Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty

[YGIFS 19443]

I needs the cash man.  
 

Can somebody do the pawn star guys with trump asking “during the trial for my life, will I at least be surrounded by the beautiful, supportive women in my life like Melania and Ivanka?”

best we can is George Santos and MTG. 
 

 

[Al Bundy's Napoleon Hand 13336]

26 minutes ago, Francisco 2.0 said:

 

Lulz.  Staten Island.

Not too many years ago, Trump would have avoided Staten Island like the plague. Now, he's begging to go there vs. staying in his once beloved Manhattan.

The place I'm from hates me. UNFAIR!

[tx 3 putt 74765]

 

[Serak The Preparer 3408]

43 minutes ago, tx 3 putt said:

Guess the surly poster ?

 

I think it's pretty obviously either PilotsError or Sgt Hulk.

[tbone_ 13968]

 

So they should get the firehoses then huh?

[atomheartbevo 88750]

44 minutes ago, Francisco 2.0 said:

Lulz.  Staten Island.

Not too many years ago, Trump would have avoided Staten Island like the plague. Now, he's begging to go there vs. staying in his once beloved Manhattan.

Staten Island you say?

[Chuckie Finster 22252]

1 minute ago, tbone_ said:

So they should get the firehoses then huh?

Unfortunately there's nobody left to man the hoses, they're all attending the rally.

[YGIFS 19443]

1 minute ago, tbone_ said:

So they should get the firehoses then huh?

That’s cruel to do Oskar while they’re on the trains.  It gives them hope.  
 

MAGA is a cancer to our nation.  The 1/3 that is beyond redemption should be liquidated via direct radiation. The 1/3 that naively voted straight ticket no matter who was on the top, can be allowed to assimilate once again.  The middle third that knew what they were doing and did it anyway, with reluctance can take their chances with  indirect radiation.  
 

Are you all exhausted making excuses for these people?  Here comeS another several months of their armed violence.  Yey………

[Beau Vine 53625]

1 hour ago, TwiceHorn said:

And the defendant could easily argue, as argued here frequently, that the allegations were immaterial to the campaign but he wanted to avoid personal/familial embarrassment. 

Would his lawyers have to argue with a straight face that he did it to protect his marriage to an Eastern European hooker?

[Beau Vine 53625]

1 hour ago, Francisco 2.0 said:

 

Care?

Hell, they celebrate it.

"By God, my man Trump fucked a pornstar!  High fives all around!"

"Any man that can fuck a pornstar has my vote forever!"

"I'd watch the tape of Trump fucking a pornstar all day long!"

"That's what kind of President we need!  Someone that isn't afraid of being a man!"

 

 

 

 

And that's just the Evangelicals.

[Beau Vine 53625]

1 hour ago, TwiceHorn said:

On the one hand, how you counter that circumstantial evidence is a bit of a puzzler.  One pretty good way to do it would be to put Trump on the stand and have him say, "I didn't care about the campaign, I knew it wouldn't make any difference to my base, but I was concerned about Melania and Barron, and my other kids." 

I thought you were a lawyer, and you're suggesting that a pretty good way to get Trump off is to put him on the stand?  Seriously?

 

On cross-examination:

"Mr. Trump, you said that you made this payment because you were concerned about your family.  Could you tell us what day your daughter Tiffany was born?"

Trump lawyer: "OBJECTION!!!"

Trump: "I plead the Fifth."

"Mr. Trump, could you tell us your son Eric's middle name?"

Trump lawyer: "OBJECTION!!!"

Trump: "I plead the Fifth."

"How about the names of Don Jr's kids, your grandkids?"

 

[Guest]

30 minutes ago, tx 3 putt said:

 

Honestly, good. Needing a permit to protest and being confined to specific areas is BS. 

[TwiceHorn 30715]

40 minutes ago, tbone_ said:

What’s the story with this Blanche guy that resigned his job at some big shot firm to take this case?

On the one hand, he seems to be a serious lawyer and not a performative assclown.  Then again, so was Chris Kise.  Kise had some influence on the appellate briefing in the MAL case, but has not been heard from since, basically.  The conventional wisdom is that Kise told Trump things he didn't want to hear, and also refused to say stupid shit, so he has been marginalized.

