-->
@FLRW
and?
34 Felony Counts Guilty
Posts
Total:
400
-->
@Double_R
If I was such an easy opponent that you thought you could beat again you wouldn’t be here 3 years later still bragging about it.
That…make zero sense lol
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
and?
Didn’t the judge refuse to allow evidence that Trump never took a tax deduction for that?
-->
@ILikePie5
and?Didn’t the judge refuse to allow evidence that Trump never took a tax deduction for that?
Aren't we already 10,000 km below the surface of the clown ocean if we're asking about evidence of innocence instead of evidence of guilt? If the guilt of Trump relied on claiming a tax exemption (and it would be his accountant not him, that's why people hire licensed accountants), then shouldn't the prosecution have to prove that an exemption was claimed?
"Uncharged crime that Trump lawyers have to prove never happened but aren't allowed to" <- AN ABOMINATION UNTO LAW AND ORDER
I'd point out that it would violate the ex post facto principle to charge Trump with breaking a law that hadn't been passed yet, but that would hardly matter to people who don't care if a crime was charged would it?
Donald Trump in 2016 called for his likely Democratic rival Hillary Clinton to be imprisoned.
“I will say this, Hillary Clinton has got to go to jail,” Trump told supporters here as he slammed Clinton’s foreign policy speech earlier in the day in which Clinton called Trump dangerous and “unfit" to be president.
“Folks, honestly, she’s guilty as hell,” Trump said of the Clinton’s use of a private email server during her time as secretary of state.
Trump has previously accused Clinton of breaking federal law, but his comments in 2016 are his most direct call yet for Clinton to face jail time over her use of private email to conduct official State Department affairs.
-->
@FLRW
Gish away into the sunset buddy.
For example, this is what losing the debate looks like. Tries to make a point, pretends it wasn't just obliterated. If he was Double_R he'd be back saying the same thing in five posts.
Goldfish memory would be an insult to goldfish because goldfish aren't doing it on purpose.
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
I'm calling for Trump to be imprisoned.
OMG, I think like a Trump!
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
A non-disclosure agreement (NDA) is a legallybinding contract that requires parties to keep certain information confidential. NDAs are also known as confidentiality agreements, confidentiality disclosure agreements, or secrecy agreements.
What does this have to do with what I just pointed out?
-->
@ILikePie5
That…make zero sense lol
If you’re still bragging about beating someone in a debate 3 years later, you clearly don’t see them as someone beneath your level. Setting the childishness aside of course.
-->
@Double_R
If you’re still bragging about beating someone in a debate 3 years later, you clearly don’t see them as someone beneath your level. Setting the childishness aside of course.
That’s…obviously not true. You’re beneath my level…which is why I beat you :)
-->
@ILikePie5
The judge refused to allow a ton of exculpatory evidence, including expert witnesses defining what a campaign finance violation was. (the entire reason why a misdemeanor could be elevated to a felony)
The judge basically be like Judge Dredd: "I AM THE LAW!!"
-->
@ILikePie5
@Double_R
Guys, why are you talking about a debate that was 3 years ago? It was just one debate. It tells nothing about debating skills after those 3 years. So yeah, either have a new debate either stop milking the one that was so long ago.
So, are you going to have a new debate or not?
-->
@ILikePie5
That’s…obviously not true. You’re beneath my level…which is why I beat you :)
Right… bragging 3 years later about beating someone beneath your level… ok bro
-->
@Best.Korea
Guys, why are you talking about a debate that was 3 years ago?
Why are you directing this at me? I’m responding to the fact that he loves to bring it up
-->
@Double_R
I just want you guys to focus on present and future. This focusing on distant past is really not what debating is about. I know you are just responding, but I think its bad to even respond to that.
-->
@Double_R
The point was: You are a in a cult.A non-disclosure agreement (NDA) is a legallybinding contract that requires parties to keep certain information confidential. NDAs are also known as confidentiality agreements, confidentiality disclosure agreements, or secrecy agreements.What does this have to do with what I just pointed out?
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
The point was: You are a in a cult.
But you never made that point, you just shouted it.
You claimed Trumps payment to Cohen was a valid legal expense. I pointed out the huge hole in your story - that the $130k wasn’t for Cohen’s services, it was to shut Stormy up. That’s not a legal expense. You came back with “here’s what an NDA is”.
So again, what does your response have to do with the conversation?
-->
@Double_R
True or false, do legal NDA's "shut people up"
There is only one non-cultish answer here.
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
Non-Disclosure Agreements (NDAs) are legal contracts commonly used to protect sensitive information and trade secrets. While NDAs can impose legal obligations on parties to keep certain information confidential, their effectiveness in "shutting people up" depends on various factors, including the enforceability of the agreement, the willingness of parties to abide by its terms, and the consequences for breaching the agreement.
