- Joined
- Sep 26, 2021
- Posts
- 6,375
- Main Camera
- Sony
They don’t even have to rely on a campaign finance scheme. They appear to have evidence showing the intention was to treat it as a business expense on the corporate taxes.
Indictment
- Thread starter GermanSuplex
- Start date
They don’t even have to rely on a campaign finance scheme. They appear to have evidence showing the intention was to treat it as a business expense on the corporate taxes.
- Joined
- Aug 14, 2020
- Posts
- 4,136
The problem for Trump is that while this may sound anti-climatic, the facts are all there in black and white. Parading people onto the stand as witnesses only reinforces what the documents and records state. They’re probably not even needed, it only reaffirms the facts.
The jury won’t care about how juicy or salacious the story is, nor will Trump’s bravado from a Mar-A-Lago podium mean anything. If Trump has evidence that this is political and not based on the facts of the case, he can make that argument.
Here’s the thing… Trump has operated in two realms, the political and the civil courts. Neither of those are criminal courts, and what works in those areas won’t work for him here.
As for Soros, I don’t see anyone going into any detail about how Bragg is his puppet. By this logic, any conservative judge who ever had any campaign funds that were indirectly tied to them by a Uihlein, a Koch brother, etc, should not be able to preside over any democrat defendant. Yeah, that’s not how this works. This is grandstanding by Trump.
Trump’s biggest donor was Sheldon Adelson. What’s the difference? None. Actually, there may be a difference. Adelson gave directly to the Trump campaign and to his various funds while in office, Soros donated to a group which selects its own candidates to endorse, which in turn endorsed and donated to Bragg.
None of that is relevant here. I’m really tiered of seeing Trump being defended. We’re back to “it wasn’t that bad”, instead of accountability. Is Trump innocent, are these fake charges, or not? If the argument is they should have used their discretion and not brought charges… well, we’re not talking about a guy who wrote off a personal snow blower on his business taxes. If Trump wasn’t a former president, would this case have been brought? The answer is most definitely yes, and probably long before now.
Trump is being singled out, but it’s for special treatment, not persecution.
The jury won’t care about how juicy or salacious the story is, nor will Trump’s bravado from a Mar-A-Lago podium mean anything. If Trump has evidence that this is political and not based on the facts of the case, he can make that argument.
Here’s the thing… Trump has operated in two realms, the political and the civil courts. Neither of those are criminal courts, and what works in those areas won’t work for him here.
As for Soros, I don’t see anyone going into any detail about how Bragg is his puppet. By this logic, any conservative judge who ever had any campaign funds that were indirectly tied to them by a Uihlein, a Koch brother, etc, should not be able to preside over any democrat defendant. Yeah, that’s not how this works. This is grandstanding by Trump.
Trump’s biggest donor was Sheldon Adelson. What’s the difference? None. Actually, there may be a difference. Adelson gave directly to the Trump campaign and to his various funds while in office, Soros donated to a group which selects its own candidates to endorse, which in turn endorsed and donated to Bragg.
None of that is relevant here. I’m really tiered of seeing Trump being defended. We’re back to “it wasn’t that bad”, instead of accountability. Is Trump innocent, are these fake charges, or not? If the argument is they should have used their discretion and not brought charges… well, we’re not talking about a guy who wrote off a personal snow blower on his business taxes. If Trump wasn’t a former president, would this case have been brought? The answer is most definitely yes, and probably long before now.
Trump is being singled out, but it’s for special treatment, not persecution.
Herdfan
Resident Redneck
- Joined
- Jul 8, 2021
- Posts
- 5,595
Sorry but you are going to have to connect the dots better here.
From 2012-2016 Cohen failed to report $4M in income to the IRS. How is that related to him paying off women for Trump?
- Joined
- Aug 14, 2020
- Posts
- 4,136
Because you’re singling out part of what he plead guilty to and not all of it. He literally plead guilty to the feds for pretty much the same thing the Manhattan DA is now charging Trump with.
