|
Now that we have a new thread, in order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a complete and thorough read before posting! NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets.
Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source.If you have any questions, comments, concern, or feedback regarding the USPMT, then please use this thread: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/website-feedback/510156-us-politics-thread |
Trump absolutely was found guilty of corrupting the 2016 election. He violated the campaign finance laws. On top of that, he did so to keep from the voters information that the voters needed to decide their vote. That's why it is a double crime.
By Trump's own logic, that means Clinton by default won that election. Because that's literally what Trump asked for when he challenged the 2020 election result. That because he found voting irregularities, the judge should throw out all the votes and just declare Trump the winner.
If you break laws, you get prosecuted. Why does Trump 'pretty much only opponent' have to do with it? Under that logic, Trump shouldn't even be running for office. Because Biden is already prosecuting him for suspected crimes. And Biden can't properly prosecute Trump if Trump is also allowed to be his 'pretty much only opponent'. And therefore, Trump should be barred from running against Biden. Don't forget that Trump is running for president to sabotage these legal cases. Not that the legal cases are there because Trump is running. These legal cases also damage Biden. Which is why Biden & Garland did everything they could do to slow row & possibly avoid appointing a special council. Until the Jan6th commission and under oath testimony of all the GOP people that worked for Trump forced their hand.
Alvin Bragg didn't run for district attorney on that promise. You are simply repeating lies. You are confused with Letitia James. In fact, Bragg at first ended the investigation. And two prosecutors quit in protest over that.
Don't lie. Wash your dirty mouth.
It is also perfectly normal and allowed for prosecutors to promise to prosecute certain people.. In the end, they don't indict people. A grand jury does. And that happened for Trump as well. A different jury heard the evidence and thought there was enough evidence to hold a trial. And no, you can't actually indict a ham-sandwich. The US is a country of law and order. Even if more than half the GOP base deeply hates that about the US.
So even if Bragg had promised to prosecute Trump? So fucking what? Doesn't change the outcome. If Trump had been innocent, or he did the crime but there wasn't the evidence, Trump walks. No matter what the prosecutor wants.
On top of that TRUMP ADMITTED TO THE CRIME. HE CONFESSED MANY TIMES
He just says he was allowed to pay Cohen and to not declare it. He said he did the crime, but he is allowed to do the crime. Just as he did with the stolen natsec documents.
IT IS EVEN ON FUCKING TAPE. Cohen recorded his phone call with Trump about how to set up the payments to him.
Trump was already basically dead to rights in this trial. And the nail in the coffin was that all his loyal lackeys, like Pecker, Westerhout, Hicks, all refused to lie under oath for Trump, told the prosecutor 'yes' to all their questions. And then two of them broke down crying, knowing they had betrayed Trump on the stand.
That's why Trump was found guilty. He did it. And his loyal minions threw him under the bus because they don't want to go to jail for perjury like Weisselberg. And that's why Weisselberg, who did this entire deal together with Cohen and Trump, didn't testify for the defense, and lie. Because he already did that twice and is currently in Rickers. Hope Hicks didn't want to go to Rickers for Trump. So she said she knows Cohen would never do these payments on his own. And that Trump cared deeply about this story because of the presidential campaign.
Also, Trump plead the 5th. He refused to explain under oath himself why this money was paid. And why the paper record seems to show that they were falsified to corrupt the election.
Yes, the jury is not supposed to weight the fact that a defendant is refusing to testify. But only the jury. We can. And we should. Every US voter should hold it against Trump why he apparently cheated in the 2016 election, and then refused to explain why that was not a crime. And conclude his guilt based on him not testifying. We 100% are allowed to to that and 100% should because we do not need to follow Merchan's jury instruction into making up our own minds.
Judges are allowed to vote, do campaign donations. Merchan can do the same. Do you think that Biden should be above the law because any judge, jury, or prosecutor involved in his trial probably decided at some point to either vote or not vote for him?
Also, Merchan didn't find Trump guilty. The jury did. The jury that Trump's defense team selected.
Merchan will sentence Trump. And made some other decisions. Like to only give Trump a 1000 USD fine for breaking his gag order 11 times. When he knows that Trump makes 20 to 100 times that money for breaking it, through GOP campaign donations that, probably illegally, directly flow into his legal defense.
Yeah, maybe we should put your ass in non-concentration camps so we can unbrainwash your brain. That's a great idea, actually!
Dirty lying fascist!
|
|
|
Trump was not found guilty of “corrupting the 2016 election.” Whatever that means. He wad found guilty of falsifying business records. Those business records were falsified in 2017, well after the 2016 election was over. Before you smugly expect the mods to ban someone for being wrong you should double check that you know what you’re talking about in the first place.
|
|
|
United States43401 Posts
Bit aggressive there buddy.
|
On June 08 2024 14:02 BlackJack wrote:
Trump was not found guilty of “corrupting the 2016 election.” Whatever that means. He wad found guilty of falsifying business records. Those business records were falsified in 2017, well after the 2016 election was over. Before you smugly expect the mods to ban someone for being wrong you should double check that you know what you’re talking about in the first place.
