They are busting Trump rght now in court

[Marener]

Alternate electors have been used before. Didn't go research it...did you?

Lots of crazy shit happened in the 19th century.

It’s pretty stupid to think that makes it okay now.

 

[postman]

What are you referring to, Postman? Would you care to share what was found when they DID audit his returns?

So far they found about $100 million that Trump may owe them, from double claiming deductions on his Trump Tower in Chicago.

 

[Man With A Plan]

LOL

Trump's always the victim, huh? ALWAYS.

So far they found about $100 million that Trump may owe them, from double claiming deductions on his Trump Tower in Chicago.

He "may" owe them? That's from five YEARS ago? When might we know that he DOES owe that?

 

[Man With A Plan]

Lots of crazy shit happened in the 19th century.

It’s pretty stupid to think that makes it okay now.

Yeah...that whole "history" thing...just a lot of "crazy shit"!
You do realize that our laws are based on history?

 

[Marener]

Yeah...that whole "history" thing...just a lot of "crazy shit"!
You do realize that our laws are based on history?

There was a lot of crazy shit. Our elections used to be extremely corrupt.

 

[ThisIsMe]

He doesn't need to be charged with another crime. Holt fuck. Where does it state he needs to be charged with another crime? All it says is he had to falsify business records with an intent to commit another crime or to aid another crime or to conceal another crime.

His falsified records concealed Cohen's crime.

I understand where you are coming from..and I understand that Merchan has said that trump didn’t have to actually commit a crime…why that is wrong is because New York law states that the falsification has to be done with intent to commit or cover another crime…until Trump is convicted of another crime, there is no crime…see what I mean?

Bragg is alleging Trump committed the crime of falsifying business records to cover campaign finance violations…he is trying to bring his case based on a crime that Trump has not been charged with committing.

Look at it like this,,let’s say Bragg wins this case…then later Trump goes to court for campaign finance violations…and Trump ends up winning THAT case…that means Trump has been found not guilty of the crime that Bragg already won his case over.

Do you not see what that means? To say that one doesn’t need to actually commit a crime is bs because it needs to be established that what Trump did was ACTUALLY a crime. As of this moment, all we have are braggs assertions that Trump intended to commit another crime…but that’s just his assertion..that’s why Trump needs to have been convicted of the other crime.

With your idea of this legal theory, Bragg could literally sue anyone he wants under this law by merely taking something someone does and saying “I think that was done to cover a crime”…and going to court, because they allege that a crime doesn’t need to be committed..only the intent…well..who determines intent? Bragg? No…the law does..and that only happens in court after the crime has been charged.

And while he..and you..may be right, you have to have an actual crime charge and conviction to make his indictment work.

 

[ThisIsMe]

His gag order is preventing him from attacking witnesses and jury members in public. That’s not a special case against Trump. That’s something nobody is allowed to do and it’s totally constitutional.

Trump is under arrest

Really? Who did he attack? What jury members did he attack? Show me the stories. What, because he said that the jury was rigged with all democrats? That’s not attacking the jury, it’s speaking out against the fact that Trump has a jury of all democrats..that’s more in the state and the court itself than the jury.

Also..what are you calling “attacks”? Is Trump threatening these people? Or just voicing his opposition to their remarks? That’s not attacks..that’s free speech. Now, if he is threatening them in some way, I’ll agree with you, but if he is just ranting about the process..that’s not an attack.

 

[Slade3200]

Really? Who did he attack? What jury members did he attack? Show me the stories. What, because he said that the jury was rigged with all democrats? That’s not attacking the jury, it’s speaking out against the fact that Trump has a jury of all democrats..that’s more in the state and the court itself than the jury.

Also..what are you calling “attacks”? Is Trump threatening these people? Or just voicing his opposition to their remarks? That’s not attacks..that’s free speech. Now, if he is threatening them in some way, I’ll agree with you, but if he is just ranting about the process..that’s not an attack.

They had a hearing about it… 12 times I believe he made comments about witnesses or jury members. Many high profile cases involve gag orders.

 

[Faun]

I understand where you are coming from..and I understand that Merchan has said that trump didn’t have to actually commit a crime…why that is wrong is because New York law states that the falsification has to be done with intent to commit or cover another crime…until Trump is convicted of another crime, there is no crime…see what I mean?

Bragg is alleging Trump committed the crime of falsifying business records to cover campaign finance violations…he is trying to bring his case based on a crime that Trump has not been charged with committing.

Look at it like this,,let’s say Bragg wins this case…then later Trump goes to court for campaign finance violations…and Trump ends up winning THAT case…that means Trump has been found not guilty of the crime that Bragg already won his case over.

