- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Winter Olympics
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Let’s assume the jury got it right.
Posted on 5/31/24 at 2:54 pm to UncleFestersLegs
Posted on 5/31/24 at 2:54 pm to UncleFestersLegs
quote:
But lawfare is a myth
Straw man.
"Lawfare" is malleable and without a unifying definition/use
quote:
the prosecutor said he was guilty but too stupid to stand trial.
Perfect example of the malleability
1
Posted on 5/31/24 at 2:55 pm to deeprig9
quote:
Preventing his brand from being defamed is a valid business expense.
Keeping it OFF the books might have been fine. Maybe not very enforceable though.
But when you:
*set up a shell company to make this payoff between 2 parties under false names
*reimburse the attorney in a way that creates a tax advantage
*where each check was disguised as a payment for legal services rendered in a given month pursuant to a retainer agreement
*when the payment records, kept and maintained by the Trump Organization, were false New York business records.
* when in truth, there was no retainer agreement, and Cohen was not being paid for legal services rendered
* AND Trump caused his entities’ business records to be falsified to disguise his and others’ criminal conduct...
it gets a little cloudy, wouldn't you say?
This post was edited on 5/31/24 at 3:03 pm
Posted on 5/31/24 at 2:58 pm to SlowFlowPro
Do you at least agree that this whole thing is political to either (a) stop him from running or (b) stop him from winning the election?
Can you at least admit that this is all politically motivated and not some righteous search for justice?
Can you at least admit that this is all politically motivated and not some righteous search for justice?
Posted on 5/31/24 at 2:59 pm to dgnx6
quote:
So trump pays a legal fee and he’s a felon, but 10% to the big guy using aliases and multi channels to exchange funds from foreign countries is totally legal.
It wasn't a legal fee.
And frick Joe Biden!
Posted on 5/31/24 at 3:19 pm to OysterPoBoy
quote:
What should he have done?
The money paid to Clifford by Cohen should've been declared to the FEC as an in kind campaign contribution.
That's where this all stems from.
If that happens Cohen can either be reimbursed or not, but then there's no need to make up phoney legal payments to cover it. The campaign can simply pay him back.
There were a litany of other offenses that went along with this that Trump had knowledge of an arguably involvement in. Particularly the court filings regarding Clifford which denied that a certain man we now know is Trump had sexual relations with her - while asking for the tangible evidence of those relations to be returned (Micheal Cohen was not a genius).
It's not spoken about in places like this, but there's a reason Trump initially refused to sign his Ethics disclosures in the first year of his presidency. It's because the FEC filings were wrong because he was making arrangements to pay Cohen under the table.
For those that do remember, Giuliani was the one who really fricked up. When he went on Hannity and said they "Funneled the money to Cohen" - posters here celebrated it as 4D chess, but he went on TV and confessed to a fricking crime on behalf of his client.
Posted on 5/31/24 at 3:41 pm to HoopsAurora
She came out awhile back and said that letter was fake and it wasn't her signature.
Posted on 5/31/24 at 4:16 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:Irrelevant. The question you meant to ask is how could they prosecute an unarmed felon if, in another jurisdiction, he intended to carry a firearm.
So how can they prosecute felons for possession a firearm if that felony conviction was in federal court?
Posted on 5/31/24 at 4:18 pm to OysterPoBoy
STFU commie
Posted on 5/31/24 at 4:19 pm to OysterPoBoy
Let’s assume your trans gf had affair with you mom. 
Posted on 5/31/24 at 4:23 pm to Willie Stroker
quote:The traditional US premise is innocent until proven guilty.
when there is an attempt to conceal a crime
The "crime" you're referencing was one Trump was never even charged with, much less convicted. There was no criminal complaint, much less, proven guilt.
So he MUST, BY LAW, BE PRESUMED INNOCENT of said "crime."
Posted on 5/31/24 at 4:46 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:The only way that works is if we concomitantly assume the POS judge got it completely wrong in his instructions. You don't seem to be making that assumption.
We are ignoring the assumption of the OP, though.
quote:
Let’s assume the jury got it right
Posted on 5/31/24 at 4:52 pm to OysterPoBoy
I think we can all agree, at the very least, that the jury got it right.
Posted on 5/31/24 at 4:53 pm to OysterPoBoy
quote:yes it was.
Paying her to not talk wasn’t illegal.
if he was not running for president then it's not illegal.
if he's running for president and pays her so the story doesn't come out to affect his chances at the presidency...that is illegal.
hate it all you want the law is the law.
Posted on 5/31/24 at 4:53 pm to NC_Tigah
quote:
The "crime" you're referencing was one Trump was never even charged with, much less convicted. There was no criminal complaint, much less, proven guilt.
So, like a conspiracy?
quote:
So he MUST, BY LAW, BE PRESUMED INNOCENT of said "crime."
Your assumption is that he has to be convicted of that crime and he does (nor has) not
Again, like a conspiracy, or attempt.
Posted on 5/31/24 at 5:00 pm to NC_Tigah
quote:
The only way that works is if we concomitantly assume the POS judge got it completely wrong in his instructions.
Even if he did, the case isn't over. They will re-try Trump
Posted on 5/31/24 at 5:04 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:Why did he choose not to prosecute after saying potato broke the law? Why did Corey do the same? Why is jack Smith moving forward when neither of those prosecutors chose to?
the prosecutor said he was guilty but too stupid to stand trial.
Perfect example of the malleability
Posted on 5/31/24 at 5:05 pm to TheRouxGuru
quote:
Let’s assume the jury got it right.by TheRouxGuru
Do you at least agree that this whole thing is political
He's already agreed the judge is a partisan hack. He just doesn't care
Posted on 5/31/24 at 5:11 pm to UncleFestersLegs
quote:
Why did he choose not to prosecute after saying potato broke the law?
His justification was the mental issues of Biden.
quote:
Why is jack Smith moving forward when neither of those prosecutors chose to?
Jack Smith is moving forward against Biden?
Or are you bringing up a non-related situation without stating the transition?
Posted on 5/31/24 at 5:14 pm to SlowFlowPro
Flo what’s the extent of your criminal law practice experience? Most particularly in say the past five years? Just curious. Could be an everyday thing for you as far as I know, but I do think it’s a relevant question.
Posted on 5/31/24 at 5:17 pm to davyjones
I have (effectively) won jury trials in the criminal sphere. Lesser included Misdemeanors shouldn't count.
I have done lots of civil appellate work but no criminal appellate work. So no litigation past the trial portion. Although my mentor taught me if you go to trial it means you failed as an attorney (this doesn't apply to PDOs, obviously)
I have done lots of civil appellate work but no criminal appellate work. So no litigation past the trial portion. Although my mentor taught me if you go to trial it means you failed as an attorney (this doesn't apply to PDOs, obviously)
This post was edited on 5/31/24 at 5:18 pm
Page 7 of 10
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News