn't even have to agree on which one. We don't even know which ones they felt had happened. 

So no. Not proven in court at all

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, User said:

No, that was an extension of your logic. 

No, it's not analogous and therefore NOT "an extension of my logic." 

1 hour ago, User said:

No, the motivations could have been numerous, and again... almost anything can affect an election, that doesn't make it a campaign expense. And no, that was not what was proven in court. 

It was the conclusion of the jury based on the EVIDENCE. That campaign purpose conclusion is what made the misdemeanors FELONIES.

1 hour ago, User said:

You just ignored the majority of my response, in which I picked apart your ignorant, if not dishonest, claims. Worry about your own credibility. 

I ignored YOUR DRIVEL cause your dishonest claims are not worth my time.

Edited by robosmith
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, CdnFox said:

It wasn't actually proven in court. What was proven is that he Recorded the payment as a legal expense. That becomes a felony if he did it in regards to another crime, but the judge proposed three possible crimes and said the jury only had to believe that one of them had happened and they didn't even have to agree on which one. We don't even know which ones they felt had happened. 

So no. Not proven in court at all

Can you show us where it says that in the jury instructions? Or is it something “you heard on the Internet”?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, robosmith said:

No, it's not analogous and therefore NOT "an extension of my logic." 

Yes, it was. Run away!

7 hours ago, robosmith said:

It was the conclusion of the jury based on the EVIDENCE. That campaign purpose conclusion is what made the misdemeanors FELONIES.

Where was that their conclusion?

7 hours ago, robosmith said:

I ignored YOUR DRIVEL cause your dishonest claims are not worth my time.

What was dishonest? You don't get to ignore it and then claim it was dishonest without actually making an argument for how or explaining it. 

You waste plenty of time on here responding to me, just like you are doing now... it is only when I have you dead to rights that you find it a waste of your time. How cowardly. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Rebound said:

Can you show us where it says that in the jury instructions? Or is it something “you heard on the Internet”?

Yes in fact i posted some of that stuff earlier. 

Go read it yourself. The instructions are that the crime he's being charged with is only a crime if it was done to conceal another crime. Three possible 'other crimes' were offered, an obscure new york law about conspiring to do something to help or hinder a candidate for political office, federal election financing violations because the payment should have been reported (which the vast majority of lawyers have said is not the case), and some new york tax codes. 

The instruction was that the jury only had to believe one or more of these crimes had happened and they did not need to agree on which ones.  We don't even know what they did or didn't "believe"  other than all agreed that SOME sort of other crime had been committed and this misdemeanor was done to cover that up. 

Go read the instructions. It's all right there along with details about what constitutes the 'tinkerbell' crimes which exist because of belief rather than proof or conviction. 

 

So lets just do a quick recap of how this looks. And these are the facts. 

Trump announces his presidency, 

A prosecutor who until very recently worked directly for the dems and biden launches a court case 2 months later.

The charge is that trump committed a misdemeanor by iinternally recording a payment as a legal expense when by new york tax laws it shouldn't be. This did not affect his taxes to be clear  he paid the correct amount of tax.

NO other state has such a law as that, and companies are free to record their accounting however they like provided their taxes are correct. 

The prosecutor THEN contends that the misdemeanor is elevated to a felony and therefore the statute of limitations doesn't apply because trump committed it to conceal another crime. 

NO OTHER CRIME WAS CHARGED OR PROVEN. But they gave 3 possible ones and said to the jury " if you believe he did even ONE of those then you can convict on this crime of basically 'felony accounting'.  You don't even have to agree on the crime, you just have to agree that he broke ONE of them. And not 'beyond reasonable doubt', he's not being tried for those crimes, you just have to believe it.  

If they believe one of these other things happened, then they can decide whether trump actually did the misdemeanor crime that's now been elevated to felony. 

 

ANd all of this 8 years after the fact, right after he announces his run for presidency,  and this has NEVER BEEN DONE BEFORE.  Ever. 

