Basically, the term MAGA is applied to any person that does not share the particular political worldview of the hard core liberal left. That is their sole definition and there is no middle ground. Disagree and you are automatically a evil hated MAGA rat.
Or those that detest the outgoing administration, who according to many liberal Democrats, must be Trump supporters by default. Cannot tell you the number of times I have been hit with that here on NT. Thete is plenty of churlishness to go around on the left as well.
Trump supporters by default. Cannot tell you the number of times I have been hit with that here on NT.
I always find it funny when folks try to convince me that I support trump. Somehow they expect you to prove that you dont to them to their satisfaction. I think it includes a blood oath and secret handshake.
Ed, if you look closely, the claims of MAGA are predominantly in response to comments that are defending or supporting Trump (and this can take the form of criticizing Biden / Harris to deflect from Trump).
It makes no sense to deem someone who is genuinely against Trump to be part of 'MAGA'.
Note: there are some (not you) who claim they do not support Trump but (laughably) their comment history contradicts such a claim in a magnificent manner.
Basically, the term MAGA is applied to any person that does not share the particular political worldview of the hard core liberal left.
Where do you get that idea? MAGA is Trump supporters. It’s not any more complicated than that. Furthermore, it’s their term, so being defensive about it, as if it were a slur, is ridiculous.
I always find it funny when folks try to convince me that I support trump. Somehow they expect you to prove that you dont to them to their satisfaction. I think it includes a blood oath and secret handshake.
Simple words will do here. If you don’t support Trump, can you explain why not? And if you do, just say so. Why be coy about it?
If you don’t support Trump, can you explain why not?
Been there, done that and was rejected because it did not go far enough for partisans and those that seem to believe if you don't buy into the Trump Hysteria you must support him.
And your question is pretty funny, you must have missed my statement "Somehow they expect you to prove that you dont to them to their satisfaction." which is exactly what you are trying to do.
To some here, you could simply criticize Biden for something obvious on a seed about Biden, but because you did not deflect to Trump on a seed not about Trump, then you must be a Trump supporter.
Nope. I am not other people. Though, because you refuse to be forthright, I am left in the same position as everyone else here. You present as someone who defends Trump consistently but claims not to support him. We have discussions here every day and people present their views with explanations. I don’t think it’s unreasonable to ask the same of you.
Agreed. I defend Trump now and then myself. I also criticize Biden. And if someone is unsure where I stand, I’m happy to point to either my comment history or just spell it out in a few sentences. But RDtC will put more effort into dodging the issue than it would take to just answer a question or two. That’s his choice, of course, but it also implies a certain disingenuousness.
Though, because you refuse to be forthright, I am left in the same position as everyone else here.
Of course, I would expect nothing else. Doesn't matter that I didn't vote for him, I must still be a rabid supporter because that fails to reach the standards of a non Trump supporter. That is why I find it funny and no longer feel the need, desire or want to try to prove anything to anyone. Take it as you will, it is not like I care.
To some here, you could simply criticize Biden for something obvious on a seed about Biden, but because you did not deflect to Trump on a seed not about Trump, then you must be a Trump supporter.
Some folks have a weird definition of what makes a Trump supporter and think accusing someone of being a Trump supporter matters to them.
there are some here who claim they are not partisan, but (laughably) their comment history contradicts such a claim in a magnificent manner.
Funny how it is sometimes the same folks talking about comment history proving being a trump supporter will flag someone for even suggesting anyone's comment history may show they are not as partisan as they claim.
Funny how it is sometimes the same folks talking about comment history proving being a trump supporter will flag someone for even suggesting anyone's comment history may show they are not as partisan as they claim.
Do you not understand that some here are absolutely nonpartisan no matter what they post.
h come on, the senator from mbna did some great things,,,,,,,for credit card companies. Other than that, nad
Oh yea...and I forgot...He wrote a bill putting thousands of black men in long prison sentences because of a little weed. He probably still thinks he did great with that one, knowing his racist history.
Only crime committed was by the Democrat two tier justice system of NY,
Still waiting for someone to point out where in the Constitution states are allowed to enforce federal laws?
This case never should have been allowed to go to trial.
If states can enforce federal laws- then Garland/Mayorkas need to be charged for interfering with border states enforcing their borders and immigration laws.
If I support Trump's/Republican agenda and philosophy does that make me a MAGA?
Yes.
For example, if you support gratuitous across-the-board tariffs on China, Canada, and Mexico — threatened prior to even having a civil preliminary negotiation with these nations — that is pure MAGA.
For example, if you support gratuitous across-the-board tariffs on China, Canada, and Mexico — threatened prior to even having a civil preliminary negotiation with these nations — that is pure MAGA.
Interesting. If someone believes all that and also believes a woman should have the right to choose to have an abortion at any point during the pregnancy does that make them semi MAGA or MAGA light?
If someone believes all that and also believes a woman should have the right to choose to have an abortion at any point during the pregnancy does that make them semi MAGA or MAGA light?