Also, even if they were reported as campaign contributions, the data for the reporting period in question would not have been released before the 2016 election. The fact that Bragg keeps talking about 2016 election being called into question is a dead give away as to what this is really about.
|
See, this is the problem with Trump derangement syndrome. "Trump was found guilty of corrupting the 2016 election" and "Trump falsified the election campaign" are not even semi-coherent thoughts. I can't even respond because it's impossible to decipher how exactly you're alleging that falsified documents created in 2017 somehow "falsified the 2016 campaign". Hell, I don't even know what falsifying an election campaign entails. Can you cite the specific election/campaign law that you allege Trump was found guilty of? No, of course not.
If you paid attention to this thread even poorly over the last few days you would have learned that we've thoroughly discussed the fact that the predicate crime in question did not have to be proven or even agreed upon by the jurors. The predicate crime could have been a tax crime for all we know. That doesn't mean you get to pick whatever unnamed election crime you want and declare that the jury found him guilty of it also. That's not how that works.
Btw your MSNBC link that you're citing as your "source" doesn't say anything about elections or campaign finance. All it says is he was found guilty which literally everyone in the world knows. In the future you should try to find sources that actually contain some semblance of the information you're claiming.
|
I see little point in arguing with a pbu that is swiftly looking to get banned again so I will just say this.
If you don't want AG's to be political and talk about prosecuting certain individuals then maybe you shouldn't elect them by popular vote.
The US went out of its way to specifically make it a political position, for some god forsaken reason.
|
On June 08 2024 18:16 BlackJack wrote:See, this is the problem with Trump derangement syndrome. "Trump was found guilty of corrupting the 2016 election" and "Trump falsified the election campaign" are not even semi-coherent thoughts. I can't even respond because it's impossible to decipher how exactly you're alleging that falsified documents created in 2017 somehow "falsified the 2016 campaign". Hell, I don't even know what falsifying an election campaign entails. Can you cite the specific election/campaign law that you allege Trump was found guilty of? No, of course not. If you paid attention to this thread even poorly over the last few days you would have learned that we've thoroughly discussed the fact that the predicate crime in question did not have to be proven or even agreed upon by the jurors. The predicate crime could have been a tax crime for all we know. That doesn't mean you get to pick whatever unnamed election crime you want and declare that the jury found him guilty of it also. That's not how that works. Btw your MSNBC link that you're citing as your "source" doesn't say anything about elections or campaign finance. All it says is he was found guilty which literally everyone in the world knows. In the future you should try to find sources that actually contain some semblance of the information you're claiming.
The only deranged person here is you. The money was paid immediately after the Access Hollywood tape dropped and the Trump campaign was worried this would sink their campaign. They panicked and that's why they suddenly wanted to pay Stormy. They paid the money to cheat the voter. That was about half the point of the entire trial. Did you even watch the trial? It is literally the reason Hope Hicks started crying after she gave her answers to the prosecution.
You do fucking know what it means how to falsify an election campaign. That's why it was called the 'hush money trial'. Moron!
And judge Merchan literally said that yes, the jury got to pick which crimes they wanted to string together. That was the entire point of Trump's objection. And I believe YOU YOUR FUCKING SELF even talked about this earlier in the thread. You just don't agree. You think all the jury members had to agree on what the underlying crime was. But in this trial, that is NOT TRUE. Which is why you are a dirty little liar.
If you don't want AG's to be political and talk about prosecuting certain individuals then maybe you shouldn't elect them by popular vote.
See, here is someone who CAN disagree without lying. So instead of banning me, why not just ban those that lie. You will still have people left who disagree civilly with each other.
The US has a tradition of electing AGs through popular votes. It is called 'democracy'. Not 'making the AG political'. That has never happened before. Only when Trump is on trial, things are suddenly political. So yes, this contention is unique to Trump and has nothing to do with if the AG was elected, yes or no. In this case he was. And Trump is lying about it. And a grand jury indicted Trump. Not a politically motivated AG who wants to run for say congress on the platform of 'I made Trump go to jail as an AG, now vote for me for congress'.
That's just MAGA brainrot nonsense.
User was banned for this post.
|
Kitalpha / Maasym, it's possible to make valid arguments without adding in your quantity and severity of insults. (And without being a PBU.)
|
Yes, but that is not needed.
I see now people even linked the LegalEagle video, which also explains all I have said. And mentions all testimonies and how it relates to the 2016 campaign.
BlackJack and Razyda are lying on purpose. And Micronesia needs to grow the fuck up.
Liars need to be called out. This 'pbu' thing is nonsense because most of the mods here are pbus.
|
On June 08 2024 23:28 Maasym wrote:
Yes, but that is not needed.
I see now people even linked the LegalEagle video, which also explains all I have said. And mentions all testimonies and how it relates to the 2016 campaign.
BlackJack and Razyda are lying on purpose. And Micronesia needs to grow the fuck up.
Liars need to be called out. This 'pbu' thing is nonsense because most of the mods here are pbus.
Decorum isn't necessary for an argument to be valid, but decorum is necessary to avoid being banned in a forum where there are rules about decorum.