Do you not see what that means? To say that one doesn’t need to actually commit a crime is bs because it needs to be established that what Trump did was ACTUALLY a crime. As of this moment, all we have are braggs assertions that Trump intended to commit another crime…but that’s just his assertion..that’s why Trump needs to have been convicted of the other crime.

With your idea of this legal theory, Bragg could literally sue anyone he wants under this law by merely taking something someone does and saying “I think that was done to cover a crime”…and going to court, because they allege that a crime doesn’t need to be committed..only the intent…well..who determines intent? Bragg? No…the law does..and that only happens in court after the crime has been charged.

And while he..and you..may be right, you have to have an actual crime charge and conviction to make his indictment work.

No, I don't see what you mean. The underlying crime doesn't need to first be adjudicated.

 

[Man With A Plan]

There was a lot of crazy shit. Our elections used to be extremely corrupt.

You think they're not now?

 

[Man With A Plan]

They had a hearing about it… 12 times I believe he made comments about witnesses or jury members. Many high profile cases involve gag orders.

You "believe" that? You don't know?

 

[Slade3200]

You "believe" that? You don't know?

Just going off the top of my head. Didn’t feel like looking it up.

 

[tahuyaman]

They are busting trump rght now in court. Trump org employees are testifying about the signed checks.

Live Updates: Former Employee Says Trump Used Personal Account to Repay Hush Money

A longtime Trump Organization employee testified in Donald J. Trump’s criminal trial that Mr. Trump had used his personal bank account to reimburse his longtime fixer for the money that bought a porn star’s silence.

Live Updates: Former Employee Says Trump Used Personal Account to Repay Hush Money

A longtime Trump Organization employee testified in Donald J. Trump’s criminal trial that Mr. Trump had used his personal bank account to reimburse his longtime fixer for the money that bought a porn star’s silence.

www.nytimes.com

They are showing the copies of the signed checks in court right now.

This whole thing is backfiring on the prosecution. Lol.

 

[Marener]

You think they're not now?

Sometimes, but not commonly.

Elections were super corrupt back then. Openly. Rules meant very little back then.

We’ve come so far. Not sure why you’d want to go back.

 

[Man With A Plan]

Sometimes, but not commonly.

Elections were super corrupt back then. Openly. Rules meant very little back then.

We’ve come so far. Not sure why you’d want to go back.

I don't. I want secure elections. I'd like to see paper ballots. I'd like to see valid ID as a requirement to vote. Why is it that you on the left don't want secure elections, Marener?

 

[Man With A Plan]

Just going off the top of my head. Didn’t feel like looking it up.

So you just made it up.

 

[Slade3200]

So you just made it up.

Haha, no it happened, I read court transcripts when it happened . You didn’t hear about the hearings the judge held about Trumps violations of the gag orders?!

 

[Marener]

I don't. I want secure elections. I'd like to see paper ballots. I'd like to see valid ID as a requirement to vote. Why is it that you on the left don't want secure elections, Marener?

But you want fake electors?

 

[Faun]

You think they're not now?

What Trump did was never done before. The closest was 1876. But that was unlike Trump. In 1876, 4 states couldn't determine a winner so Republicans and Democrats each sent a slate of electors for Congress to figure out. That's not what happened in 2020. In 2020, Biden was determined to win those swing states. Unlike 1876, those swing states certified Biden's electors and the states sent Democratic electors to Congress. At the same time, Republicans signed fake certificates, NOT certified by those states and sent them to Congress, hoping Pence would either pick Trump's fake electors over Biden's certified electors; or that Pence wouldn't count either, allowing Congress to pick Trump as president.

The next closest was in 1960. But that too was unlike 2020. In 1960, Hawaii determined Nixon won their state. The state certified Nixon's electors and sent them to Congress. A few weeks later, a recount determined JFK actually won Hawaii so their governor certified the Democratic slate to Congress to be counted instead of Nixon's. Plus it was just one state not affecting the election.

Now compare that to 2020 where Trump tried sending fake electors from 7 states. Not one state where Trump was determined to have won and with the intent to flip the election so that he could get 4 more years in office.

Savvy?

1876, 4 undecided states.

1960, a state the courts flipped from R to D and certified by the state.

2020. Zero undecided states. 7 states certified Biden won. Unqualified Trump electors in those states signed and sent uncertified certificates to Congress as though Trump won. i.e., fake. Never done before.

 

[Man With A Plan]

But you want fake electors?

If we had truly secure elections then we wouldn't have the need for alternate electors because we'd trust the vote totals. It's obvious we don't and that goes for both Democrats (Gore v Bush) and Republicans (Trump v Biden)! So my question AGAIN is why don't you want to make our elections more secure?