[Beau Vine 53625]

59 minutes ago, Red Five said:

Talking shit repeatedly about the judge's family seems like a pretty bad idea. 

Nonsense.  He should turn it up to 11.

[TwiceHorn 30715]

13 minutes ago, Beau Vine said:

I thought you were a lawyer, and you're suggesting that a pretty good way to get Trump off is to put him on the stand?  Seriously?

 

On cross-examination:

"Mr. Trump, you said that you made this payment because you were concerned about your family.  Could you tell us what day your daughter Tiffany was born?"

Trump lawyer: "OBJECTION!!!"

Trump: "I plead the Fifth."

"Mr. Trump, could you tell us your son Eric's middle name?"

Trump lawyer: "OBJECTION!!!"

Trump: "I plead the Fifth."

"How about the names of Don Jr's kids, your grandkids?"

 

I'm saying with any other defendant, that would be very good evidence.  That would be true with any of these cases where his intent was directly in issue.  As defense counsel, depending on what the prosecution had, I think you'd be sorely tempted to permit your client to testify, despite the dangers.

Of course, that's a complete non-starter with Trump.  Or if it were to happen successfully, one of the greatest jobs of witness preparation and woodshedding in the history of evar.

Edited April 4, 2023 by TwiceHorn

[Francisco 2.0 31567]

4 minutes ago, FirstTimeCaller said:

Honestly, good. Needing a permit to protest and being confined to specific areas is BS. 

On the other hand,  ignoring rules and regulations seems to be something GOP'ers habitually do, right?

 

 

[Upgrayedd 5743]

1 minute ago, Francisco 2.0 said:

On the other hand,  ignoring rules and regulations seems to be something GOP'ers habitually do, right?

 

 

Feature, not a bug.

[TwiceHorn 30715]

2 hours ago, Sawbonz said:

I’m not saying trump will be convicted. I’m saying what is publicly known is enough for a reasonable person to convict him

 

Unless there is another deal Cohen did for him for the same exact amount 

One of the things people don't seem to get is that you don't get to prosecute a criminal case by saying "you've all seen the reports, you know damn well what happened, you must convict."  Nor do you get to play videos of Trump and others saying random shit (you do, but it's not as useful as you think, unless a witness contradicts an earlier statement).

You have to convert that information into admissible evidence in the form of witness testimony, subject to cross-examination, and verifiable documents.  And in that process, "what is publicly known" may not be so convincing after all.

It's the "moon is not made of green cheese" problem.  We all know it, or think we do.  Proving it with competent admissible evidence in court, particularly beyond a reasonable doubt, is a non-trivial endeavor.

Edited April 4, 2023 by TwiceHorn

[Pig Bellmont 8637]

14 minutes ago, FirstTimeCaller said:

Honestly, good. Needing a permit to protest and being confined to specific areas is BS. 

I thought the GOP believed you can run over un sanctioned protesters or was that just black people? lol never mind I know what the answer is 

[Longhorn_Fan68 33693]

1 hour ago, WhatTheBuck said:

They don’t care about him trying to influence the election, either. He could shoot someone on 5th Ave. and they wouldn’t care. 

seriously, with everything that man has said in the past and now knowing every accusation is a confession, did he... did he go out to 5th Ave late one night and kill a homeless dude? I'm kinda thinking he did

[Beau Vine 53625]

13 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

One of the things people don't seem to get is that you don't get to prosecute a criminal case by saying "you've all seen the reports, you know damn well what happened, you must convict." 

Golly, I'm glad we have you to clear these things up.  Thanks, Gene Steratore!

Edited April 4, 2023 by Beau Vine

[tx 3 putt 74765]

 

[TwiceHorn 30715]

4 minutes ago, Beau Vine said:

Golly, I'm glad we have you to clear these things up.  Thanks, Gene Steratore!

Well, it's a gotdam meme around here.  "Publicly known," even if reliable and accurate, =/= convictable proof.  And reliable and accurate can be a stretch in certain instances.