Even if I agree with most of your political points, you're unfortunately doing "us" a disservice.
|
|
|
I don't understand your endgame or how you think your goals will be achieved by doing what you're doing, but I sincerely wish you a wonderful weekend. Take care 
|
United States24751 Posts
It's ironic that Judge Cannon's naked efforts to stall the classified documents case until after the election in the hopes that Trump will win is actually motivating some people like myself (who care a lot about this issue) to donate nontrivial amounts of money to the Biden campaign. Trump's done many awful things, some of them illegal, but the documents case honestly is one of the ones I take most personally as a tangentially-related professional. There is no excuse for what Trump did (not the negligence aspects, but rather than covering it up and lying/bad faith claim aspects) and he needs to be held to account.
Of course, there are other things to hold him to account for also.
|
On June 08 2024 18:16 BlackJack wrote:See, this is the problem with Trump derangement syndrome. "Trump was found guilty of corrupting the 2016 election" and "Trump falsified the election campaign" are not even semi-coherent thoughts. I can't even respond because it's impossible to decipher how exactly you're alleging that falsified documents created in 2017 somehow "falsified the 2016 campaign". Hell, I don't even know what falsifying an election campaign entails. Can you cite the specific election/campaign law that you allege Trump was found guilty of? No, of course not. If you paid attention to this thread even poorly over the last few days you would have learned that we've thoroughly discussed the fact that the predicate crime in question did not have to be proven or even agreed upon by the jurors. The predicate crime could have been a tax crime for all we know. That doesn't mean you get to pick whatever unnamed election crime you want and declare that the jury found him guilty of it also. That's not how that works. Btw your MSNBC link that you're citing as your "source" doesn't say anything about elections or campaign finance. All it says is he was found guilty which literally everyone in the world knows. In the future you should try to find sources that actually contain some semblance of the information you're claiming.
Well, while MSNBC link doesnt the CNN one does:
https://edition.cnn.com/2024/05/31/politics/fact-check-trump-post-conviction-speech/index.html
" Merchan decided in March that Smith could provide background information about the FEC and define certain terms relevant to this case but could not opine on whether Trump broke federal election laws or offer opinions about how to interpret or apply those laws."
Also it seems to me that dude wrote a lot of words to end up with confirming my point:
On June 08 2024 12:13 Kitalpha wrote:
Yeah, maybe we should put your ass in non-concentration camps so we can unbrainwash your brain. That's a great idea, actually!
Dirty lying fascist!
PS: I would also want to say that I think bans on new accounts are somewhat heavy handed (excluding add bots) In my opinion new posters are valuable and it would be better to eduacate them rather than ban, but thats obviously up to the mods.
|
On June 10 2024 10:53 Razyda wrote:
PS: I would also want to say that I think bans on new accounts are somewhat heavy handed (excluding add bots) In my opinion new posters are valuable and it would be better to eduacate them rather than ban, but thats obviously up to the mods.
You should repost in Automated Ban List imo, I think it's worth having a discussion about.
...Though in this case, we've got KWARK of all people saying "bit aggressive there buddy", and if it's past KwarK's limit of aggressiveness, then it probably was never going to last.
|
Northern Ireland26225 Posts
On June 10 2024 13:11 Fleetfeet wrote:Show nested quote +On June 10 2024 10:53 Razyda wrote:
PS: I would also want to say that I think bans on new accounts are somewhat heavy handed (excluding add bots) In my opinion new posters are valuable and it would be better to eduacate them rather than ban, but thats obviously up to the mods. You should repost in Automated Ban List imo, I think it's worth having a discussion about. ...Though in this case, we've got KWARK of all people saying "bit aggressive there buddy", and if it's past KwarK's limit of aggressiveness, then it probably was never going to last.
Aye agreed in that it’s worth general discussion, just this was probably amongst the worst test cases possible haha
|
On June 10 2024 10:53 Razyda wrote:
PS: I would also want to say that I think bans on new accounts are somewhat heavy handed (excluding add bots) In my opinion new posters are valuable and it would be better to eduacate them rather than ban, but thats obviously up to the mods. Bad example, he wasnt new considering he talked about how much better the site was 10 years ago and immediately started bad mouthing mods.
If pbu' s come back and start misbehaving right away i dont think they deserve much leeway.
|
United States43401 Posts
On June 10 2024 17:10 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On June 10 2024 10:53 Razyda wrote:
PS: I would also want to say that I think bans on new accounts are somewhat heavy handed (excluding add bots) In my opinion new posters are valuable and it would be better to eduacate them rather than ban, but thats obviously up to the mods. Bad example, he wasnt new considering he talked about how much better the site was 10 years ago and immediately started bad mouthing mods. If pbu' s come back and start misbehaving right away i dont think they deserve much leeway.
If PBUs come back and continue the exact behavior they were banned for then they get banned again, not because they're PBUs but because they're still doing it. If PBUs come back and try to stay under the radar by not breaking any rules then we don't ban them as PBUs, even if they're flagged as such. If they think they're somehow beating our moderation team by fixing their posting then so be it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