 

Now even as a biden supporter, you have GOT to admit that stinks to high heaven.  No reasonable person would look at that and say it's anything other than a deliberate attempt to manufacture a fake 'crime' in order to hurt trump's chances at winning an election,. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Pay attention MAGAs
George Norcross, one of the richest and most powerful multimillionaire businessmen in New Jersey

Yet despite being a major Democrat party power broker, a Democrat Attorney General under a Democrat governor still indicted him when they believed he broke the law. 
 


Nobody is above the law, not even your own leaders, something you will never hear  in MAGA-land, where the law is nothing more than just another weapon you wield against your enemies. That’s why they find it inconceivable that Biden is simply going to accept his son’s verdict and not pardon him or work out some secret deal  

 

 

Edited by BeaverFever
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, BeaverFever said:

Pay attention MAGAs
George Norcross, one of the richest and most powerful multimillionaire businessmen in New Jersey

Yet despite being a major Democrat party power broker, a Democrat Attorney General under a Democrat governor still indicted him when they believed he broke the law. 
 


Nobody is above the law, not even your own leaders, something you will never hear  in MAGA-land, where the law is nothing more than just another weapon you wield against your enemies. That’s why they find it inconceivable that Biden is simply going to accept his son’s verdict and not pardon him or work out some secret deal  

 

 

Soooo - not a presidential candidate.  Gotcha.  :) 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 6/13/2024 at 12:52 PM, CdnFox said:

Yes in fact i posted some of that stuff earlier. 

Go read it yourself. The instructions are that the crime he's being charged with is only a crime if it was done to conceal another crime. Three possible 'other crimes' were offered, an obscure new york law about conspiring to do something to help or hinder a candidate for political office, federal election financing violations because the payment should have been reported (which the vast majority of lawyers have said is not the case), and some new york tax codes. 

The instruction was that the jury only had to believe one or more of these crimes had happened and they did not need to agree on which ones.  We don't even know what they did or didn't "believe"  other than all agreed that SOME sort of other crime had been committed and this misdemeanor was done to cover that up. 

Go read the instructions. It's all right there along with details about what constitutes the 'tinkerbell' crimes which exist because of belief rather than proof or conviction. 

 

So lets just do a quick recap of how this looks. And these are the facts. 

Trump announces his presidency, 

A prosecutor who until very recently worked directly for the dems and biden launches a court case 2 months later.

The charge is that trump committed a misdemeanor by iinternally recording a payment as a legal expense when by new york tax laws it shouldn't be. This did not affect his taxes to be clear  he paid the correct amount of tax.

NO other state has such a law as that, and companies are free to record their accounting however they like provided their taxes are correct. 

The prosecutor THEN contends that the misdemeanor is elevated to a felony and therefore the statute of limitations doesn't apply because trump committed it to conceal another crime. 

NO OTHER CRIME WAS CHARGED OR PROVEN. But they gave 3 possible ones and said to the jury " if you believe he did even ONE of those then you can convict on this crime of basically 'felony accounting'.  You don't even have to agree on the crime, you just have to agree that he broke ONE of them. And not 'beyond reasonable doubt', he's not being tried for those crimes, you just have to believe it.  

If they believe one of these other things happened, then they can decide whether trump actually did the misdemeanor crime that's now been elevated to felony. 

 

ANd all of this 8 years after the fact, right after he announces his run for presidency,  and this has NEVER BEEN DONE BEFORE.  Ever. 

 

Now even as a biden supporter, you have GOT to admit that stinks to high heaven.  No reasonable person would look at that and say it's anything other than a deliberate attempt to manufacture a fake 'crime' in order to hurt trump's chances at winning an election,. 

No, you are lying. The violated crime of election law is New York State law. It is listed in page 30 of the jury instructions:

https://www.nycourts.gov/LegacyPDFS/press/PDFs/People v. DJT Jury Instructions and Charges FINAL 5-23-24.pdf.