[TwiceHorn 30715]

3 minutes ago, tx 3 putt said:

 

[Captainant 26861]

21 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

You have to convert that information into admissible evidence in the form of witness testimony, subject to cross-examination, and verifiable documents.  And in that process, "what is publicly known" may not be so convincing after all.

Now square that with the courts allowances of delays and fuck fuck games with privilege and witness tampering from trumpco. You're falling for the same uncritical catch-22 that the Senate republicans used in the impeachment trials to discredit the Mueller report. Trump obstructing his own investigations so thoroughly that there is scant available evidence is not something that should be rewarded just because lawyers sometimes can't see the forest for the trees.  We have ample evidence of trump and his attorneys actions to destroy evidence and tamper with testimony. 

Edited April 4, 2023 by Captainant

[TwiceHorn 30715]

15 minutes ago, Captainant said:

Now square that with the courts allowances of delays and fuck fuck games with privilege and witness tampering from trumpco. You're falling for the same uncritical catch-22 that the Senate republicans used in the impeachment trials to discredit the Mueller report. Trump obstructing his own investigations so thoroughly that there is scant available evidence is not something that should be rewarded just because lawyers sometimes can't see the forest for the trees. Because we have ample evidence of his actions to destroy evidence and tamper with testimony. 

There's nothing to square.  You take a case to court, you have to have admissible evidence.  Those are the rules.  They're neutral, not pro-fascist or anything else.

You appear to be suggesting that the rules of evidence and ordinary procedure be suspended to favor conviction of Trump.  They aren't your favorite little "fuck fuck game."  This is trial lawyering on the ground.  It's the nitty gritty, it's not Supreme Court "calvinball."

I'm not falling for anything, or being "uncritical."  I'm telling you how it fucking IS.  You seem to be quite unwilling to accept reality.

You want the RULE OF LAW so badly, deal with the rule of law.

Impeachment isn't a court of law, so none of that really matters; it is and always was a political game and no rules or anything else was going to change the outcome of impeachments with a majority-craven-Republican Senate.  

And, I'll remind you yet again, that Trump presented his executive privilege arguments, they were considered and rejected at every turn.  As a President/former President, he has a unique ability to present those arguments, as any other President, to include Biden, should have.  You can't just ignore it because you don't like the sumbitch.  

Edited April 4, 2023 by TwiceHorn

[tx 3 putt 74765]

😂😂😂😂😂

10 min rally 😂😂😂😂😂

 

[tx 3 putt 74765]

😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂

 

[TwiceHorn 30715]

2 minutes ago, tx 3 putt said:

😂😂😂😂😂

10 min rally 😂😂😂😂😂

 

The whistles apparently were distributed by a pro-Trumper.

[Surly Bevo 24247]

2 minutes ago, tx 3 putt said:

😂😂😂😂😂

10 min rally 😂😂😂😂😂

 

Well, dogs usually are pretty annoyed by high-pitched whistles.

[jimmyjazz 45055]

I decided to find FOX News on my DirecTV feed . . . they are currently featuring five people discussing an adoption that was allegedly denied in Oregon because of the woman's Christian faith.

 

[Mole 4265]

1 hour ago, Al Bundy's Napoleon Hand said:

The place I'm from hates me. UNFAIR!

On this Holy Week, where we commemorate the savior of the world and His betrayal and resurrection, we are reminded of the words of Jesus from Mark 6:4: Jesus said to them, “A prophet is not without honor except in his own town, among his relatives and in his own home.”

[Evil Bill Obrien 2860]

1 hour ago, atomheartbevo said:

Staten Island you say?

Man the Starks really slumming it these days taking up residence in Staten Island instead of Winterfell

[Sawbonz 26735]

1 hour ago, TwiceHorn said:

Just ignore that.  It has absolutely zero utility in this prosecution.  None.  Nada. Zip. Nothing.  Jack shit.

I mean other than literally connecting the payment to the campaign, zero. But hey you lawyers are great at pretending shit never happened 

[TwiceHorn 30715]

3 hours ago, scottsins said:

That’s all correct. My question is how “in-kind campaign contribution” is defined under the applicable statute. Is there any language that speaks to “primary purpose”, etc.?