Supporting Trump and his policies are the defining criteria for MAGA. Holding (especially merely claiming to hold) positions that clash with MAGA does not erase the support for Trump.
If someone predominantly makes excuses for / applauds Trump —especially when denying reality— then that individual is MAGA.
Trump should send Merchan and Bragg a gift basket and thank them for their help electing him. That case was a such an over the top farce and such an abuse of the legal system that it gift wrapped Trump the nomination and insulated him from any blowback from the other legal cases against him.
Back in 2018, when it was first revealed that Trump was unindicted co-conspirator one in the Michael Cohen case, it was widely speculated that he could eventually be indicted for this. That preceded Alvin Bragg by quite a bit.
Trump did it, was convicted , and should have to face justice. The fact that people were bamboozled into believing he was railroaded is immaterial.
as unindicted co-conspirator one in the Michael Cohen case, it was widely speculated that he could eventually be indicted for this. That preceded Alvin Bragg by quite a bit.
Lol. Cohen was indicted for a federal campaign law violation, Trump was not. Instead Trump was charged using a New York misdemeanor that no else has ever been charged with (even though Hillary Clinton could have charged under the same law) by a DA who campaigned on "getting Trump" and set up a task force to find something, anything, to charge him with.
The proof is in the pudding. The public correctly viewed it as an illegitimate, obviously politically motivated prosecution and it backfired on Democrats. All Bragg did was diminish the legal system and damage it's legitimacy.
it was widely speculated that he could eventually be indicted for this. That preceded Alvin Bragg by quite a bit.
it was widely speculated he could be charged with what he was eventually charged with.
No one has ever been able to say that Trump is innocent of anything he has ever been charged with. That should tell us something. He's a scumbag who always tries to work the legal system.
It was a politically motivated prosecution, to the MAGAs, because Trump said it was. Same thing as he did with the election, he said the election was stolen from him and all the cult fell in line. They believe everything he says. He did what the law says he did, and he should not be above the law.
No they don't, there is no evidence to support that assertion.
No John, it wasn't because he "said so". It was plainly obvious to a sane and reasonable person that Trump was selectively and politically prosecuted. He probably will not show up in court and four years from now no one will care
That you can look at this case where a DA, who literally campaigned on "getting Trump" and convened a group to find a crime to target him with and claim "it's only a politically motivated prosecution because Trump said it was" speaks volumes. There's really nothing else that can be said.
Or you could look at Trump's record over the past 40 years and easily make the determination that he was just like a mobster: dirty and well connected enough to stay ahead of the law.
Trump was charged using a New York misdemeanor that no else has ever been charged with
That is simply not true.
Nothing else you wrote even attempts to assert that he did not commit the acts he was accused of or that they were, in fact, criminal acts. All you are doing is what Trump supporters have done all along - complain about him being prosecuted for his criminal acts.
Less than the number of attempts by Democrats to impeach Trump.
Hundreds of times fewer than the total amount of evidence that Democrats tried to hide and destroy from the Jan 6th committee.
Far fewer than the lawfare charges against Trump.
Fewer than the total amount of time wasted by the FBI and DOJ going after Jan 6th rioters. While ignoring real threats to the country.
Vastly fewer than the total amount of illegal immigrants Brandon let into this country.
Lower than the total amount of inflation during Brandon's term.
Hundreds of thousands fewer than the number of unvetted Afghani's Brandon brought into this country.
Fewer than the number of US soldiers than were lost during Brandon's fucked up withdrawal from Afghanistan.
Fewer than the number of people just killed and injured on Bourbon street after a completely preventable terrorist attack because the FBI was too busy being a tool of the Democrat party to do it's actual damn job and look at the glaring evidence the terrorist was posting on social media.
Fewer than the actual number of assassination attempts against Trump.
Way fewer than the number of pardons and commuted sentences Brandon has issued over the last month.
Way less than the amount of money Brandon's family took in from China, Russia, Ukraine, and the ME while selling political access.
Fewer than the number of charges that should have been brought against Hunter- when you include those that were allowed to run past the Statute of Limitations.
Was Hillary Clinton or anyone involved in Benghazi ever held accountable?
Why not concentrate on something that really matters for a damn change.
So a large mob bashing in doors and windows at the nation's national legislature in order to enter and intimidate the legislators into supporting the overthrow of the government is not a threat to the country?
Doesn't Trump need for the sentencing to happen in order to actually appeal the conviction? I thought that I remembered reading that. Had sentencing been postponed until after Trump leaves the White House in four years, it would have just hung over his head.
Considering the trial should have never been allowed to commence since states are not allowed to enforce federal laws- the case and the judge should be both thrown out.
The sentence will be woefully less than it would have been for anyone else thus convicted, but it will cement for all time that Trump is indeed a charged, convicted and sentenced felon.
