MEJHarrison
Site Champ
You should be more careful just casually tossing out facts like that. I've heard tales of that sort of language annoying some people.
The Trump Indictment Thread
- Thread starter GermanSuplex
- Start date
You should be more careful just casually tossing out facts like that. I've heard tales of that sort of language annoying some people.
- Posts
- 7,713
- Reaction score
- 12,134
I appreciate somebody who provides a good concise list of facts. There’s far too many “[insert party/politician here] is ruining the country!” statements that are followed by zero further detail and the media just lets that slide. People should be alarmed by the amount of felons in Trump’s inner circle and ear.
MEJHarrison
Site Champ
Sorry, I was just having fun with this comment from a couple pages back:
"I’m annoyed with the predicable thrust from the left calling Trump a convicted felon… as if most of us had not recognized Trump’s moral shortcomings."
Trust me, I'm on the "he's a convicted felon" side on the argument. Regardless of who is or isn't going through the denial stage. But in an effort not to be a dick, I'd be happy to call him an "Official criminal scumbag" or a "Certified liar and cheat" or any other phrase that gets across the point that he's now officially a convicted felon. That's not an insult, but a valid and correct description of his state in life. The facts are what they are. You might as well be upset that the sky is blue.
Herdfan
Resident Redneck
- Posts
- 4,960
- Reaction score
- 3,850
That is unknowable.
What I do know is that even if Trump had made the payment to Stormy a line item in his FEC financial disclosures that said "I screwed a porn star and I am paying her $130K to keep quiet about it", based on the timing of the payment (October 27th), it would have not been part of his reporting until late November, which is AFTER the election.
So even if he had done everything 100% above board, it would not have been disclosed prior to the election.
To address your question, I have no idea if it would have leaked anyway.
But to follow up, what do you think this case was about?
Did you buy the gold shoes?
- Posts
- 3,009
- Reaction score
- 7,222
We just had a whole trial…
You yourself spoke in reference to prosecutor Willis, saying "Appearance of impropriety." In her case, she will probably be allowed to continue with the case as she made no concerted effort to hide her activities.
Often, a misdeed may be minor, but if you go to great lengths to hide and deny it, you get in more trouble than if you had just owned up. Sometimes an action may even be technically legal, but if you strive to keep it secret, violating other laws in the process, the original act becomes amplified by your coverup. It almost does not matter whatsoever the law or ethic was that Individual-ONE ran afoul of, merely the fact that he ran so hard away from it.
Perhaps the greatest irony here is that the appeals process will be dragged out. It could happen that an appeal exonerates him or throws out the verdict on some technicality, but as long as the appeal is pending, he continues to be a convicted felon.
You are being way too generous here.
Agree. It may mostly have been inexperience to start with, but it should have quickly been obvious to Cannon that she was in way over her head. Most well-meaning professionals would have sought advice soon thereafter, but I think Cannon figured she could just keep slow-walking the case and eventually be rewarded by Trump somehow.
If this plan had not been orchestrated, the story would have been all over the front page news. Hence the plan…an illegal plan.
Herdfan
Resident Redneck
- Posts
- 4,960
- Reaction score
- 3,850
Nope. Paying hush money is not illegal as long as both parties are in agreement.
- Posts
- 3,914
- Reaction score
- 9,562
- Main Camera
- iPhone
Regarding the Florida classified documents trial...
An assessment of Judge Cannon by attorneys who've come before her:
"They also said Cannon’s lack of trial experience, both as a lawyer and a judge, is apparent. In her seven years as a Justice Department attorney, Cannon participated on the trial teams of just four criminal cases. And on the bench, she’s only presided over a handful of criminal trials – and Huck took over one of them."
A good read:
An assessment of Judge Cannon by attorneys who've come before her:
"They also said Cannon’s lack of trial experience, both as a lawyer and a judge, is apparent. In her seven years as a Justice Department attorney, Cannon participated on the trial teams of just four criminal cases. And on the bench, she’s only presided over a handful of criminal trials – and Huck took over one of them."
A good read:
- Posts
- 3,009
- Reaction score
- 7,222
Part of the plan was keeping the story quiet.. nobody said that was illegal. The point is, he did it wrong… illegally. It’s not illegal to buy a car. It’s illegal to buy a car with my work’s money and then lie on my business records to hide the fact I purchased a car. Had I purchased a car with my own money, it’s legal and people may or may not care, but at least I followed the law.
It was a campaign contribution. It was handled illegally. He lied and broke the law, many times, falsified his business records. All in an effort so that you would not find out. Which is odd, since as he stated back then, he could do whatever he wanted and not lose any votes. So he should have let the story run, or let David Pecker handle the story, or wrote her a personal check, seems billionaire who was claiming to self-finance a campaign could do that. Or, just go on stage and brag that he porked a porn star while cheating with his wife. It’s not like his voters would have cared. Maybe it would have enticed some stay at home republicans to get to the polls on Election Day, everything this creep does endears him more to his followers.
Anyways, we had a whole trial where this stuff was spelled out in fine detail, the best he can hope for is some rich white privilege legal technicality than none of us are privy to, or if it makes its way to his highly conflicted Supreme Court upside-down flag-waving justices.
Here’s a bunch of people not named Trump who have been convicted for similar but usually less-serious crimes. And I’m sure many of them were given more time than Trump will get if he gets any time at all, and I also bet none of them would have avoided a night (or a week or a month) in county jail for continuously violating gag orders.
Last edited:
Herdfan
Resident Redneck
- Posts
- 4,960
- Reaction score
- 3,850
Actually, several posters on here seem to think that was what the issue was.
- Posts
- 3,009
- Reaction score
- 7,222
Well, it’s all irrelevant anyways seeing as he went straight to the far more obvious illegal route. No sense in daydreaming about what could have been, I think the old saying goes “it’s better to have others think of you as a criminal than to break the law and remove all doubt.”
Eric
Mama's lil stinker
Actually, you're putting words in their mouth by trying to make arbitrary points while continuing to defend Trump. He's guilty of civil fraud, we all know that and if it wasn't for the hush money payment the fraud would not have existed.
Dude, stop making excuses, altering business records for this purpose is illegal. That is what he was convicted of.
Last edited:
Not really true, though. If you pay someone to keep quiet about a crime you committed, that is not legal. It is also not what happened in this case, but it is pretty edge on to that. If I am choosing among candidates and one of them has a dark secret that would factor in my decision, not knowing about it misleads me in my very important exercise of franchise – it is usually not illegal, but it probably should be.
leman
Site Champ
- Posts
- 726
- Reaction score
- 1,379
I find it difficult to follow this conversation. We just had an entire legal trial involving hundreds of people and legal experts, where this issue was dissected and discussed into the smallest detail. The trial ended with a criminal conviction by an impartial, independently selected jury on every single charge. Are you claiming that the judge, the prosecution, and the jury did not understand the basic legal issue?