Here are some points to consider regarding NDAs and their effectiveness:
1. **Legal Obligations:** NDAs create legally binding obligations for parties not to disclose confidential information covered by the agreement. If someone breaches the terms of an NDA by disclosing confidential information without authorization, they may be subject to legal action for breach of contract.
2. **Enforceability:** The enforceability of an NDA depends on several factors, including the clarity of its terms, the jurisdiction where it is enforced, and whether the information being protected qualifies as confidential and trade secret. In some cases, courts may invalidate NDAs if they are overly broad, unreasonable, or contrary to public policy.
3. **Deterrent Effect:** NDAs can serve as a deterrent against unauthorized disclosure of confidential information by making individuals aware of the legal consequences for breaching the agreement. Knowing that they could face legal action for violating the terms of the NDA may discourage individuals from disclosing sensitive information.
4. **Remedies for Breach:** If someone breaches an NDA, the aggrieved party may seek legal remedies such as injunctive relief (an order to stop the unauthorized disclosure) and monetary damages (compensation for any harm caused by the breach). These remedies can incentivize compliance with the NDA's terms.
5. **Practical Considerations:** Despite the legal protections provided by NDAs, enforcing them in practice can be challenging, particularly if the disclosing party is located in a different jurisdiction or lacks the resources to pursue legal action. Additionally, the reputational damage caused by breaching an NDA may deter some individuals from disclosing confidential information.
In summary, while NDAs can provide legal protections for confidential information, their effectiveness in "shutting people up" depends on a combination of legal, practical, and deterrent factors.
-->
@Double_R
that the $130k wasn’t for Cohen’s services, it was to shut Stormy up.
Via a legal contract negotiated by a lawyer as a lawyer.
That’s not a legal expense.
Says the cultist
So again, what does your response have to do with the conversation?
Only a cultist would try to gaslight people into thinking that a legal agreement executed by paying a lawyer isn't a "legal expense"
Next up buying concrete from a concrete mixing company through a general contractor and labeling it "building expense" will be something that "everybody" knows is false labeling.
There is no tax category for "defrauding the voter by doing something hundreds of thousands of others including tens of thousands of politicians have done". You won't find it in quick-books or any other accounting software.
You know that, but you're a cultist; so you gaslight.
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
that the $130k wasn’t for Cohen’s services, it was to shut Stormy up.Via a legal contract negotiated by a lawyer as a lawyer.
The fact that Trump paid $130k to shut Stormy up ‘via a legal contract’ doesn’t change the fact that he paid $130k to shut Stormy up.
Unless you are going to argue that Stormy is a lawyer and the act of her shutting up is a legal service, that’s not what that means so long as we’re both speaking English.
If I hand my attorney $100k to put in escrow account as a down payment on a house, that $100k is part of the purchase price. I don’t get to write that $100k off as “legal services”.
If I order a pizza and the pizza guy shows up at my door, I hand him $30, he hands me the pizza and goes on his way… I didn’t pay $30 for delivery services. I paid for a pizza with a small portion of that money counting as delivery services.
This is really basic common sense.
Only a cultist would try to gaslight people into thinking that a legal agreement executed by paying a lawyer isn't a "legal expense"
“I know you are but what am I?” Worked in third grade.
You’re the one who suddenly can’t tell the difference between paying for a service and paying for the thing that service brought to you. Before Trump everyone knew this, suddenly it’s too complicated. That’s what being in a cult looks like.
So so far we have
Turning in documents to law enforcement without being asked = lying, concealing, and obstructing the efforts by law enforcement to get them back.
And now:
Paying $130k to a porn star through your lawyer = paying $130k for legal services rendered.
Whatever we need it to be to appease the dear leader, that’s what it is. This is what being in a cult looks like.
-->
@Greyparrot
True or false, do legal NDA's "shut people up"
Trump is the one who paid for it so ask him. It’s completely irrelevant to this conversation.
-->
@Double_R
that the $130k wasn’t for Cohen’s services, it was to shut Stormy up.Via a legal contract negotiated by a lawyer as a lawyer.The fact that Trump paid $130k to shut Stormy up ‘via a legal contract’ doesn’t change the fact that he paid $130k to shut Stormy up.
That's not a fact. If it was it would not be a fact that contradicts with the label "legal expenses" describing money paid to a lawyer to negotiate and execute a legal agreement.
Unless you are going to argue that Stormy is a lawyer and the act of her shutting up is a legal service
Negotiating with her and then paying her as part of a NDA is a legal expense.
that’s not what that means so long as we’re both speaking English.
Cultist gaslighters don't control the language.