The sentence will be woefully less than it would have been for anyone else thus convicted
Thing is no one has ever been, nor will they ever again, be convicted of the crimes Trump was convicted of. The crimes were drawn up to make misdemeanors into make believe felonies only to "get Trump".
I could be wrong, but where has someone in New York City been charged and convicted of these exact misdemeanors that were elevated to felonies for very similar reasons?
I could be wrong, but where has someone in New York City been charged and convicted of these exact misdemeanors that were elevated to felonies for very similar reasons?
It’s pretty common, but be careful not to caught up in the fallacy of “this case is exactly the same as some other case.” No two cases are exactly the same.
A core crime that the Manhattan District Attorney will likely include in an indictment of former President Donald Trump is “falsifying business records in the first degree,” a felony under New York State law (N.Y. Penal Code § 175.10). Prosecutors and indeed all of us are compelled by the rule of law to consider how such a charge compares to past prosecutions. Are like cases being treated alike? Here it appears they are. Prosecution of falsifying business records in the first degree is commonplace and has been used by New York district attorneys’ offices to hold to account a breadth of criminal behavior from the more petty and simple to the more serious and highly organized. We reach this conclusion after surveying the past decade and a half of criminal cases across all the New York district attorneys’ offices.
This article goes on to list several similar cases, including a link to a table with dozens of other cases. None will be exactly the same as any other. It also discusses elements of the felony.
For Trump to be prosecuted for felony violation of falsifying business records, the statute requires the DA to prove not only that Trump is guilty of falsifying business records (a misdemeanor), but that he did so with the intent to commit “another crime,” or aiding or concealing the commission of “another crime.”
What elevates the misdemeanors to a felony is that they are committed with the intent to facilitate some other crime. It doesn’t have to be a particular kind of crime. Such a broad standard is inevitably going to involve very many otherwise dissimilar crimes.
Problem is, no one knows what this "other crime' is.
It’s not a problem. The statute does not require that it be one, and only one, crime. Jurors were given a choice of three crimes, explicitly listed. They could identify one, two, or all three.
Seems a little unconstitutional
In what way? I get that it seems unusual if you’re a regular person who doesn’t spend a lot of time studying the law, but I haven’t seen a reason to believe it violates either the New York Constitution or the US Constitution.
Let me illustrate how common this approach is with two much better known crimes: Trespassing and Burglary.
Trespassing is generally defined as entering the property of another without permission. It’s generally a misdemeanor.
Burglary is generally defined as entering the property of another with the intent to commit a crime. It’s generally a felony. We always assume that other “crime” is theft, but it doesn’t have to be. It could be any crime.
But notice that the actual behavior is the same. Someone entered the property of another without permission. The intent elevates misdemeanor behavior to a felony.
Just one crime - 34 counts. Falsifying business records with intent to commit another crime. I don't understand why you either can't read the thread or Google these things. The information is not secret.
I don't think even the jury knew.
Yes, they did. Jury instructions are another thing you can search for.
They just wanted to get Trump.
I'm pretty sure at least one juror said he was a Trump supporter. There is no reason to believe the jury was out to get Trump.
second statute” are you referring to? Trump was convicted of violating one statute 34 times.
The misdemeanor predicate conspiracy statute. No one has ever been convicted of violating it. You can look it up if you want. I've explained it enough already.
It's not a matter of politics. It's a matter of legitimacy.
It is well known Merchan wanted to make a name for himself and possibly get a higher judicial position. Only way to fo that is to carry this trial to the end, no matter how many highly biased decisions against the defense he made.'
Greg Jarrett explained it very clear and correctly. Pretty sure he knows more about the law than either of us combined.
It is well known Merchan wanted to make a name for himself and possibly get a higher judicial position. Only way to fo that is to carry this trial to the end, no matter how many highly biased decisions against the defense he made.'
So now it’s not the jury. It’s the judge. The conspiracy theories never end.
It’s clear that no amount of reasoning or citing to actual facts or the law will change your mind.
Greg Jarrett explained it very clear and correctly. Pretty sure he knows more about the law than either of us combined.
First, you might be wrong about how much I know about the law. Second, Gregg Jarrett is famously full of shit.
Former defense attorney and Fox News anchor Gregg Jarrett called grand juries an “undemocratic farce” on Thursday, just one day after writing an op-ed asking why a grand jury had not been impaneled for former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s mishandling of classified information.
So he clearly is another person willing to disregard facts and established law when it suits his political agenda.
The misdemeanor predicate conspiracy statute. No one has ever been convicted of violating it.
I just posted a survey of such cases. Dozens are listed in detail. Here is a link to the full report of felony convictions for falsifying business records. You are just wrong about this.
I accept your admission that Gregg Jarrett knows more about this than you (clearly NOT an attorney), but what makes you think that he knows more than Tacos! (an attorney)?
The truth remains he knows far more legally than you and I combined.
That’s your opinion, and I suspect you hold that opinion because you like and agree with his statements on this topic. It appeals to your political viewpoint. However, you present no evidence that there is any truth to it.