- Michael Cohen, the former personal lawyer and fixer for President Donald Trump, pleaded guilty on Tuesday to eight counts related to tax fraud, excessive campaign contributions, making false statements to a financial institution, and unlawful corporate contributions at a court hearing in New York on Tuesday.
- Two of the counts that Cohen pleaded guilty to appear to relate to Trump directly.
- Cohen admitted on Tuesday to making payments to two women at the direction of an unidentified candidate for political office who appears to be the president. Those payments, Cohen said, were made to influence the outcome of the election.
Trump's former lawyer Michael Cohen pleads guilty, admits to making illegal payments at direction of candidate to influence election
Cohen came under investigation by federal prosecutors in New York City earlier this year. They had received a referral from special counsel Robert Mueller, who is leading the probe of Russian meddling in the 2016 presidential election.
Herdfan
Resident Redneck
- Joined
- Jul 8, 2021
- Posts
- 5,595
But aren't you do the same thing by emphasizing the parts related to the payments to Daniels while ignoring that he failed to pay his taxes?
What neither of us know, or probably ever will know, is how much weight was put onto each charge.
- Joined
- Aug 11, 2020
- Posts
- 6,217
- Solutions
- 2
Just because he committed multiple crimes doesn’t mean innocence for someone who only committed one of those same crimes. Why can you not understand this?
- Joined
- Aug 10, 2020
- Posts
- 13,147
- Solutions
- 18
- Main Camera
- Sony
Too ridiculous to even argue anymore, Republicans want a special exception because it's Trump and they're making up the craziest logic in order to achieve it.
I'm older but there was once a time when the Republican party stood for law and order and family values. Even if you go back a decade their candidates at least represented it, whether or not we agreed with their policies. Now they're defending the most morally and politically corrupt man we've ever seen. It's sad to see how far they've fallen.
- Joined
- Nov 9, 2021
- Posts
- 4,321
- Main Camera
- iPhone
Spot on. Long ago I was a republican. For me, the last decent and well-qualified (previously a US House member, UN Ambassador, CIA Director, US VP) republican president was GHWB (Bush 1); though I thought his campaign manager, Lee Atwater was pretty awful. Although some of his decisions were poor (nominating Clarence Thomas to the Supreme Court), for the most part he had a pretty good record.
- Joined
- Aug 10, 2020
- Posts
- 13,147
- Solutions
- 18
- Main Camera
- Sony
Agreed, he was a decent man who tried his best to do the right thing. Much like Carter he got caught in a financial crisis during his term and it came back to bite him.
I recently saw an older video with Nixon being interviewed and he sounded pretty sane, even though we know he was corrupt he looks like a boy scout compared to Trump.
- Joined
- Aug 14, 2020
- Posts
- 4,136
I’m emphasizing Trump is charged with virtually the same thing Cohen already plead guilty to. You’re asking about other things Cohen was charged with. I’m focused on the areas that are the same. If two people are charged with robbing a bank, and only one who drove the getaway car is charged with reckless driving, focusing on the driving charge doesn’t absolve the other person of taking part in the bank robbery, especially when their partner was tried and convicted already, and both men are on tape plotting the robbery.
*Some* of their candidates represented it. It’s important to remember Newt Gingrich and Dennis Hastert were Republican speakers of the house and leaders of their party in the 90’s and early aughts. A lot of the Family values and Law/Order stuff was always “binding for thee and protective for me”.
Herdfan
Resident Redneck
- Joined
- Jul 8, 2021
- Posts
- 5,595
I understand completely. And no it isn't.
Did Cohen commit crimes. Yes. Did Trump commit crimes? Yes. I think we all agree on this.
Did Cohen go to jail specifically and solely based on the same crimes Trump committed? We don't know and will probably never know given they were lumped together.
