Only the smartest people can pull off Marxism properly.
Why was trump convicted of fraud? Just because, apparently
Posts
Total:
71
[FLRW] I'm guessing researchers a 1000 years from now reviewing these posts will see that me and Best.Korea were the smartest people here.
@1000 year descendants, you see what we had to deal with? Don't take it for granted. You're welcome.
For a laugh, read the New York Times’s supposedly searching account of the Justice Department’s decision to pursue Mr. Trump for Jan. 6 crimes. After failing to find the expected financial or other ties between the Trump circle and Jan. 6 rioters, “the department’s leadership had no alternative but to steer the investigation into choppy, uncharted waters: They shifted focus to election fraud.”
Notice the words “had no alternative.” Actually the department had an alternative, which any agency has when an investigation doesn’t pan out: End the investigation.
“Trump’s Conviction and Biden’s Worst Decision” - WSJ
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
I'm too lazy to look back at the data, but would you happen to have a running count of Supreme Court decisions Biden defied compared to the number Trump defied?
-->
@Greyparrot
Hard to count Biden's but Trump's is zero if I recall. Plenty of opportunity though, federal courts blocked many of his attempts to secure the border.
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
It's so hard to keep track of who is above the law.
-->
@Sidewalker
Nonsense, the jury unanimously agreed that Trump was guilty of committing 34 specific cases of fraud with the intent to defraud the American people by concealing information about the character and conduct of a presidential candidate.
you can fact check me, but my understanding is that they couldn't agree on what fraud was committed, just that there was fraud.
also, you dont cite the law that hiding info about the election is fraud. a lot of those election laws, are that a person can't get financial gain for an election if it's not disclosed publically. that's what the issue was with the ukraine controversy for trump and the election. the problem, is that calling 'hiding hush money' a financial gain is tenuous at best.
you are being like all the trump haters... citing vague references to laws, and vague references to what supposedly was the crime here. basically, like all those haters, you speak a lot, without really saying anything.
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
the intent to defraud the American people by concealing information about the character and conduct of a presidential candidate.
Cool, so now we can put all of the FBI in jail for censoring Facebook, YouTube, and Twitter. Right next to Hitler himself.
This is today's rule of "law"....
-->
@Greyparrot
Did you know that Hilary used campaign money to fund the fabrication of the steel dossier and mislabeled the spending?
Sounds kind of familiar doesn't it? Well except for an NDA being legal and fabricating defamatory material being a major civil liability. Oh and the using donation money instead of your own.
OOOHHHHH YEA and the part where those "no one is above the law" parrots don't give a shit.
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
zero people are going to jail for suppressing the 2020 laptop.
Judge Merchan isn't going to jail for suppressing exculpatory evidence.
-->
@Greyparrot
There is always tomorrow. The rules no longer exist. Statutes of limitation are bumps in the road.
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
I guess might makes write...as in rewriting the law....
-->
@Greyparrot
We will need to find some expert gas lighters. Not everyone can do what these people do when they act like you're an idiot for remembering how "the law worked" 5 minutes ago.
Of course it helps that they use their own crimes as inspiration for their accusations.
-->
@n8nrgim
you can fact check me, but my understanding is that they couldn't agree on what fraud was committed, just that there was fraud.
There is no evidence the jury “couldn’t agree” on what fraud was committed, and the fact that they unanimously agreed on all 34 counts suggests the opposite.
The law does not require the jury to agree, that is an entirely different thing.
also, you dont cite the law that hiding info about the election is fraud.
[Double_R] The law does not require the jury to agree, that is an entirely different thing.
'Jury unanimity has never been a requirement. It's always been that way. That's just how the law works.'
rofl
Yeah. Which is why the polls are the way they are.
I thought MAGA MORONS didn’t believe the polls. They’re run by the Deep State you know.
Lol yeah, Biden is winning. He can go take a nap now.
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
[Double_R] The law does not require the jury to agree, that is an entirely different thing.'Jury unanimity has never been a requirement. It's always been that way. That's just how the law works.'
Strawmanning is the tell of someone who not only isn’t interested in reality, but also knows they are losing the argument. It’s why you are so proficient at it.
-->
@Double_R
Thanks for the input cultist
-->
@Double_R
you can fact check me, but my understanding is that they couldn't agree on what fraud was committed, just that there was fraud.There is no evidence the jury “couldn’t agree” on what fraud was committed, and the fact that they unanimously agreed on all 34 counts suggests the opposite.The law does not require the jury to agree, that is an entirely different thing.also, you dont cite the law that hiding info about the election is fraud.
even the link you provided seems to suggest that they didn't agree on what fraud was committed, just that there was fraud. just because they agreed there was fraud and got him on thirty four counts doesn't prove your point, necessarily.
also you didn't provide a statement about what the election law was violated, or make a statement of what the law actually is, you just cited a link. that's a gray parrot move right there, and i know you dont like it when he does that. i couldn't find the relevant law in the link either, so maybe you could try again
even if the election law was not disclosing a financial gain, and the jury agreed that was unlawful, it's still a cheap move to call hiding hush money a 'financial gain'.
you basically said a lot in your post, without saying barely anything at all.