But even if he does know more about the law than I do (something I doubt we can measure objectively), that fact would not make him correct on this particular issue.
All anyone can do at the trial court level is look at established law. The appellate courts make agree or disagree, and they usually say what their reasons are. Educated people look at such decisions and they may agree or disagree, but they are then obligated to follow that interpretation from the court. I have disagreed with court decisions that were considered liberal or conservative, but I would still have to acknowledge that holding when analyzing a trial court action. The political agendas of those involved have nothing to do with it.
Is Trump innocent in your view, or is he like a Mafia don trying to get off on a technicality? How anyone could be proud of Trump is easily the biggest mystery of the 21st century.
That’s one of the things about conspiracy theories, though. You can throw out any ridiculous accusation you want and since it can’t be conclusively disproven, the accuser need make no effort to prove it.
And concern over this kind of thing (statute of limitations) - which conservatives usually deride as “technicality” - is the real hallmark of the popular defense of Trump. Your argument is not that he’s innocent, but that they should have prosecuted him for it sooner.
our argument is not that he’s innocent, but that they should have prosecuted him for it sooner.
That they should have. To wait three years into the Biden admin before filing charges and right before the start of the 24 presidential campaign reeks of desperation to "get Trump".
before the start of the 24 presidential campaign reeks of desperation to "get Trump".
The DA literally campaigned on "getting Trump" and formed a task group to find a theory to prosecute him under. They had to bootstrap a felony out of two SOL barred misdemeanors and rely on a misdemeanor statute under which no one had ever been convicted (even though he had a much stronger case to prosecute Hillary Clinton under the exact same theory) There couldn't be a better example of a political prosecution, especially with the Judge being a progressive activist who literally donated money to "stop Trump" making ruling after ruling to help the prosecution.
It's just the height of dishonesty to claim this wasn't a partisan abuse of the legal system.
They could have been filed a few years ago. It has been noted here several times that he was investigated for what he was charged with even before the 2020 election. The democrat thought process was if charges were filed close to the election, it would coax Trump to drop out of the race, especially if he were found guilty
Maybe. I wasn’t part of the process, so I don’t know what the earliest possible date would have been. I am aware that Covid disrupted a lot of cases all over the country, and New York extended the SoL because of it. Additionally, the clock was suspended in Trump’s case because as president, he was not residing continuously in the state. Add to that the pure logistical difficulties in prosecuting a sitting president and it’s not surprising that all of this took longer to actually get to trial. Additionally, Trump himself did everything he could to delay proceedings in this and all of his other cases.
Additionally, the clock was suspended in Trump’s case because as president, he was not residing continuously in the state.
And that remains the same today because he still does not reside on New York permanently. Difference is, the closer it got to election 24, the better chance to have him withdraw.
In addition, I believe the sentence would be the same no matter when the trial was held. The entirety of the case was to get to be able to call him a convicted felon.
"Trump himself did everything he could to delay proceedings in this and all of his other cases."
He did what the judicial system allows him to do. If the charges were filed earlier, then the trials could have been held and completed long before the election, but that is not what the left DA and judge wanted.
Dont faint MAGAs, the judge said he will not sentence your hero to prison.
Amazing - after nine years, you still have no idea what MAGA stands for.
make assholes great again ?
Such intelligent repartee - wow - impressive.
Basically, the term MAGA is applied to any person that does not share the particular political worldview of the hard core liberal left. That is their sole definition and there is no middle ground. Disagree and you are automatically a evil hated MAGA rat.
MAGA is applied to those who support or defend Trump.
So you misunderstand MAGA as well. Shocking...
It is applied to those who go about with MAGA on their hats and clothing. The fact that most of them are churlish assholes is an added benefit.
Indeed...
Or those that detest the outgoing administration, who according to many liberal Democrats, must be Trump supporters by default. Cannot tell you the number of times I have been hit with that here on NT. Thete is plenty of churlishness to go around on the left as well.
No, detesting the Biden administration does not make one MAGA. As I noted, MAGA are those who support / defend Trump.
We are all anxiously awaiting your defining criteria for what makes one MAGA.
Do you have anything to offer?
Probably because you've never shown a thing to indicate that you dont.
"No, detesting the Biden administration does not make one MAGA."
Then you are one of the few in the sensible minority, because there are plenty here on NT and elsewhere that do not share that sentiment.
Ed, if you look closely, the claims of MAGA are predominantly in response to comments that are defending or supporting Trump (and this can take the form of criticizing Biden / Harris to deflect from Trump).
It makes no sense to deem someone who is genuinely against Trump to be part of 'MAGA'.
Note: there are some (not you) who claim they do not support Trump but (laughably) their comment history contradicts such a claim in a magnificent manner.
Where do you get that idea? MAGA is Trump supporters. It’s not any more complicated than that. Furthermore, it’s their term, so being defensive about it, as if it were a slur, is ridiculous.
