The fix is in for Hunter Biden

[ironstone]

20 hours ago, Aristides said:

You don’t want any checks or restraints on gun ownership, you are fine with the body count. Almost all the school shootings are carried out by students or under 21’s but you are just fine with arming them, no questions asked until after they mow down a bunch of kids.

But why are you guys fine with the body count when it comes to black on black crime?

[Aristides]

6 minutes ago, ironstone said:

But why are you guys fine with the body count when it comes to black on black crime?

Said no one. No one has ever said gun controls should only apply to a particular race.  Do you think a gun gives a fat f*ck whether the hand holding it is black or white?

 

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/what-we-know-about-mass-school-shootings-mdash-and-shooters-mdash-in-the-u-s/

Quote

 

The choice of “gunmen” to describe the perpetrators is accurate – all of the mass school shootings in our database were carried out by men or boys. And the average age of those involved in carrying out the attacks was 18.

 

 

Edited June 7, 2024 by Aristides

[Hodad]

1 hour ago, WestCanMan said:

🤣

• 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 AND there means that it was not a felony UNLESS it was tied to another crime. The 'other crime' was federal.

You lie. You've been corrected multiple times. You've been shown NY laws as instructed to the jury. You persist in lying. So, again, for the honest people playing along at home, the "other crime" is a violation of NY election law. 

From the damn jury instructions--literally the very next section from what WCM quoted

NEW YORK ELECTION LAW § 17-152 PREDICATE The People allege that the other crime the defendant intended to commit, aid, or conceal is a violation of New York Election Law section 17-152.  Section 17-152 of the New York Election Law provides that any two or more persons who conspire to promote or prevent the election of any person to a public office by unlawful means and which conspiracy is acted upon by one or more of the parties thereto, shall be guilty of conspiracy to promote or prevent an election. Under our law, a person is guilty of such a conspiracy when, with intent that conduct be performed that would promote or prevent the election of a person to public office by unlawful means, he or she agrees with one or more persons to engage in or cause the performance of such conduct. 

[robosmith]

1 hour ago, WestCanMan said:

🤣

• 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 AND there means that it was not a felony UNLESS it was tied to another crime. The 'other crime' was federal.

It COULD have been Federal but that was NOT a requirement. There was a LIST of 4 crimes, any of which would have been individually SUFFICIENT, and ONE of them was the NY STATE election law.

Thanks for demonstrating once again how you glom onto an inaccurate FOS LIES story.

[Rebound]

On 6/7/2024 at 8:36 AM, WestCanMan said:

🤣

• 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 AND there means that it was not a felony UNLESS it was tied to another crime. The 'other crime' was federal.

Untrue. You forget that Presidential elections are held independently in each state. The election Trump defrauded was a New York State election. 

[CdnFox]

6 hours ago, Rebound said:

Untrue. You forget that Presidential elections are held independently in each state. The election Trump defrauded was a New York State election. 

Not exactly. The election is federal, the Electoral College of each state votes in the federal election. The state manages the collection of votes which will inform the college but it is not a state election.

And he's reading from the actual law so when you say it's untrue......

[Nationalist]

This is sick. How long are Republicans gonna put up with this Tweenkie horseshit?

[WestCanMan]

On 6/8/2024 at 4:25 PM, Rebound said:

Untrue. You forget that Presidential elections are held independently in each state. The election Trump defrauded was a New York State election. 

It was a federal election. NY's electoral college points just count towards the presidential election.  

[CdnFox]

13 hours ago, Nationalist said:

This is sick. How long are Republicans gonna put up with this Tweenkie horseshit?

Well there's the problem. 

When both sides play by the rules all is well.  When only one side plays by the rules, sooner or later the other side gives up playing by the rules and decides to cheat as well.  Which eggs the other side on and it's a race to the bottom. 

The dems weaponized the courts against the political nominee for predidency of the republicans. I have to think that's a bit of a crossing of a line, and that might get answered. 

I'm sure the republicans  who believe that the dems are stealing elections will be looking at ways they can 'even the playing field'. 

[Rebound]

1 hour ago, WestCanMan said:

It was a federal election. NY's electoral college points just count towards the presidential election.  

There are no federal elections in the United States.  Only state and local elections. Each state administers its own elections under its own laws. 

55 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

Well there's the problem. 

When both sides play by the rules all is well.  When only one side plays by the rules, sooner or later the other side gives up playing by the rules and decides to cheat as well.  Which eggs the other side on and it's a race to the bottom. 

The dems weaponized the courts against the political nominee for predidency of the republicans. I have to think that's a bit of a crossing of a line, and that might get answered. 

I'm sure the republicans  who believe that the dems are stealing elections will be looking at ways they can 'even the playing field'. 

Who’s the piece of shlt who shouted “Lock her up” at his campaign rallies in 2016?   