Here's the statute.  https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/52/subtitle-III/chapter-301/subchapter-I

It's pretty damn byzantine and designed for "civil" type enforcement by the FEC, who has CFR regs to gapfill.  But at the end, it does provide criminal penalties for willful violations of the statute.

Here's the definition of "contribution:"

Quote

(8)

(A)The term “contribution” includes—

(i)

any gift, subscription, loan, advance, or deposit of money or anything of value made by any person for the purpose of influencing any election for Federal office; or

(ii)

the payment by any person of compensation for the personal services of another person which are rendered to a political committee without charge for any purpose.

(B)The term “contribution” does not include—

(i)

the value of services provided without compensation by any individual who volunteers on behalf of a candidate or political committee;

(ii)

the use of real or personal property, including a church or community room used on a regular basis by members of a community for noncommercial purposes, and the cost of invitations, food, and beverages, voluntarily provided by an individual to any candidate or any political committee of a political party in rendering voluntary personal services on the individual’s residential premises or in the church or community room for candidate-related or political party-related activities, to the extent that the cumulative value of such invitations, food, and beverages provided by such individual on behalf of any single candidate does not exceed $1,000 with respect to any single election, and on behalf of all political committees of a political party does not exceed $2,000 in any calendar year;

(iii)

the sale of any food or beverage by a vendor for use in any candidate’s campaign or for use by or on behalf of any political committee of a political party at a charge less than the normal comparable charge, if such charge is at least equal to the cost of such food or beverage to the vendor, to the extent that the cumulative value of such activity by such vendor on behalf of any single candidate does not exceed $1,000 with respect to any single election, and on behalf of all political committees of a political party does not exceed $2,000 in any calendar year;

(iv)

any unreimbursed payment for travel expenses made by any individual on behalf of any candidate or any political committee of a political party, to the extent that the cumulative value of such activity by such individual on behalf of any single candidate does not exceed $1,000 with respect to any single election, and on behalf of all political committees of a political party does not exceed $2,000 in any calendar year;

(v)

the payment by a State or local committee of a political party of the costs of preparation, display, or mailing or other distribution incurred by such committee with respect to a printed slate card or sample ballot, or other printed listing, of 3 or more candidates for any public office for which an election is held in the State in which such committee is organized, except that this clause shall not apply to any cost incurred by such committee with respect to a display of any such listing made on broadcasting stations, or in newspapers, magazines, or similar types of general public political advertising;

(vi)

any payment made or obligation incurred by a corporation or a labor organization which, under section 30118(b) of this title, would not constitute an expenditure by such corporation or labor organization;

(vii)any loan of money by a State bank, a federally chartered depository institution, or a depository institution the deposits or accounts of which are insured by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, Federal Savings and Loan Insurance Corporation, or the National Credit Union Administration, other than any overdraft made with respect to a checking or savings account, made in accordance with applicable law and in the ordinary course of business, but such loan—

(I)

shall be considered a loan by each endorser or guarantor, in that proportion of the unpaid balance that each endorser or guarantor bears to the total number of endorsers or guarantors;

(II)

shall be made on a basis which assures repayment, evidenced by a written instrument, and subject to a due date or amortization schedule; and

(III)

shall bear the usual and customary interest rate of the lending institution;

(viii)any legal or accounting services rendered to or on behalf of—

(I)

any political committee of a political party if the person paying for such services is the regular employer of the person rendering such services and if such services are not attributable to activities which directly further the election of any designated candidate to Federal office; or

(II)

an authorized committee of a candidate or any other political committee, if the person paying for such services is the regular employer of the individual rendering such services and if such services are solely for the purpose of ensuring compliance with this Act or chapter 95 or chapter 96 of title 26,

but amounts paid or incurred by the regular employer for such legal or accounting services shall be reported in accordance with section 30104(b) of this title by the committee receiving such services;

(ix)the payment by a State or local committee of a political party of the costs of campaign materials (such as pins, bumper stickers, handbills, brochures, posters, party tabloids, and yard signs) used by such committee in connection with volunteer activities on behalf of nominees of such party: Provided, That—

(1)

such payments are not for the costs of campaign materials or activities used in connection with any broadcasting, newspaper, magazine, billboard, direct mail, or similar type of general public communication or political advertising;