So, you lied to us. You didn’t read the jury instructions like you said.  
 

The reason you lied is that somebody lied to you.  You’re basing your political beliefs on easily disprovable lies. If MAGA is right, why do they need to lie to you? 

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Rebound said:

No, you are lying. The violated crime of election law is New York State law. It is listed in page 30 of the jury instructions:

https://www.nycourts.gov/LegacyPDFS/press/PDFs/People v. DJT Jury Instructions and Charges FINAL 5-23-24.pdf.

So, you lied to us. You didn’t read the jury instructions like you said.  
 

The reason you lied is that somebody lied to you.  You’re basing your political beliefs on easily disprovable lies. If MAGA is right, why do they need to lie to you? 

And... if you read on to page 31... that is where you get the BS:

"Although you must conclude unanimously that the defendant conspired to promote or prevent the election of any person to a public office by unlawful means, you need not be unanimous as to what those unlawful means were. In determining whether the defendant conspired to promote or prevent the election of any person to a public office by unlawful means, you may consider the following: (1) violations of the Federal Election Campaign Act otherwise known as FECA; (2) the falsification of other business records; or (3) violation of tax laws."

They never outline exactly what it was that he was guilty of, it was a vague "unlawful means" which could have been anything above... 

All page 30 does is basically say "unlawful means"

No one lied to us, but I do wonder if you know what you are doing is dishonest or not. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Rebound said:

No, you are lying. The violated crime of election law is New York State law. It is listed in page 30 of the jury instructions:

https://www.nycourts.gov/LegacyPDFS/press/PDFs/People v. DJT Jury Instructions and Charges FINAL 5-23-24.pdf.

So, you lied to us. You didn’t read the jury instructions like you said.  
 

The reason you lied is that somebody lied to you.  You’re basing your political beliefs on easily disprovable lies. If MAGA is right, why do they need to lie to you? 

Sigh  - from your own cite and page:

THE FEDERAL ELECTION CAMPAIGN ACT The first of the People’s theories of “unlawful means” which I will now define for you is the Federal Election Campaign Act.

Sigh.  Look - nobody expects you to be the brightest bulb on the christmas tree but FFS - at LEAST TRY to think a little before you open your mouth. 

On top of it all you STILL don't understand the charge.  The new york law only is a felony IF it was done to conceal a greater crime. Two of the possible crimes were state laws and a third was federal.  As I SAID. 

Otherwise the "crime" he was charged with iit's a misdemeanor and well past the statute of limitations. And the other three crimes were not proven or even charged. 

Do you need me to explain all of this again to you even more slowly? You now look like a complete !diot for blathering like that. 

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

46 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

Sigh  - from your own cite and page:

THE FEDERAL ELECTION CAMPAIGN ACT The first of the People’s theories of “unlawful means” which I will now define for you is the Federal Election Campaign Act.

Sigh.  Look - nobody expects you to be the brightest bulb on the christmas tree but FFS - at LEAST TRY to think a little before you open your mouth. 

On top of it all you STILL don't understand the charge.  The new york law only is a felony IF it was done to conceal a greater crime. Two of the possible crimes were state laws and a third was federal.  As I SAID. 

Otherwise the "crime" he was charged with iit's a misdemeanor and well past the statute of limitations. And the other three crimes were not proven or even charged. 

Do you need me to explain all of this again to you even more slowly? You now look like a complete !diot for blathering like that. 

 

No. The crimes were elevated to felonies because he also violated NY State election law, which makes it a crime to illegally influence an election. Violating the Federal campaign contribution law is illegal, therefore, the NY State law was broken.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Rebound said:

No. The crimes were elevated to felonies because he also violated NY State election law, which makes it a crime to illegally influence an election. Violating the Federal campaign contribution law is illegal, therefore, the NY State law was broken.  