Simple words will do here. If you don’t support Trump, can you explain why not? And if you do, just say so. Why be coy about it?
[✘]
I believe those on the far left use it as an insult, or slur. That is one of many reasons why Harris is not preside t is a couple of weeks.
See, now that is funny.
Been there, done that and was rejected because it did not go far enough for partisans and those that seem to believe if you don't buy into the Trump Hysteria you must support him.
And your question is pretty funny, you must have missed my statement "Somehow they expect you to prove that you dont to them to their satisfaction." which is exactly what you are trying to do.
To some here, you could simply criticize Biden for something obvious on a seed about Biden, but because you did not deflect to Trump on a seed not about Trump, then you must be a Trump supporter.
And in association with that, you absolutely must be a white supremacist, no matter your race.
Not with me.
Nope. I am not other people. Though, because you refuse to be forthright, I am left in the same position as everyone else here. You present as someone who defends Trump consistently but claims not to support him. We have discussions here every day and people present their views with explanations. I don’t think it’s unreasonable to ask the same of you.
I don’t consider myself Far Left, but I can tell you I do not use “MAGA” to insult anyone.
Defending and supporting are two different things.
Agreed. I defend Trump now and then myself. I also criticize Biden. And if someone is unsure where I stand, I’m happy to point to either my comment history or just spell it out in a few sentences. But RDtC will put more effort into dodging the issue than it would take to just answer a question or two. That’s his choice, of course, but it also implies a certain disingenuousness.
Of course, I would expect nothing else. Doesn't matter that I didn't vote for him, I must still be a rabid supporter because that fails to reach the standards of a non Trump supporter. That is why I find it funny and no longer feel the need, desire or want to try to prove anything to anyone. Take it as you will, it is not like I care.
Some folks have a weird definition of what makes a Trump supporter and think accusing someone of being a Trump supporter matters to them.
Funny how it is sometimes the same folks talking about comment history proving being a trump supporter will flag someone for even suggesting anyone's comment history may show they are not as partisan as they claim.
Do you not understand that some here are absolutely nonpartisan no matter what they post.
Because they say so s/
Why should he? Do you think that is something owed to you for some reason?
They sure are sneaky, fooling everyone. S/
Mooching asshole grifts America?
Yes, Biden mooched off the American taxpayer for over 50 years....
and produced nothing but division and failure.
“and produced nothing,,,,,”
oh come on, the senator from mbna did some great things,,,,,,,for credit card companies. Other than that, nada.
Oh yea...and I forgot...He wrote a bill putting thousands of black men in long prison sentences because of a little weed. He probably still thinks he did great with that one, knowing his racist history.
To whom? I don't appreciate the churlish attitudes
Of course not, no REAL crime was committed,
Either it's a crime or it isn't.
Only crime committed was by the Democrat two tier justice system of NY,
Still waiting for someone to point out where in the Constitution states are allowed to enforce federal laws?
This case never should have been allowed to go to trial.
If states can enforce federal laws- then Garland/Mayorkas need to be charged for interfering with border states enforcing their borders and immigration laws.
So why didn't trump's lawyers do something about it? Answer? Because it was all legal. Sorry.
So federal laws don't apply in the states? You sure about that? LOL
Are the millions who voted for Trump all MAGA?
If I support Trump's/Republican agenda and philosophy does that make me a MAGA?
If they still support him, yes, by definition.
Yes.
For example, if you support gratuitous across-the-board tariffs on China, Canada, and Mexico — threatened prior to even having a civil preliminary negotiation with these nations — that is pure MAGA.
Interesting. If someone believes all that and also believes a woman should have the right to choose to have an abortion at any point during the pregnancy does that make them semi MAGA or MAGA light?
Supporting Trump and his policies are the defining criteria for MAGA. Holding (especially merely claiming to hold) positions that clash with MAGA does not erase the support for Trump.
If someone predominantly makes excuses for / applauds Trump —especially when denying reality— then that individual is MAGA.
[✘]
[✘]
Trump should send Merchan and Bragg a gift basket and thank them for their help electing him. That case was a such an over the top farce and such an abuse of the legal system that it gift wrapped Trump the nomination and insulated him from any blowback from the other legal cases against him.
Back in 2018, when it was first revealed that Trump was unindicted co-conspirator one in the Michael Cohen case, it was widely speculated that he could eventually be indicted for this. That preceded Alvin Bragg by quite a bit.
Trump did it, was convicted , and should have to face justice. The fact that people were bamboozled into believing he was railroaded is immaterial.
Lol. Cohen was indicted for a federal campaign law violation, Trump was not. Instead Trump was charged using a New York misdemeanor that no else has ever been charged with (even though Hillary Clinton could have charged under the same law) by a DA who campaigned on "getting Trump" and set up a task force to find something, anything, to charge him with.
