Don't forget that Trump is a convicted felon

deflect much?
Originally Posted by The_Waco_Kid

I'm not deflecting at all. I'm saying your source material is suspect because it's so biased as to not be believed. Taking the time to list all the ways in which it's biased is a waste of my time.

Who is this? Jordan? Comer? Same guys who went after Biden? Same guys who sought to overturn the 2020 election?

Thought so.

HAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHA! Originally Posted by Yssup Rider

I'm not deflecting at all. I'm saying your source material is suspect because it's so biased as to not be believed. Taking the time to list all the ways in which it's biased is a waste of my time. Originally Posted by txdot-guy

source material? the Judiciary committee? you are kidding right?


do you two believe that a jury must be unanimous on a verdict? let's just start there .. okay?


"The report goes into great detail about the legal and procedural mess in Bragg’s prosecution of Trump. One major issue is Bragg’s “Russian-nesting-doll” theory of criminal liability. This unprecedented approach allowed the jury to convict Trump without agreeing on each element of the offenses charged, which is a big no-no when it comes to due process."


is this fake news? Republican slander?

source material? the Judiciary committee? you are kidding right?

do you two believe that a jury must be unanimous on a verdict? let's just start there .. okay?

is this fake news? Republican slander? Originally Posted by The_Waco_Kid

No it’s Republican opinion. And even out of the mouths of Congressmen it still doesn’t mean shit. Until a judge rules that the conviction was unconstitutional in some way it stands.

Trump is a felon. Full stop.

is this fake news? Republican slander? Originally Posted by The_Waco_Kid

Forget it, Kid. This is Eccie.

No it’s Republican opinion. And even out of the mouths of Congressmen it still doesn’t mean shit. Until a judge rules that the conviction was unconstitutional in some way it stands.

Trump is a felon. Full stop. Originally Posted by txdot-guy

it's FACT and the fact you can't prove it false is proof it's not partisan

what the Judge said


His instructions for the jury’s deliberation process (page 31) state that jurors don’t have to agree unanimously on exactly how the crime was committed: “Although you must conclude unanimously that the defendant conspired to promote or prevent the election of any person to a public office by unlawful means, you need not be unanimous as to what those unlawful means were.”


“The prosecution presented evidence of three different ‘unlawful means’ to satisfy this requirement and the Judge told the jury that they did not have to agree upon which of these unlawful means were intended to be used,”


The prosecution theory is essentially a Russian nesting doll of criminal violations — under New York law, falsifying business records is a felony only if the records were falsified in furtherance of another crime.


In Trump’s case, prosecutors have offered three types of crimes that would make the state election-meddling charge come into play: federal election law crimes, tax crimes or false business records.


the Judge allowed three different ways to get a conviction, two of which are false. there was no federal election law crimes or tax crime.


FEC drops investigation into Trump hush money payments

https://thehill.com/homenews/campaig...oney-payments/


Why Did Federal Prosecutors Drop Trump's Hush Money Case?

https://www.lawfaremedia.org/article...ush-money-case


even lawfare says the Federal campaign issue was not a issue for Bragg to bring. Bragg is not a Federal prosecutor. the DOJ declined to file charges. there was no election finance crime. that's one of the three DOWN.


When Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg first announced hush money charges against former President Donald Trump in March 2023, commentators were quick to cast doubt on the strength of the case. Among the criticisms leveled against Bragg from both right and left was that the district attorney’s office had simply resurrected a case already considered and abandoned by federal prosecutors in the Southern District of New York (SDNY), who had already investigated Trump and chosen not to bring charges against him under federal campaign finance law for the same scheme. “If anyone should have brought this case,” wrote law professor Jed Shugerman in the New York Times, it was the Justice Department. In the Washington Post, Ruth Marcus questioned whether Bragg could “transmogrify this conduct into a state crime” from its federal roots. On the right, Andrew McCarthy suggested in National Review that Bragg was “politically engineering” federal law “into a new election law of his very own.”

it's FACT and the fact you can't prove it false is proof it's not partisan

what the Judge said

His instructions for the jury’s deliberation process (page 31) state that jurors don’t have to agree unanimously on exactly how the crime was committed: “Although you must conclude unanimously that the defendant conspired to promote or prevent the election of any person to a public office by unlawful means, you need not be unanimous as to what those unlawful means were.”

