Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
From a PARTISAN point of view: The more popular the policy ideas, the less guilty they are of any accusation. That's generally how this works. It goes both ways of course. Biden is guilty of influence peddling. Do you know why? Because he's a Democrat with unpopular policies. That's what the PARTISAN Repubs think.Just because someone has unpopular policy ideas doesn't mean they are above the law.
From a PARTISAN point of view: The more popular the policy ideas, the less guilty they are of any accusation. That's generally how this works. It goes both ways of course. Biden is guilty of influence peddling.
Do you know why? Because he's a Democrat with unpopular policies. That's what the PARTISAN Repubs think.
I'm not a partison. I'm a rule of law person.(If you aren't a partisan this won't apply to you.)
Just another fat female that suffers from male pattern baldnessMeh, I thought it was her normal state of being.
No. He didn’t.So sad.
Trump even had warning and he still committed fraud.
Sure he did. Two times previously he was found liable for fraud. Remember? His charity and fake university?No. He didn’t.
Those had nothing to do with the prior notice you referenced, cat scratch.Sure he did. Two times previously he was found liable for fraud. Remember? His charity and fake university?
No. He didn’t. Repeating your initial idiotic claim doesn’t support it.Then someone campaigns on catching more of Trump's fraud and he still commits fraud?
I mean. You’re a dimwit.I mean really?
You can hide behind a judicial decision. But your suspicion means nothing. There was no fraud. The case is and was an execrable joke.Of course we can hide behind the appeal for a while but ultimately I suspect the decision will stand, except for maybe an adjustment on the amount.
Nobody cares what you accept.Even if Trump is exonerated; I will accept that decision.
Those had nothing to do with the prior notice you referenced, cat scratch.
Also, he settled the Trump university case.
And he admitted that there was some cross over between his charitable foundation and his election campaign. It was pretty fucking de minimus.
But again, neither has fuck all to do with your previous assertion.
No. He didn’t. Repeating your initial idiotic claim doesn’t support it.
I mean. You’re a dimwit.
You can hide behind a judicial decision. But your suspicion means nothing. There was no fraud. The case is and was an execrable joke.
True, but people care what the courts accept and Trump is paying the consequences for his fraud as listed in the judgement...you read it I assume?Nobody cares what you accept.
You post a great deal of babble in a verbose manner. But your main thesis is still bullshit.Except they should have given him warning that his fraudulent activity was on radar.
Yes, for 25 million..
The picture of himself and Tim Tebow's football helmet probably qualify as "cross over".
It was pretty fucking de fraud.
Yes. He was found liable for fraud recently. New York?
Did you miss it?
Ad hominem.
Not hiding behind a judicial decision. I am celebrating justice.
Your thots and feels are not proof.
Trump committed fraud and got caught. His fraud is in the report, not in your media.
True, but people care what the courts accept and Trump is paying the consequences for his fraud as listed in the judgement...you read it I assume?
So what? The bottom line is that Trump’s guilty.
The law doesn't require a victim.You post a great deal of babble in a verbose manner. But your main thesis is still bullshit.
A hack like Engoron finding “fraud” where there was no alleged “victim,” and where nobody lost a single red cent is the real issue.
The law doesn't require a victim.
Yes it does. No loss to anybody means no victim. And it also means no harm and no damages.It doesn't matter if anybody lost a single cent.
If you buy a gun, you might someday murder someone with it; so obviously (according to your version of logic) if you buy a gun you must be convicted of murder.Nobody ever knows if fraud like that will cost a cent but if they claim bankruptcy then cents will be lost.
Yea. It does. Both in civil law and in criminal law: no victim; no fraud.
Yes it does. No loss to anybody means no victim. And it also means no harm and no damages.
This isn't murder.If you buy a gun, you might someday murder someone with it; so obviously (according to your version of logic) if you buy a gun you must be convicted of murder.
CJI can be perused by anybody at: https://nycourts.gov/judges/cji/2-PenalLaw/190/190.60.docxSCHEME TO DEFRAUD IN THE SECOND DEGREE
(One or more persons)
Penal Law § 190.60
(Committed on or after November 1, 1996)
The (specify) countis Scheme to Defraud in the Second Degree
Under our law, a person is guilty of a scheme to defraud in the second degree when that person engages in a scheme constituting a systematic ongoing course of conduct with intent to defraud more than one person or to obtain property from more than one person by false or fraudulent pretenses, representations or promises, and so obtains property from one or more of such persons.
It is necessary to prove the identity of at least one person from whom the defendant so obtained property, but it is not necessary to prove the identity of any other intended victim.1
The following term used in that definition has a special meaning:
INTENT means conscious objective or purpose. Thus, a person acts with intent to defraud more than one person or to obtain property from more than one person by false or fraudulent pretenses, representations or promises, when that person’s conscious objective or purpose is to do so.2
In order for you to find the defendant guilty of this crime, the People are required to prove, from all of the evidence in the case, beyond a reasonable doubt, each of the following three elements:
1.That on or about (date) , in the county of (county),
the defendant, (defendant's name),engaged in a
1 Penal Law § 190.60(2).
2See Penal Law § 15.05(1).
scheme constituting a systematic ongoing course of conduct;
2. That the defendant did so with intent to defraud more than one person or to obtain property from more than one person by false or fraudulent pretenses, representations or promises; and
1. That the defendant so obtained property from one or more of such persons, at least one of whom has been identified.
If you find the People have proven beyond a reasonable doubt each of those elements, you must find the defendant guilty of this crime.
If you find the People have not proven beyond a reasonable doubt any one or more of those elements, you must find the defendant not guilty of this crime.
Nope. The judge was wrong. The law says what the law is. A judge’s incorrect statement of the law is one of the reasons we have appeals.Incorrect.
The argument was made in court and rejected as stated in the judgement document.
Right wing media pundits don't decide, the judge does.
Again, not required. Tired repeatedly debunked taking points.
The appeals court will likely substantiate the decision, possibly adjust the disgorgement, and then we will see.
Will you accept it?
This isn't murder.
Whose the victim when I get a speeding ticket?
Nope. The judge was wrong.
The law says what the law is.
I will accept any decisions the appeals court renders. Will you?A judge’s incorrect statement of the law is one of the reasons we have appeals.
Project much!You worst aspect isn't even your insipid brainwash.
No, no.
It's the sheer and utter boring predictability you put on permanent monotonous display.
As have you.There you have it. I guess you decided.
Yeah. We know the Executive Law section the politicized AG selected.Agreed. 63(12)
No. I will “accept” any decision which actually adheres to the law (not that my acceptance or yours means diddly dick).I will accept any decisions the appeals court renders. Will you?
As have you.
Yeah. We know the Executive Law section the politicized AG selected.
The law as you see it but I can't disagree with what our acceptance means.No. I will “accept” any decision which actually adheres to the law (not that my acceptance or yours means diddly dick).
She claims she never campaigned on going after Trump.
Hmmmmm
Why do all of these people going after Trump have such a poor relationship with TRUTH?
