2024 undecided voters.

[konradv]

His picture is next to the word clueless in the dictionary.

I’d say what Trump’s is next to, but this is a family site.

#DIRTYDON

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Toddssterpatriot and Kyzr, this is one of those unusual occasions where Toddssterpatriot and I agree with each other. I expect our conservative majority U.S. Supreme Court would also agree with you both.
However, until 52USC Ch. 301: FEDERAL ELECTION CAMPAIGNS (house.gov) is tested in the courts, it is as it stands to be current U.S. federal law.

Not even U.S. Constitution's simply drafted first amendment is absolute in regard to freedom of speech issues. I hope some future USSC or U.S. Congress will revisit and remedy the Citizens United v. FEC decision.

Refer to Freedom of Speech: Historical Background | U.S. Constitution Annotated | US Law | LII / Legal Information Institute (cornell.edu)
“...But, in Schenck v. United States,16 the first of the post-World War I cases to reach the Court, Justice Holmes, in his opinion for the Court upholding convictions for violating the Espionage Act …
… The most stringent protection of free speech would not protect a man in falsely shouting fire in a theater and causing a panic …
...The question in every case is whether the words used are used in such a nature as to create a clear and present danger that they will bring about the substantive evils that Congress has a right to prevent....”.

Also refer to a a great Don Ameche movie entitled “Things Change”. Respectfully, Supposn

Toddssterpatriot and Kyzr, this is one of those unusual occasions where Toddssterpatriot and I agree with each other.

Where did we agree? Be specific.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

Admiral Rockwell Tory and Toddsterpatriot, occasionally within various internet forums, I've stated members of juries in NY City and everywhere else in the USA, generally take their oaths seriously.
If a single juror agreed with you, they would not have been able to reach a guilty verdict. All that was required was one juror who shared your point of view and also was not sufficiently biased and unable to pass through the pretrial questioning of potential jurors by both the prosecuting and defending attorneys.

In a judge's court, it is only the judge's legal opinion that matters. I expect Trump's lawyers to appeal the convictions. I expect upon final appeals, despite Trump's attorneys or your arguments, the final appeals court will sustain the conviction.

Toddsterpatriot, read the instructions to the jury. There's no differentiation for self-contribution benefiting candidates seeking a federal elected office. Respectfully Supposn

Let me stop you right there! You are wrong. Everything you post has a tendency to be wrong. Learn to live with it and try to educate yourself.

Have a nice day!

 

[Supposn]

Let me stop you right there! You are wrong. Everything you post has a tendency to be wrong. Learn to live with it and try to educate yourself.

Have a nice day!

Admiral Rockwell Tory and Toddsterpatriot, occasionally within various internet forums, I've stated members of juries in NY City and everywhere else in the USA, generally take their oaths seriously. ... Respectfully Supposn

Admiral Rockwell Tory, my opinions regarding these matters are based upon personal observation, reading, and over 87 years of lifetime experience which includes 4 years of military service, attending both military and civilian classes among students from all areas of the USA, and observing and participating in courts within cases NY or and NJ courts' jurisdictions.
We disagree regarding many facets of this discussion thread.

Beyond differences of opinions, upon what basis do you consider your opinions such as I have “a tendency to be wrong”, or that your experience, and/or knowledge, and and/or education is superior or more valid than mine or any other persons you may encounter? They are differences of opinions rather than of facts. Respectfully, Supposn

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

Admiral Rockwell Tory, my opinions regarding these matters are based upon personal observation, reading, and over 87 years of lifetime experience which includes 4 years of military service, attending both military and civilian classes among students from all areas of the USA, and observing and participating in courts within cases NY or and NJ courts' jurisdictions.
We disagree regarding many facets of this discussion thread.

Beyond differences of opinions, upon what basis do you consider your opinions such as I have “a tendency to be wrong”, or that your experience, and/or knowledge, and and/or education is superior or more valid than mine or any other persons you may encounter? They are differences of opinions rather than of facts. Respectfully, Supposn

Being senile is nothing of which to be proud

 

[kyzr]

His picture is next to the word clueless in the dictionary.

There is no limit to how much a person can donate to their own campaign. It is "Free Speech".

 

[Supposn]

Being senile is nothing of which to be proud

Admiral Rockwell Tory, you're being modest to a fault. If as you believe to have recovered, you have reason to be pleased and proud of yourself. I sincerely wish you never suffer relapses of senility. Respectively, Supposn

 

[konradv]

There is no limit to how much a person can donate to their own campaign. It is "Free Speech"…

…and corporations are people! There’s nothing “free” about it.

#DONTBEFOOLED

 

[Supposn]

Toddssterpatriot and Kyzr, this is one of those unusual occasions where Toddssterpatriot and I agree with each other. I expect our conservative majority U.S. Supreme Court would also agree with you both.
However, until 52USC Ch. 301: FEDERAL ELECTION CAMPAIGNS (house.gov) is tested in the courts, it is as it stands to be current U.S. federal law.