How did he violate NY State Election law? LOL

It is just a big circular argument. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, Rebound said:

No. The crimes were elevated to felonies because he also violated NY State election law, which makes it a crime to illegally influence an election.

Oh my god!!!!!!!! Sigh.

Lets go through it one more time. I'll go as slow as I can. 

Trump was charged and convicted of falsifying business records. ONLY in new york is that a crime, everywhere else you can keep your books however you like as long as your taxes are correct. 

That is a minor misdemeanor crime, and is not a felony. 

However - it IS a felony if done as part of another crime. 

The state argued that one or all of three other crimes were possible.  a) - there is an obscure new york law about promoting a person in an election, b) there's the federal elections act and c) there is a tax law that they allege trump may have broken. 

NONE Of those were charged, none convicted, none proven. 

What the judge said was -  IF ... IF YOU BELIEVE that any one or more of those things which have not been proven in court happened,  THEN you can decide that his accounting here was in support of that and he's guilty of essentially 'felony bookkeeping". 

 IN FACT - you don't even have to agree on WHICH Of those three happened, or how many. As long as you believe that ONE of those things happened, then we can call it unamimous even if you don't agree on which of the three it is. 

IF You believe one or more of those things happened. THEN this becomes a felony trial and you can convict trump for the crime of felony bookkeeping because it was in support of another crime you believe probably happened. 

 

Do you see how that works now? The law he was convicted of is a misdemeanor (and only in new york), but they elevated it to a felony by saying it may have been done to cover another crime which he was never on trial for. 

That's why it stinks to heaven.  Hopefully that's more clear. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

That's why it stinks to heaven.  Hopefully that's more clear. 

It was bad enough the judge let them even try to prosecute this, but then after the jurt instructions were provided saying they did not even have to agree on what this other crime was to convict him... it was clearly rigged. 

This has to get overturned on appeal. 

They likely know that, but they still get what they wanted though. They get their election interference, they get to claim he was a convicted felon... 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, User said:

It was bad enough the judge let them even try to prosecute this, but then after the jurt instructions were provided saying they did not even have to agree on what this other crime was to convict him... it was clearly rigged. 

This has to get overturned on appeal. 

They likely know that, but they still get what they wanted though. They get their election interference, they get to claim he was a convicted felon... 

Well when you look at it it wasn't just that it was rigged. Clearly it was slanted in favor of a conviction. But more than that it is clear that they spent months and months and months trying to create a legal law or precedent that they could use to go after trump for the purpose of going after trump.

Nobody complained to them about this. Nobody said hey does anybody notice that trump broke this really obscure law? I doubt they even cared before they realized that he was likely to run again.

So this legal case happened for one reason only. It happened to try and repress and eliminate a political rival by misusing the process of law. It had nothing to do with justice or crime, wanted to find a way to use the court to hurt trump

That is beyond horrible. That is some Russian dictatorship crap happening right there. That is a severe blow to democracy. I am stunned that Americans cannot see that for what it is immediately, although there is some indication that many do they just approve of it because it's someone they don't like.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, BeaverFever said:

Hunter Biden isn’t a presidential candidate. 

Well that's the point though right? Charging Hunter Biden isn't exactly messing with your political opponent. It is kind of in that it's his son that obviously impacts him but it doesn't stop Biden from running again or interfere with his campaign.

Nobody has ever suggested anybody is above the law. But there is a problem with going after a presidential candidate, especially on charges which are basically felony bookkeeping. 

If they had convicted him on the document charges that would have been one thing but going after somebody in a legal case that is obviously only exists to interfere with his election run is something quite different.

So it's no surprise that people who are not presidential candidates get charged with crimes. This guy isn't even political in any way particularly.

But you start to look like Venezuela very quickly when you conjure faked up charges to try and prevent your political opponent from running in an election. Surely even you see that that's a problem. Like neither side can do that or else the democracy is severely damaged. And now the republicans are bound to retaliate with something similar and where does that end.

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...