The proof is in the pudding. The public correctly viewed it as an illegitimate, obviously politically motivated prosecution and it backfired on Democrats. All Bragg did was diminish the legal system and damage it's legitimacy.
it was widely speculated he could be charged with what he was eventually charged with.
No one has ever been able to say that Trump is innocent of anything he has ever been charged with. That should tell us something. He's a scumbag who always tries to work the legal system.
nothing you wrote rebuts what I wrote.
It was a politically motivated prosecution, to the MAGAs, because Trump said it was. Same thing as he did with the election, he said the election was stolen from him and all the cult fell in line. They believe everything he says. He did what the law says he did, and he should not be above the law.
Facts Sean - facts - something totally unrecognizable by the opposition.
By all means, give us the "facts" that prove trump was innocent.
"They believe everything he says".
No they don't, there is no evidence to support that assertion.
No John, it wasn't because he "said so". It was plainly obvious to a sane and reasonable person that Trump was selectively and politically prosecuted. He probably will not show up in court and four years from now no one will care
Why bother?
Shit....no one sane cares now.
That you can look at this case where a DA, who literally campaigned on "getting Trump" and convened a group to find a crime to target him with and claim "it's only a politically motivated prosecution because Trump said it was" speaks volumes. There's really nothing else that can be said.
Or you could look at Trump's record over the past 40 years and easily make the determination that he was just like a mobster: dirty and well connected enough to stay ahead of the law.
And how many Benghazi investigations are we up to?
That is simply not true.
Nothing else you wrote even attempts to assert that he did not commit the acts he was accused of or that they were, in fact, criminal acts. All you are doing is what Trump supporters have done all along - complain about him being prosecuted for his criminal acts.
In other words the typical Democrat. AKA Clintons, Bidens, Obamas, Kennedys, etc.
Of course Trump was previously a Democrat so that would explain it.
Less than the number of attempts by Democrats to impeach Trump.
Hundreds of times fewer than the total amount of evidence that Democrats tried to hide and destroy from the Jan 6th committee.
Far fewer than the lawfare charges against Trump.
Fewer than the total amount of time wasted by the FBI and DOJ going after Jan 6th rioters. While ignoring real threats to the country.
Vastly fewer than the total amount of illegal immigrants Brandon let into this country.
Lower than the total amount of inflation during Brandon's term.
Hundreds of thousands fewer than the number of unvetted Afghani's Brandon brought into this country.
Fewer than the number of US soldiers than were lost during Brandon's fucked up withdrawal from Afghanistan.
Fewer than the number of people just killed and injured on Bourbon street after a completely preventable terrorist attack because the FBI was too busy being a tool of the Democrat party to do it's actual damn job and look at the glaring evidence the terrorist was posting on social media.
Fewer than the actual number of assassination attempts against Trump.
Way fewer than the number of pardons and commuted sentences Brandon has issued over the last month.
Way less than the amount of money Brandon's family took in from China, Russia, Ukraine, and the ME while selling political access.
Fewer than the number of charges that should have been brought against Hunter- when you include those that were allowed to run past the Statute of Limitations.
Was Hillary Clinton or anyone involved in Benghazi ever held accountable?
Why not concentrate on something that really matters for a damn change.
So a large mob bashing in doors and windows at the nation's national legislature in order to enter and intimidate the legislators into supporting the overthrow of the government is not a threat to the country?
Hillary was investigated over and over again for over 25 years. You need to go back and check your math.
Of course it is. You keep saying this yet have never shown any convictions for anyone else under that statute.
I actually have. On previous seeds, and on this one. See 6.1.3.
No, that ignores the statute that made conviction under that statute possible.
You need to explain yourself more completely. I can't make your argument for you.
Lol. Might want to think that through.
I was demonstrating the blantently political nature of the prosecution.
But no, it wasn't a crime. You can't interfere with an election after it takes place by signing the wrong paperwork.
His biggest crime was to switch to Republican and beat two of their queens at their own game.
Top notch response!!!!!
Putin hated and feared Hillary so the gop had to go along.
Yea,,,,that made her really, really scary s/
More than likely Merchan was offered a higher judgeship if he kept this farce up all the way to sentencing.
Don't be surprised if he is named to a higher position by Hochel sometime in the next year or two.
Can't make it too obvious if he is named within a few months.
Prove it.
[✘]
"More than likely" isn't a statement of fact.
Very good.
You learn quickly
Sadly, you and all other gop fascists don't.
Doesn't Trump need for the sentencing to happen in order to actually appeal the conviction? I thought that I remembered reading that. Had sentencing been postponed until after Trump leaves the White House in four years, it would have just hung over his head.
Considering the trial should have never been allowed to commence since states are not allowed to enforce federal laws- the case and the judge should be both thrown out.
[✘]
And the lesson we learned from this, is the country preferred a criminal over the POS the democrats put up.
Not surprisingly, anyone the Dems put up would have been a POS.
Democrats have some good people, they just don’t check the right boxes for the ruling class to support.