Not even U.S. Constitution's simply drafted first amendment is absolute in regard to freedom of speech issues. I hope some future USSC or U.S. Congress will revisit and remedy the Citizens United v. FEC decision.

Refer to Freedom of Speech: Historical Background | U.S. Constitution Annotated | US Law | LII / Legal Information Institute (cornell.edu)
“... But, in Schenck v. United States,16 the first of the post-World War I cases to reach the Court, Justice Holmes, in his opinion for the Court upholding convictions for violating the Espionage Act …
… The most stringent protection of free speech would not protect a man in falsely shouting fire in a theater and causing a panic …
... The question in every case is whether the words used are used in such a nature as to create a clear and present danger that they will bring about the substantive evils that Congress has a right to prevent....”.

Also refer to a a great Don Ameche movie entitled “Things Change”. Respectfully, Supposn

There is no limit to how much a person can donate to their own campaign. It is "Free Speech".

Toddssterpatriot and Kyzr, I agree with both of you. Some of the Federal Election Campaigns laws and regulations are apparently in contradiction with the Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, 558 U.S. 310 (2010) Supreme Court's decision.

But unlike the Citizens United case, there are some different facets to Trump's case.
Donald Trump caused those payments to be made from a trust I suppose was established by Trump, the Donald J. Trump Trust.
Trusts are subject to income tax laws and regulations. When the trust was established, the trust's grantor, (which I suppose was Donald Trump himself), or the trust's trusts administrator must choose upon how they want the trust to be considered for tax purposes. Those choices also may possibly modify legal opinions when regarding differing trusts.

There are also the additional "wild cards" of our federal judge's interpretation of laws affected by the changing politics of the then current courts of judges or modifications of our nation's social and political mores. Although I agree with both of you, (Toddssterpatriot and Kyzr) in this facet of Trump's trial and conviction, the eventual determination of the courts may differ with our opinions.
Respectfully, Supposn

 

[Supposn]

More fake news...

Missourian, there”s no, (as you express) “fake news”; The root source of payments for Stormy Daniel's signature on a nondisclosure agreement was accepted by the jury as beyond reasonable doubt, to have been caused by Donald Trump, and found in records of the Donald J. Trump Trust, as maintained by his organization. Respectfully, Supposn​

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Missourian, there”s no, (as you express) “fake news”; The root source of payments for Stormy Daniel's signature on a nondisclosure agreement was accepted by the jury as beyond reasonable doubt, to have been caused by Donald Trump, and found in records of the Donald J. Trump Trust, as maintained by his organization. Respectfully, Supposn​

What is the date on the check?

 

[Supposn]

What is the date on the check?

Toddsterpatriot, refer to: https://www.courthousenews.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/04/trump-indictment-ny.pdf
There's 34 counts in the indictment. I've again provided a link to the text. You're incapable of finishing your own homework? Respectfully,Supposn

​

 

[kyzr]

The 34 counts will be overturned. No sense getting into the weeds now.

Just enjoy the Joe Biden show!!

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Toddsterpatriot, refer to: https://www.courthousenews.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/04/trump-indictment-ny.pdf
There's 34 counts in the indictment. I've again provided a link to the text. You're incapable of finishing your own homework? Respectfully,Supposn

​

The checks started in 2017?

 

[Supposn]

The checks started in 2017?

Toddsterpatriot, think about it.​

Trump repayed and compensated Cohen. Cohen was later convicted for paying Stormy Daniels what was deemed to be an illegal in-kind excessive campaign contribution on behalf of Donald Trump's election campaign. The nondisclosure agreement with Stormy Daniels was completed prior to election day. Respectfully Supposn

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Toddsterpatriot, think about it.​

Trump repayed and compensated Cohen. Cohen was later convicted for paying Stormy Daniels what was deemed to be an illegal in-kind excessive campaign contribution on behalf of Donald Trump's election campaign. The nondisclosure agreement with Stormy Daniels was completed prior to election day. Respectfully Supposn

Right.
Because Trump can donate unlimited amounts to his own campaign.
And NDAs are legal.
And the checks started in 2017.

 

[Supposn]

Right.
Because Trump can donate unlimited amounts to his own campaign.
And NDAs are legal.
And the checks started in 2017.

• 
  Toddsterpatriot. Non-disclosure agreements, (NDAs) and the dates of the checks were never the issue. The determination, (accepted by the jury as proven beyond reasonable doubt), was Trump caused the purchase of the NDA, it was deemed as being legally an election campaign (in-kind) contribution and exceeding legal maximums value for such contributions.
  
  I agree with you and Kyzr, but until a final appeal court rules otherwise, the conviction of Trump stands.
  
  Both liberal and conservative judges seem to have been less interpreting and more creating their own unique interpretations of the constitution and our federal statutes.
  Refer to my response of 06:52 AM Eastern Daylight-Saving time, 5Jul2024. Respectfully, Supposn