-->
@n8nrgim
Election fraud.
Are you clueless/ignorant of the facts surrounding the specifics of this case, or just........? Looking to get a rise out others, as a few do around here without any logical common sense critical thinking in the thread topic or in their twisting concepts into what there actually not.
Are you clueless/ignorant of the facts surrounding the specifics of this case, or just........? Looking to get a rise out others, as a few do around here without any logical common sense critical thinking in the thread topic or in their twisting concepts into what there actually not.
-->
@ebuc
you just said a lot without saying anything, congratulations. an actual argument is when you use facts and law and actual arguments. calling people ignorant and not having an argument... just makes you look ignorant yourself. good job with that. i'm not going to respond to you until you use actual logic next time.
That link shows each if the 34 counts. They all have to do with falsifying business records, nothing about fraud or a felony. It still looks like a legal leap to get him for a felony, and the more u look into the more it seems that way. Yall trying to argue with me keep making bare assertions... it honestly looks super ignorant
-->
@n8nrgim
More ignorant than you asking this forum, where there is nary a lawyer to be found, and maybe five active posters, to explain it to you, rather than doing more than surface level research on your own? Fraud is a crime. In service of another crime, it's a felony. In this case it's against the law to try to win an election through dishonest means (like if you faked your birth certificate). Whether or not you think that's a good law or not, it's the law in the state of NY, where the coverup and fraud were being committed. A jury found he broke the law to cover up more breaking of the law, ergo it's a felony.
-->
@ludofl3x
I've done a reasonable amount of research. I asked others to do the same if they are going to argue with me. Instead, all I see are empty assertions. Thats both for those pro trump and anti trump. More humility would seem fitting. I admit I could be wrong, but nothing seems to indicate that that's the case. I admit a jury found him guilty of a felony but my reasearch indicates that all they agreed on was that there was a felony, not the details. Ive done enough research to conclude its a witch hunt. All I see the anti trump people do is bare assert that a jury found him guilty of a felony and that that's all that matters
-->
@n8nrgim
i'm not going to respond to you until you use actual logic next time
Please educate yourself on the facts election of election fraud specific to hush money case. Or not.
Lead a horse to water.........
-->
@ludofl3x
roflIn this case it's against the law to try to win an election through dishonest means
Whether or not you think that's a good law or not, it's the law in the state of NY
I don't think such a law exists. You should do more surface level research.
even the link you provided seems to suggest that they didn't agree on what fraud was committed, just that there was fraud.
The link doesn’t address whether they agreed on what the fraud was because it has nothing to do with the jury’s deliberation. It was a link to a Forbes article explaining the laws he is accused of violating and how they work with regards to these specific charges. Is that not what you started this thread asking for?
Why would you ask me to prove to you what the jury concluded apart from the verdict when there isn’t a single publicly available source out there on that?
also you didn't provide a statement about what the election law was violated, or make a statement of what the law actually is, you just cited a link. that's a gray parrot move right there, and i know you dont like it when he does that.
The article goes through each of them and even names the federal law at the center of the case. If you couldn’t find it it’s because you didn’t read it.
even if the election law was not disclosing a financial gain, and the jury agreed that was unlawful, it's still a cheap move to call hiding hush money a 'financial gain'.
It has nothing to do with not disclosing a financial gain. It’s about the fact that the payment to Stormy Daniels was a campaign contribution, which means it was subject to public disclosure. That’s how campaign finance laws work because if you’re running for public office the people have a right to know what money is coming in and out of your campaign so they can see and judge for themselves who you might be beholden to.
But Trump decided we wouldn’t get to know about the money being spent here to get him elected, so he falsified his business records to ensure we would never know about them. That’s crime #1 - falsification of documents, with the intent to commit crime #2 - the concealment of a campaign donation.
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
Thanks for the input cultist
lol
Your constant and repetitive usage of the word cultist is so hilarious. You are really triggered by that aren’t you?
-->
@Double_R
In this case Trump would be beholden to Trump.if you’re running for public office the people have a right to know what money is coming in and out of your campaign so they can see and judge for themselves who you might be beholden to.
What horrific revelation that would be!
You are really triggered by that aren’t you?
I'm definitely triggered by people like you trying to put me and the sane population of the world through struggle sessions.