“The prosecution presented evidence of three different ‘unlawful means’ to satisfy this requirement and the Judge told the jury that they did not have to agree upon which of these unlawful means were intended to be used,”

The prosecution theory is essentially a Russian nesting doll of criminal violations — under New York law, falsifying business records is a felony only if the records were falsified in furtherance of another crime.

In Trump’s case, prosecutors have offered three types of crimes that would make the state election-meddling charge come into play: federal election law crimes, tax crimes or false business records.

the Judge allowed three different ways to get a conviction, two of which are false. there was no federal election law crimes or tax crime. Originally Posted by The_Waco_Kid

And you can’t prove it to be true either. The case was tried in a valid court under a valid judge and in front of a valid jury. Neither you nor Congress gets to put your opinion above theirs.

If congress wants to change the law I’m sure they could if they could get it to pass.

I’m sure the argument you are making is being made by Trump’s lawyers in the appellate court but you don’t get to haul it out and call it a fact when it’s not.

And you can’t prove it to be true either. The case was tried in a valid court under a valid judge and in front of a valid jury. Neither you nor Congress gets to put your opinion above theirs.

If congress wants to change the law I’m sure they could if they could get it to pass.

I’m sure the argument you are making is being made by Trump’s lawyers in the appellate court but you don’t get to haul it out and call it a fact when it’s not. Originally Posted by txdot-guy

re-read my post. more added details.


and show me a direct claim of tax crimes by Trump. Bragg based that on Michael Cohen who took a plea deal to tax evasion by inference.

re-read my post. more added details.


and show me a direct claim of tax crimes by Trump. Bragg based that on Michael Cohen who took a plea deal to tax evasion by inference. Originally Posted by The_Waco_Kid

Arguing with you is like arguing with a brick wall. My point is that it doesn’t matter what either of us think. Let the judicial system do its job. Until then I’m done with this nonsense.

Politically motivated perhaps but completely legal and justified in my opinion.

Maybe he should not do extremely shady things before placing himself in the public eye.

He’s a felon through and through. He needs to change out his orange tanner for an orange jumpsuit. Originally Posted by txdot-guy

As we've both said before, we'll have to agree to disagree.

I'm not deflecting at all. I'm saying your source material is suspect because it's so biased as to not be believed. Taking the time to list all the ways in which it's biased is a waste of my time. Originally Posted by txdot-guy

source material? the Judiciary committee? you are kidding right?

Originally Posted by The_Waco_Kid

He's not kidding at all.

Analogous to the best tactic for disputing Trump's lies, let's use their own language against them:

"Today, the House Judiciary Committee and its Select Subcommittee on the Weaponization of the Federal Government released an interim staff report titled, "Lawfare: How the Manhattan District Attorney's Office and a New York State Judge Violated the Constitutional and Legal Rights of President Donald J. Trump."

The tone and words use say it all. Sounds like a Trump campaign "weave."

Like much of the garbage released by that "Committee" under the guidance of that turd Jim Jordan, it is nothing but a transparent heap of lies and bias. These people truly have no shame. But that's what the GOP has become. Fuck em all. And this ridiculous "report."

It has no more credibility than "Townhall" or the other nonsense sites MAGAts like to quote on here.

.

He's not kidding at all.

Analogous to the best tactic for disputing Trump's lies, let's use their own language against them:

"Today, the House Judiciary Committee and its Select Subcommittee on the Weaponization of the Federal Government released an interim staff report titled, "Lawfare: How the Manhattan District Attorney's Office and a New York State Judge Violated the Constitutional and Legal Rights of President Donald J. Trump."

The tone and words use say it all. Sounds like a Trump campaign "weave."

Like much of the garbage released by that "Committee" under the guidance of that turd Jim Jordan, it is nothing but a transparent heap of lies and bias. These people truly have no shame. But that's what the GOP has become. Fuck em all. And this ridiculous "report."