So it is possible Cohen might not have gone to jail based on the same crimes Trump committed. Please explain why this line of reasoning is wrong. Neither of us can prove our point because we simply don't have all the facts. I will say Cohen faced Federal Charges on this and the DOJ declined to prosecute Trump for the same Federal Charges. Can anyone explain why?
I personally think it was a combination of his "No new taxes" pledge that he broke and Clinton being a new type of Democrat that appealed to suburbanites.
While ignoring other crimes Cohen was charged with.
Let's use your example, but take it down a notch. Two people walk into a store and shoplift a few items. One gets in a car and speeds away hitting a pedestrian. That person is charged with 1) vehiclular manslaughter and 2) shoplifting and is sentenced to 10 years. Should the other go to jail as well for the same amount of time because they shoplifted as well?
- Joined
- Aug 15, 2020
- Posts
- 8,431
Could be wrong, but wasn’t this happening while he was still President? And for whatever reason, we can’t attempt to prosecute Presidents while they are still in office. And I think we really need to be honest here, Trump would most likely not be facing anything if he just got out of politics and stopped running his mouth on these issues once out of office. He’s really pressed his luck on his multitude of privileges he’s enjoyed most of his life. I can’t think of anybody who has more deserved enemies than he does, many of whom lack the integrity and spine to admit they’ll be among the first in line to dance on his grave. I don’t get the mentality that the more enemies somebody has the less they should be held accountable for their actions.
I can’t think of a single politician that I feel is above investigation or being put on trial if enough evidence is there. If it was somebody I agreed with on most things that got found guilty I would be extremely disappointed in them but would realize they are just one person and not one person is the savior of everything. Move on and hope for better.
Actually it’s even worse. This is the stuff the Trump DOJ deliberately spiked (replacing the federal attorneys with Trump sycophants) all while telling NY not to pursue charges along these lines because they were going to. As to what the Feds will charge him with is anybody’s guess at this point but any charges may wait until the Jan 6th investigation results in charges or not.
- Joined
- Aug 15, 2020
- Posts
- 8,431
More honesty, when it comes to the presidency and those directly related the DOJ has spiked it for most of its history. Trump has just really pushed it with his incessant “Remember me?!? Yeah, I did that and I plan to do worse!”. And while partisan TV pundits might not state this, I believe a lot of people feel the DOJ should go after every living politician regardless of party and there’s no whataboutism hostage trade. Go after all of them on the merits of the evidence and case. We’d probably have to build a new prison just to house all the war criminal politicians.
- Joined
- Aug 14, 2020
- Posts
- 4,136
No.
And your example is moot, because the question should be “should both be charged with shoplifting”, and the answer is “yes”.
You’re arguing against yourself. This is circular. You brought up Cohen’s taxes, then asked me to point out how the cases were similar, so I did, by showing essentially THR EXACT same things Cohen plead guilty to. If Cohen had also been charged with illegal u-turn, I would ignore that charge as well, because it’s not related to what we’re discussing.
Herdfan
Resident Redneck
- Joined
- Jul 8, 2021
- Posts
- 5,595
- Joined
- Aug 15, 2020
- Posts
- 8,431
This seems like a RICO situation and when a good amount of your “best people” end up in court or prison it really doesn’t take a genius to find the common denominator.
- Joined
- Aug 11, 2020
- Posts
- 6,217
- Solutions
- 2
Yes. And because his nibs won’t be able to cooperate in order to bring down a “bigger fish,” and the pandemic is somewhat controlled, he should have to serve out the entire sentence, whereas Cohen didn’t.
Herdfan
Resident Redneck
- Joined
- Jul 8, 2021
- Posts
- 5,595
No they shouldn't. Not in the case of Cohen/Trump or my hypothetical.
Cohen's case included tax evasion that had zero to do with Trump. So why should their sentences be the same?
I think some of you need to prepare yourselves that Trump may not spend a day in prison over this.