(2)

such payments are made from contributions subject to the limitations and prohibitions of this Act; and

(3)

such payments are not made from contributions designated to be spent on behalf of a particular candidate or particular candidates;

(x)

the payment by a candidate, for nomination or election to any public office (including State or local office), or authorized committee of a candidate, of the costs of campaign materials which include information on or referenced to any other candidate and which are used in connection with volunteer activities (including pins, bumper stickers, handbills, brochures, posters, and yard signs, but not including the use of broadcasting, newspapers, magazines, billboards, direct mail, or similar types of general public communication or political advertising): Provided, That such payments are made from contributions subject to the limitations and prohibitions of this Act;

(xi)the payment by a State or local committee of a political party of the costs of voter registration and get-out-the-vote activities conducted by such committee on behalf of nominees of such party for President and Vice President: Provided, That—

(1)

such payments are not for the costs of campaign materials or activities used in connection with any broadcasting, newspaper, magazine, billboard, direct mail, or similar type of general public communication or political advertising;

(2)

such payments are made from contributions subject to the limitations and prohibitions of this Act; and

(3)

such payments are not made from contributions designated to be spent on behalf of a particular candidate or candidates;

(xii)

payments made by a candidate or the authorized committee of a candidate as a condition of ballot access and payments received by any political party committee as a condition of ballot access;

(xiii)

any honorarium (within the meaning of section 30125 of this title); and

(xiv)

any loan of money derived from an advance on a candidate’s brokerage account, credit card, home equity line of credit, or other line of credit available to the candidate, if such loan is made in accordance with applicable law and under commercially reasonable terms and if the person making such loan makes loans derived from an advance on the candidate’s brokerage account, credit card, home equity line of credit, or other line of credit in the normal course of the person’s business.

The operative portion seems to be this:

anything of value made by any person for the purpose of influencing any election for Federal office;

[South Austin 51409]

14 minutes ago, jimmyjazz said:

I decided to find FOX News on my DirecTV feed . . . they are currently featuring five people discussing an adoption that was allegedly denied in Oregon because of the woman's Christian faith.

[High Plains Drifter 10914]

 

 

sounds like ol' marge and georgie should have gotten permits for their rally.

Oh well. Maybe the next time orange fuck face gets indicated, they won't fuck it up.

 

 

[TwiceHorn 30715]

1 minute ago, Sawbonz said:

I mean other than literally connecting the payment to the campaign, zero. But hey you lawyers are great at pretending shit never happened 

You understand that pleading to an offense does not establish the truth of the offense except against the defendant that pleads to it?  It has no value as proof of anything in a charge against another defendant, even if it arises out of the same facts.

[RomaVicta 29472]

10 hours ago, pyrohornIII said:

He's full on playing the martyr role.  

Not full-on enough.

[Celery Man 20535]

49 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

One of the things people don't seem to get is that you don't get to prosecute a criminal case by saying "you've all seen the reports, you know damn well what happened, you must convict."  Nor do you get to play videos of Trump and others saying random shit (you do, but it's not as useful as you think, unless a witness contradicts an earlier statement).

You have to convert that information into admissible evidence in the form of witness testimony, subject to cross-examination, and verifiable documents.  And in that process, "what is publicly known" may not be so convincing after all.

It's the "moon is not made of green cheese" problem.  We all know it, or think we do.  Proving it with competent admissible evidence in court, particularly beyond a reasonable doubt, is a non-trivial endeavor.

21 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

The whistles apparently were distributed by a pro-Trumper.

[Sawbonz 26735]

It bottles the mind that our legal system would have rules preventing one from entering into evidence a federal conviction for the precise crime Trump is  accused of providing remuneration for. 
 

Truly obscene

2 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

You understand that pleading to an offense does not establish the truth of the offense except against the defendant that pleads to it?  It has no value as proof of anything in a charge against another defendant, even if it arises out of the same facts.

Lol

[RomaVicta 29472]

1 hour ago, TwiceHorn said:

On the one hand, he seems to be a serious lawyer and not a performative assclown.  Then again, so was Chris Kise.  Kise had some influence on the appellate briefing in the MAL case, but has not been heard from since, basically.  The conventional wisdom is that Kise told Trump things he didn't want to hear, and also refused to say stupid shit, so he has been marginalized.