If I hand my attorney $100k to put in escrow account as a down payment on a house, that $100k is part of the purchase price. I don’t get to write that $100k off as “legal services”.
Taxes have nothing to do with whether the description of the payment is false.
If I order a pizza and the pizza guy shows up at my door, I hand him $30, he hands me the pizza and goes on his way… I didn’t pay $30 for delivery services. I paid for a pizza with a small portion of that money counting as delivery services.
If Cohen is the pizza guy, the NDA is the Pizza. NDAs are legal expenses on their own.
Then the description is "Pizza expenses" and it is substantially accurate.
This is really basic common sense.
Your gaslighting is utterly disgusting.
Filthy.
Vile.
I've given you far far too much respect before now.
“I know you are but what am I?” Worked in third grade.
Projecting cultist
You’re the one who suddenly can’t tell the difference between paying for a service and paying for the thing that service brought to you. Before Trump everyone knew this, suddenly it’s too complicated. That’s what being in a cult looks like.
Gaslighting cultist
Turning in documents to law enforcement without being asked = lying, concealing, and obstructing the efforts by law enforcement to get them back.
Lying cultist.
Paying $130k to a porn star through your lawyer = paying $130k for legal services rendered.
Coping cultist.
Whatever we need it to be to appease the dear leader, that’s what it is. This is what being in a cult looks like.
2 minutes of hate from a cultist.
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
2 minutes of hate from a cultist.
My favorite Orwellian reference.
-->
@Best.Korea
Guys, why are you talking about a debate that was 3 years ago? It was just one debate. It tells nothing about debating skills after those 3 years. So yeah, either have a new debate either stop milking the one that was so long ago.So, are you going to have a new debate or not?
A dub is a dub, especially against a blabbermouth. Also I only debated cause I was bored and in the middle of a snowstorm with school being closed
-->
@Double_R
Right… bragging 3 years later about beating someone beneath your level… ok bro
It’s more so to prove you were wrong and to tell ADreamOfLiberty of when it’s worth talking to you
The reason we know nothing of these jurors is because the judge went to great lengths to protect their identities.
Yes, I know how jury trials work.
There’s nothing to glean from that, so all we do have is the credibility of the process itself which has been revered around the world for centuries.
The process as it's worked for centuries is no reliable indicator for this case. Never has there been so strong a unanimous motive from so many diverse actors to make sure the defendant gets convicted.
The burden to positively prove a conspiracy theory only exists when there's no environment that strongly incentivizes said conspiracies. We currently live in such an environment. The DA staked his entire public reputation, and possible reelection chances, on Trump going to jail. Liberals in general, due to years of oligarch conditioning, tend to feel incredible distress at the thought of Trump being President again and would make moral compromises they wouldn't otherwise make in the pursuit of "defending" themselves and the country against him. This applies to the jurors, the judge, and countless other people who had any degree of influence over the trial.
(And in hindsight yes, there is apparently some evidence that would throw the verdict into question. Like the judge giving jury instructions which downplayed Trump's right to the presumption that he had no criminal motive [necessary for his conviction IIRC] until proven that he did. I don't remember the exact details; I read an article by the National Review yesterday explaining this, but I've maxed out my 5 free articles so I can't read it again today. Perhaps I'll try again tomorrow.)
-->
@Swagnarok
2 things to consider:
1) Cohen stole thousands of dollars from Trump and in court he admitted he did so. He also vowed publicly to do "whatever it takes" to put Trump in jail for "what he did to him."
2) Clifford owes Trump 500,000 in a court order that she vowed to defy.
But somehow it's Trump that is "above the law"
-->
@Greyparrot
Which is overwhelming evidence that Trump was not personally aware of the details of Cohen's spending much less the architect of them.1) Cohen stole thousands of dollars from Trump and in court he admitted he did so
But somehow it's Trump that is "above the law"
It's not mentally possible for a healthy mind to overlook hypocrisy of this magnitude. That's how you know they aren't healthy.
For a long time TDS was a joke, an exaggeration to describe a severe bias.
It is no longer a joke, this is a mental illness. These people are a danger to themselves and others.
In a 2019 Congress hearing, Cohen described being intoxicated by Trump’s charisma in the early days of their work together. Now, he said, he understood Trump was an unkind, disloyal man in whom “the bad far outweighs the good’”.
Trump said black people were “too stupid” to vote for him and remarked during a drive through a poor area of Chicago that “only black people could live that way,” according to Cohen. “He once asked me if I could name a country run by a black person that wasn’t a ‘shithole’,” Cohen said.
Trump said black people were “too stupid” to vote for him and remarked during a drive through a poor area of Chicago that “only black people could live that way,” according to Cohen. “He once asked me if I could name a country run by a black person that wasn’t a ‘shithole’,” Cohen said.