Says a lot about the pathetic bottom feeders in the GOP.
Even more about the bottom feeder Democrats.
LOL Nice try at deflection.
Some people need to keep their eyes on their own paper instead of copying off their neighbors'
He was found guilty of the charged crime.
Therefore, he should be sentenced
The sentence will be woefully less than it would have been for anyone else thus convicted, but it will cement for all time that Trump is indeed a charged, convicted and sentenced felon.
Thing is no one has ever been, nor will they ever again, be convicted of the crimes Trump was convicted of. The crimes were drawn up to make misdemeanors into make believe felonies only to "get Trump".
That is not true. But even if it were true, it wouldn’t change the fact that he was legally prosecuted and convicted of those crimes.
I could be wrong, but where has someone in New York City been charged and convicted of these exact misdemeanors that were elevated to felonies for very similar reasons?
It’s pretty common, but be careful not to caught up in the fallacy of “this case is exactly the same as some other case.” No two cases are exactly the same.
Survey of Past New York Felony Prosecutions for Falsifying Business Records
This article goes on to list several similar cases, including a link to a table with dozens of other cases. None will be exactly the same as any other. It also discusses elements of the felony.
What elevates the misdemeanors to a felony is that they are committed with the intent to facilitate some other crime. It doesn’t have to be a particular kind of crime. Such a broad standard is inevitably going to involve very many otherwise dissimilar crimes.
Problem is, no one knows what this "other crime' is.
Seems a little unconstitutional, but being New York and "get Trump at all costs", DA, nothing is unconstitutional.
It’s not a problem. The statute does not require that it be one, and only one, crime. Jurors were given a choice of three crimes, explicitly listed. They could identify one, two, or all three.
In what way? I get that it seems unusual if you’re a regular person who doesn’t spend a lot of time studying the law, but I haven’t seen a reason to believe it violates either the New York Constitution or the US Constitution.
Let me illustrate how common this approach is with two much better known crimes: Trespassing and Burglary.
Trespassing is generally defined as entering the property of another without permission. It’s generally a misdemeanor.
Burglary is generally defined as entering the property of another with the intent to commit a crime. It’s generally a felony. We always assume that other “crime” is theft, but it doesn’t have to be. It could be any crime.
But notice that the actual behavior is the same. Someone entered the property of another without permission. The intent elevates misdemeanor behavior to a felony.
No one has ever been convicted under the second statute he allegedly violated.
What “second statute” are you referring to? Trump was convicted of violating one statute 34 times.
So exactly what were the "crimes" he committed?
I don't think even the jury knew. They just wanted to get Trump.
Just one crime - 34 counts. Falsifying business records with intent to commit another crime. I don't understand why you either can't read the thread or Google these things. The information is not secret.
Yes, they did. Jury instructions are another thing you can search for.
I'm pretty sure at least one juror said he was a Trump supporter. There is no reason to believe the jury was out to get Trump.
So what were the crimes that made the expired misdemeanors into felonies?
No matter what, though, these charges and whatever bs sentence Merchan hands down will be overturned pretty quickly, maybe even before Jan 20.
The misdemeanor predicate conspiracy statute. No one has ever been convicted of violating it. You can look it up if you want. I've explained it enough already.
Again, you could have Googled this. Briefly, a federal elections law, a state law about falsifying other business records, and state tax law.
So, facts don’t matter? The law doesn’t matter? Just your politics.
It's not a matter of politics. It's a matter of legitimacy.
It is well known Merchan wanted to make a name for himself and possibly get a higher judicial position. Only way to fo that is to carry this trial to the end, no matter how many highly biased decisions against the defense he made.'
Greg Jarrett explained it very clear and correctly. Pretty sure he knows more about the law than either of us combined.
GREGG JARRETT: NY judge desperate to brand Trump 'convicted felon' before inauguration | Fox News
Mercan probably can't get that promotion without the "man who made Trump a convicted felon" banner over him.
So now it’s not the jury. It’s the judge. The conspiracy theories never end.
It’s clear that no amount of reasoning or citing to actual facts or the law will change your mind.
First, you might be wrong about how much I know about the law. Second, Gregg Jarrett is famously full of shit.
Fox’s Jarrett calls grand juries ‘undemocratic farce’ one day after calling for one for Clinton
So he clearly is another person willing to disregard facts and established law when it suits his political agenda.
I just posted a survey of such cases. Dozens are listed in detail. Here is a link to the full report of felony convictions for falsifying business records. You are just wrong about this.
Whatever....
The problem for all these law-and-order lefties is that Trump doesn't care about this sham legal perversion of justice.
I certainly don't care, and it's doubtful that a vast majority of Americans don't care either.
The dummy Dems may think they won a battle here, but in the process, they totally lost the war.
That's not the conspiracy statute at issue, and none of those convictions have anything to do with it. There are two statutes involved. .
You aren’t actually saying anything.
Maybe if you don't understand the prosecution, it would appear that way.