It has no more credibility than "Townhall" or the other nonsense sites MAGAts like to quote on here.

. Originally Posted by rooster

you realize that for your comment about bias of the judiciary committee to have validity it has to apply to when the Democrats control the committee as well yes? unless the Democrats would never abuse the committee, would they?

these issues with this prosecution goes far beyond the committee or Townhall.

many legal experts have criticized the case and re-read my post. both the FEC and DOJ declined to bring the case.

even lawfaremedia.org admits the case has issues and they ain't exactly pro-Trump are they?

... Appeals coming. ... Then, we'll see.

#### Salty

you realize that for your comment about bias of the judiciary committee to have validity it has to apply to when the Democrats control the committee as well yes? unless the Democrats would never abuse the committee, would they?

.... Originally Posted by The_Waco_Kid

Don't put words in my mouth. Whoever controls the House controls the Judiciary Committee. It is a political tool.

Now that we've settled that argument, let me say again: that report is a piece of shit with no credibility whatsoever. No one gives a fuck or pays any attention to it except MAGA media and folk looking for any edge they can get to support Trump and GOP lies.

And Jim Jordan is the worst of the worst. Farcical hearings piled on top of nonsense, time-wasting investigations. Fuck that douchebag.

And someone give that trench-mouth hillbilly the number of a fucking dentist, fer chrissake. Doesn't Congress have a dental plan? Faak.

Don't put words in my mouth. Whoever controls the House controls the Judiciary Committee. It is a political tool.

Now that we've settled that argument, let me say again: that report is a piece of shit with no credibility whatsoever. No one gives a fuck or pays any attention to it except MAGA media and folk looking for any edge they can get to support Trump and GOP lies.

And Jim Jordan is the worst of the worst. Farcical hearings piled on top of nonsense, time-wasting investigations. Fuck that douchebag.

And someone give that trench-mouth hillbilly the number of a fucking dentist, fer chrissake. Doesn't Congress have a dental plan? Faak.
Originally Posted by rooster

you realize you just agreed with my post, yes? but Democrats would never exploit the committee, would they?

yes they would and did.

but that's beside the point. let's hear from actual experts ...


Dershowitz Assesses Trump Guilty Verdict

https://www.johnlocke.org/dershowitz...uilty-verdict/


Liberal legal legend Alan Dershowitz writes for DailyMail.com about the guilty verdict against former President Donald Trump.


Long before Donald Trump’s hush-money trial concluded, I predicted that his conviction wss a forgone conclusion – despite the obvious weakness of the case against him.


Had the prosecution been brought in another part of the country, or even in another part of New York State, which was more fairly balanced with anti and pro-Trump voters, I am in little doubt that the outcome would have been different.


But instead, on Thursday, Trump became the first former president to be found guilty of a crime – convicted on all 34 flimsy counts of ‘falsifying business records.’


Why? Because this case was tried in Manhattan, where practically every man on the street wants to keep one Donald Trump out of the White House.


Perhaps the most important function of an independent jury in criminal trials is to keep a check on the biases of prosecutors and judges.


But for this constitutional protection to work, jurors must not be biased themselves against a defendant.


It’s quite apparent that this essential protection was absent.


Nor did this case seem to be based on the evidence or the law. In fact, I saw no credible evidence of a crime.


The case brought by District Attorney Alvin Bragg – elected to ‘Get Trump’ – was so woefully weak on the facts and the law that it makes Trump’s conviction even more dangerous.


It now means that future prosecutors can concoct extremely weak cases against political opponents and be assured of a conviction – albeit if they just pick the right venue and select the right jurors.


This trial was without precedent.


Never in American history has anyone ever been prosecuted for – as Trump’s defense argued was the case – erroneous bookkeeping made by a company underling who failed to disclose the payment of ‘hush money’.


What there is plenty of precedent for is… the payment of hush money.

I agree with Dershowitz. Our counselor from Baton Rouge probably does too although he won’t admit it. He’s been all over the board but is avoiding this thread.