[Hodad]

2 minutes ago, Rebound said:

There are no federal elections in the United States.  Only state and local elections. Each state administers its own elections under its own laws. 

Who’s the piece of shlt who shouted “Lock her up” at his campaign rallies in 2016?   

These people are incredibly gullible to buy this line of B.S. Trump had his DoJ all over the Clintons his whole term (and came up empty). Meanwhile the president's son and a democratic senator are on trial right now under a Democratic administration.

[CdnFox]

13 minutes ago, Rebound said:

There are no federal elections in the United States.  Only state and local elections. Each state administers its own elections under its own laws. 

Sigh. There are absolutely federal elections in the us. They tend to refer to them as 'presidental' elections or sometimes 'general' elections but i take it you don't need to be told that the president is not a 'State" position, but rather  a federal one, 

Presidential general election | USAGov

The president - who is the leader of the FEDERAL gov't - is elected. 

 

8 minutes ago, Hodad said:

These people are incredibly gullible to buy this line of B.S. Trump had his DoJ all over the Clintons his whole term (and came up empty). Meanwhile the president's son and a democratic senator are on trial right now under a Democratic administration.

They didn't have his doj over the clintons for even a second during his term.

[Rebound]

14 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

Sigh. There are absolutely federal elections in the us. They tend to refer to them as 'presidental' elections or sometimes 'general' elections but i take it you don't need to be told that the president is not a 'State" position, but rather  a federal one, 

Presidential general election | USAGov

The president - who is the leader of the FEDERAL gov't - is elected. 

 

They didn't have his doj over the clintons for even a second during his term.

There is not a Federal election for President of the United States.  There are STATE elections which choose ELECTORS for President of the United States.  The election of Trump v Clinton 2016 was comprised of fifty separate state-run elections.  
 

Voters in Washington, DC, Guam, Puerto Rico, Samoa, etc do not get to vote for President, although they do get to elect delegates to the nominating conventions.  
 

THEREFORE, the election which Trump interfered with was an election held in the State of New York under the laws of New York State. 

Edited June 10, 2024 by Rebound

[Nationalist]

2 hours ago, CdnFox said:

Well there's the problem. 

When both sides play by the rules all is well.  When only one side plays by the rules, sooner or later the other side gives up playing by the rules and decides to cheat as well.  Which eggs the other side on and it's a race to the bottom. 

The dems weaponized the courts against the political nominee for predidency of the republicans. I have to think that's a bit of a crossing of a line, and that might get answered. 

I'm sure the republicans  who believe that the dems are stealing elections will be looking at ways they can 'even the playing field'. 

Of course. Should there not be recourse for such disgusting acts?

[CdnFox]

1 hour ago, Rebound said:

There is not a Federal election for President of the United States.  There are STATE elections which choose ELECTORS for President of the United States.  The election of Trump v Clinton 2016 was comprised of fifty separate state-run elections.  

Then the electors choose the president - making it a federal election.  The people inform the state college, the college votes for the president - federal election. 

Let me dumb this this down for you. The president is a federal position. The president is elected. Therefore at some point there is a federal election.

It's like that old Rice Krispies commercial. What the heck did you think they were made of?

[WestCanMan]

4 hours ago, Rebound said:

There are no federal elections in the United States.  

Now I've heard it all here.

[Rebound]

5 hours ago, WestCanMan said:

Now I've heard it all here.

You could just read the United States Constitution sometime.  

[Rebound]

11 hours ago, CdnFox said:

Then the electors choose the president - making it a federal election.  The people inform the state college, the college votes for the president - federal election. 

Let me dumb this this down for you. The president is a federal position. The president is elected. Therefore at some point there is a federal election.

It's like that old Rice Krispies commercial. What the heck did you think they were made of?

The election for President of the United States is conducted by state and local officials in the fifty states, under the laws of each state.  That’s why, for example, absentee and vote by mail rules are different in each state. Oregon, for example, is 100% vote by mail.  
 

Thus, Donald Trump violated New York State election law, not Federal election law.  

Edited June 10, 2024 by Rebound

[Nationalist]

Ok...what comes around...goes around.

[Rebound]

1 hour ago, Nationalist said:

Ok...what comes around...goes around.

No it will not.

Right now, as we speak, US Democratic Senator Menendez is being prosecuted for bribery charges.  Are the Democrats complaining about that? No. Cause if he is guilty, he shouldn’t be in the Senate, he should be in prison.  The Democrats are the Law & Order Party, and the Republicans are the Corruption Party.

Being in a political party does not make you corrupt. You want to go into politics and you choose one of the two parties. There have been corrupt people in both parties.  But as an institution, today, the Republican Party itself is clearly corrupt and pro-crime.  
 

[Nationalist]

21 minutes ago, Rebound said:

No it will not.

Right now, as we speak, US Democratic Senator Menendez is being prosecuted for bribery charges.  Are the Democrats complaining about that? No. Cause if he is guilty, he shouldn’t be in the Senate, he should be in prison.  The Democrats are the Law & Order Party, and the Republicans are the Corruption Party.