The truth remains he knows far more legally than you and I combined.
I accept your admission that Gregg Jarrett knows more about this than you (clearly NOT an attorney), but what makes you think that he knows more than Tacos! (an attorney)?
So what?
"but what makes you think that he knows more than Tacos! (an attorney)?"
Not gonna take your bait .
Looks like you cannot answer my question so you make a bullshit excuse.
When discussing law with an attorney, you need to be armed with more than partisan talking points.
There is a difference between cannot and doesn't want to.
Yet another feeble platitude.
Exactly!
So that is what truth is called now by some.
[deleted][✘]
I just did not want to get stuck in one of those forever rabbit holes.
I guess "I only opine on subjects I deem important" is only meant for one member.
That’s your opinion, and I suspect you hold that opinion because you like and agree with his statements on this topic. It appeals to your political viewpoint. However, you present no evidence that there is any truth to it.
But even if he does know more about the law than I do (something I doubt we can measure objectively), that fact would not make him correct on this particular issue.
Would you say the same if a majority democrat appeals court overturns the verdict?
[✘]
Political party is not relevant to me on this issue.
OK I'll put it a different way..
Would you say the same if an appeals court overturned the conviction and sentence?
All anyone can do at the trial court level is look at established law. The appellate courts make agree or disagree, and they usually say what their reasons are. Educated people look at such decisions and they may agree or disagree, but they are then obligated to follow that interpretation from the court. I have disagreed with court decisions that were considered liberal or conservative, but I would still have to acknowledge that holding when analyzing a trial court action. The political agendas of those involved have nothing to do with it.
Yeah, those statute of limitations expired misdemeanors.
No Robert, many legal experts have expressed opinions that the charges are invalid and would be overturned on appeal.
Malicious Soviet style political persecution
Seems weird that trump's lawyers agreed with the prosecution.
And yet, the case wasn’t thrown out on those grounds.
Because of a TDS moronic Democrat judge that doesn't give a flying fuck about the law.
Please show us where in the Constitution that states are allowed to prosecute federal law.
If you can prove that Mayorkas and Garland had better start shitting bricks for suing states for enforcing their borders and federal immigration laws.
Is Trump innocent in your view, or is he like a Mafia don trying to get off on a technicality? How anyone could be proud of Trump is easily the biggest mystery of the 21st century.
There’s no need because that didn’t happen in this case.
Sounds exactly like what we will experience under the Trump regime.
Gee...wonder why.
Maybe because an overzealous judge has his sights on a higher judgeship?
No. That’s not generally how these things work.
That’s one of the things about conspiracy theories, though. You can throw out any ridiculous accusation you want and since it can’t be conclusively disproven, the accuser need make no effort to prove it.
And concern over this kind of thing (statute of limitations) - which conservatives usually deride as “technicality” - is the real hallmark of the popular defense of Trump. Your argument is not that he’s innocent, but that they should have prosecuted him for it sooner.
That they should have. To wait three years into the Biden admin before filing charges and right before the start of the 24 presidential campaign reeks of desperation to "get Trump".
The DA literally campaigned on "getting Trump" and formed a task group to find a theory to prosecute him under. They had to bootstrap a felony out of two SOL barred misdemeanors and rely on a misdemeanor statute under which no one had ever been convicted (even though he had a much stronger case to prosecute Hillary Clinton under the exact same theory) There couldn't be a better example of a political prosecution, especially with the Judge being a progressive activist who literally donated money to "stop Trump" making ruling after ruling to help the prosecution.
It's just the height of dishonesty to claim this wasn't a partisan abuse of the legal system.
When would you have liked for them to file charges? What difference would it make?
They could have been filed a few years ago. It has been noted here several times that he was investigated for what he was charged with even before the 2020 election. The democrat thought process was if charges were filed close to the election, it would coax Trump to drop out of the race, especially if he were found guilty
Thank God they were wrong..
Maybe. I wasn’t part of the process, so I don’t know what the earliest possible date would have been. I am aware that Covid disrupted a lot of cases all over the country, and New York extended the SoL because of it. Additionally, the clock was suspended in Trump’s case because as president, he was not residing continuously in the state. Add to that the pure logistical difficulties in prosecuting a sitting president and it’s not surprising that all of this took longer to actually get to trial. Additionally, Trump himself did everything he could to delay proceedings in this and all of his other cases.
And that remains the same today because he still does not reside on New York permanently. Difference is, the closer it got to election 24, the better chance to have him withdraw.
In addition, I believe the sentence would be the same no matter when the trial was held. The entirety of the case was to get to be able to call him a convicted felon.
"Trump himself did everything he could to delay proceedings in this and all of his other cases."
He did what the judicial system allows him to do. If the charges were filed earlier, then the trials could have been held and completed long before the election, but that is not what the left DA and judge wanted.
Too, bad there won't be a Portland Protest.
I am sure that makes sense to you, but not seeing a connection between this article and Portland.