Is he the guy Trump offered a race horse as payment?

[Sawbonz 26735]

As stupid as the average attorney is proving to be I guess I shouldn’t be surprised at the idiocy of these rules of evidence 

[Pato del Muerto 51913]

36 minutes ago, tx 3 putt said:

😂😂😂😂😂

10 min rally 😂😂😂😂😂

 

Funny the things that can happen when you have people meet up in a public area and haven’t bothered to get it permitted for your group. Like, other people also have the right to be there and do things. 

[Francisco 2.0 31567]

Here you go; something called Hellgate is on the scene.   Someone associated with them is first in line (yesterday afternoon, in fact) to get a ticket to see the proceedings, and is offering it up for $10,000:

https://hellgatenyc.com/breaking-hell-gate-is-first-on-the-scene-to-see-trumps-arraignment

 

Quote

It's the most important story in the history of the republic, and Hell Gate is dominating it in true New York City fashion: by waiting on line.

According to various court officers milling around the New York County Criminal Courthouse at 100 Centre Street in Lower Manhattan, Hell Gate is the second journalistic outfit on line to get a spot to witness the arraignment of former U.S. President Donald J. Trump—but technically, the first to arrive. 

At 8 a.m. on Tuesday morning, reporters waiting outside 100 Centre will be given numbers on a first-come, first-serve basis, to bear witness to the first instance of a former president being charged with a crime, a spokesperson for the state courts system has confirmed. And since Hell Gate's Max Rivlin-Nadler came first (technically), we are able to serve our readers—first.

 

Quote

"I'll be here until I am relieved of duty or until a former president is arraigned in court," Rivlin-Nadler said, adding that he only had around 18 percent battery in his phone, and that he would appreciate a camping chair of some kind for the remaining 20 hours until the numbers are handed out.

Initially, Rivlin-Nadler said he was worried because none of the other journalists around him were waiting on line. "You never really know if you're on line until someone else gets behind you," he explained. 

 

 

 

And more at this link:

https://hellgatenyc.com/all-rise-for-the-celebrity-trump-arraignment

 

 

Edited April 4, 2023 by Francisco 2.0

[TwiceHorn 30715]

9 minutes ago, Sawbonz said:

As stupid as the average attorney is proving to be I guess I shouldn’t be surprised at the idiocy of these rules of evidence 

You do get the notion that people plead to offenses for a variety of reasons other than their guilt, right?  That's one of the first things.

Even if Cohen had been proven guilty of the offense after a trial, his conduct leading to the conviction is different from Trump's conduct that may or may not lead to a conviction.  For example, proof that Cohen knew what he was doing and willfully and knowingly did what he did has no bearing on whether Trump did or not.  You're fucking making me defend Trump here, so fuck you.

Let's say one of your colleagues is found liable for medical malpractice on a case you consulted on.  Think that fact should come in at your trial or are they independent events that should be proven independently of one another because you had different roles in the treatment?  Or might you worry that the judgment against your colleague might confuse and prejudice jurors in your case?

You're over your skis on this one.

Edited April 4, 2023 by TwiceHorn

[Beau Vine 53625]

 

[Sawbonz 26735]

Just now, TwiceHorn said:

You do get the notion that people plead to offenses for a variety of reasons other than their guilt, right?  That's one of the first things.

Even if Cohen had been proven guilty of the offense after a trial, his conduct leading to the conviction is different from Trump's conduct that may or may not lead to a conviction.

Let's say one of your colleagues is found liable for medical malpractice on a case you consulted on.  Think that fact should come in at your trial or are they independent events that should be proven independently of one another because you had different roles in the treatment?

You're over your skis on this one.

It honestly depends. If we were working together in a surgery then absolutely it should be made known to the jury. You know, the “finders of fact”.  Trump signed a fucking check made payable to cohen. For the exact amount that he plead guilty for improper payments to trumps campaign. They are intimately connected and should have been tried together (who was the “unindicted coconspirator” again?)

 

Don’t piss down my leg and tell me it’s raining

[tx 3 putt 74765]

[SmokeyTheBear 5551]