Being in a political party does not make you corrupt. You want to go into politics and you choose one of the two parties. There have been corrupt people in both parties.  But as an institution, today, the Republican Party itself is clearly corrupt and pro-crime.  
 

What comes around...goes around.

[gatomontes99]

On 6/7/2024 at 11:36 AM, WestCanMan said:

🤣

• 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 AND there means that it was not a felony UNLESS it was tied to another crime. The 'other crime' was federal.

And the former FEC chair would have testified that had they classified the payment as an election expense (as NY claims he should have) then it would have been a crime. The FEC Chair would have said that the classification was appropriate in accordance to FEC rules.

[Rebound]

52 minutes ago, gatomontes99 said:

And the former FEC chair would have testified that had they classified the payment as an election expense (as NY claims he should have) then it would have been a crime. The FEC Chair would have said that the classification was appropriate in accordance to FEC rules.

Dear Mr. Thick Skull,

Donald Trump was not convicted of violating Federal Law.  DO YOU UNDERSTAND? The STATE GOVERNMENT is not the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT.

Donald Trump was convicted of violations NEW YORK STATE LAW, including New York State Election Law, which 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 does not matter what Federal Law says or what a former FEC Chair thinks about Federal Law because this was not a case of Federal Law. So why don’t you sit down and ask yourself this simple question: WHY ARE YOU READING AND BELIEVING MEDIA WHICH IS DIRECTLY LYING TO YOU? 

Here are the official instructions (.gov website!!!) to the jury which the judge gave them. You can read these for yourself to see the exact laws involved. So you don’t need to believe me, or Fox News, you can just go to the source and see for yourself. 

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

Quoting from that official court document:

”For the crime of Falsifying Business Records in the First Degree, the intent to defraud must include an intent to commit another crime or to aid or conceal the commission thereof. Under our law, although the People must prove an intent to commit another crime or to aid or conceal the commission thereof, they need not prove that the other crime was in fact committed, aided, or concealed.”

“The People allege that the other crime the defendant
intended to commit, aid, or conceal is a violation of New York
Election Law section 17-152.
Section 17-152 of the New York Election Law provides that
any two or more persons who conspire to promote or prevent the
election of any person to a public office by unlawful means and
which conspiracy is acted upon by one or more of the parties
thereto, shall be guilty of conspiracy to promote or prevent an
election.
Under our law, a person is guilty of such a conspiracy
when, with intent that conduct be performed that would promote
or prevent the election of a person to public office by unlawful
means, he or she agrees with one or more persons to engage in
or cause the performance of such conduct.
Knowledge of a conspiracy does not by itself make the
defendant a coconspirator. The defendant must intend that
conduct be performed that would promote or prevent the election
of a person to public office by unlawful means. Intent means
conscious objective or purpose. Thus, a person acts with the
intent that conduct be performed that would promote or prevent
the election of a person to public office by unlawful means when
his or her conscious objective or purpose is that such conduct be
performed.
Evidence that defendant was present when others agreed
to engage in the performance of a crime does not by itself show
that he personally agreed to engage in the conspiracy.”

Edited June 10, 2024 by Rebound

[WestCanMan]

3 hours ago, Rebound said:

You could just read the United States Constitution sometime.  

Look at this, dummy:

• What exactly those "unlawful means" were in this case was up to the jury to decide. Prosecutors put forth three areas that they could consider: a violation of federal campaign finance laws, falsification of other business records or a violation of tax laws. 

So while it's "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," it's a federal law that was allegedly broken to constitute the "by unlawful means" part.

IE, did they break a federal law to elect someone by unlawful means?

It's tough to say if they broke a federal law because the Dems didn't call an expert witness to testify to that, and the judge wouldn't let the defence's expert witness, the ex-FEC chair, testify freely. 

So, at the judge's discretion:

1. a known perjurer was allowed to speak freely,
2. a hostile bimbo, whom Trump had successfully sued for hundreds of thousands of dollars, and who had signed a letter saying that she had never had sex with Trump, was allowed to speak freely about her alleged sex with Trump,
3. but an expert witness would not be allowed to testify to one of the main aspects of the case. 

The aforementioned judge, the DA, and the prosecutor all had personal financial stakes in this case. The judge's daughter was making millions of dollars off of it and the other two were elected specifically to find a way to indict Trump, solely because of his political status. 

For sure all of this meets your excessively low moral, constitutional, legal and ethical standards, but it was a basic farce against America's democracy. 

[WestCanMan]

3 hours ago, Rebound said:

You could just read the United States Constitution sometime.  

It's kinda hard to read the constitution now because the Dems, their DOJ, the FBI, and other DNC puppets like judges Merchan, Engoron & Chutkin, DA Bragg, etc have all wiped their arses with it.