They are busting Trump rght now in court

[struth]

The president has nothing to do with prosecutions.

Haha what do you think the power of the executive is? Haha

 

[Slade3200]

Haha what do you think the power of the executive is? Haha

The executive has many powers but dictating state prosecutions is not one of them.

 

[ThisIsMe]

That’s the lazy default excuse that Trump and his drones use for everything. Yawn… The judge has acted in a a fair respectable way dispute trumps childish taunting. Nothing has indicated he is a Biden stooge. Certainly not a $35 donation

It’s not the amount..it’s who they were to.

Biden campaign?

“Stop republicans”?

His daughter has worked for the Harris campaign and works for democrats congressmen.

Any ONE of those things would have you all screaming at the top of your lungs, let alone all three

 

[struth]

The executive has many powers but dictating state prosecutions is not one of them.

Who said it was? We are talking about the federal executive, of course it doesn’t.

So what the f are you talking about?

 

[ThisIsMe]

What you posted is bullshit since Trump was not charged with § 175.05

And that’s why i said read my post, even the one post you got that quote from explains all of it. Had you read the entire post that quote came from..you’d see what I was talking about but you didn’t..and you don’t…

 

[Slade3200]

It’s not the amount..it’s who they were to.

Biden campaign?

“Stop republicans”?

His daughter has worked for the Harris campaign and works for democrats congressmen.

Any ONE of those things would have you all screaming at the top of your lungs, let alone all three

Nothing wrong with any of that. None of that means he can’t do his job. He was assigned the case, went to an ethics committee to see there were conflicts, got the green light. Has done a good job so far. Yall just can’t help with the lazy attacks.

 

[Faun]

So it is reading comprehension you fail at

That's ok, I don't expect you to understand the implications on the statute of limitations by Trump NOT being charged with § 175.05.

 

[Slade3200]

Who said it was? We are talking about the federal executive, of course it doesn’t.

So what the f are you talking about?

Ok good so you agree Biden doesn’t have anything to do with the Trump NY case: been hearing that ignorant implication for months now.

Do you think Trump dictated the prosecution of Cohen?

Do you think Joes dictating the prosecution of Hunter?

 

[struth]

That's ok, I don't expect you to understand the implications on the statute of limitations by Trump NOT being charged with § 175.05.

And I don’t expect you to have an honest debate. These things are far above your reading level

 

[struth]

Ok good so you agree Biden doesn’t have anything to do with the Trump NY case: been hearing that ignorant implication for months now.

Do you think Trump dictated the prosecution of Cohen?

Do you think Joes dictating the prosecution of Hunter?

I didn’t say he didn’t have anything to do with it. Certainly a president can talk to state officials

Cohen was prosecuted federally, so yes

yes Xiden did, hence why the sweet heart deal the court rejected.

 

[Slade3200]

I didn’t say he didn’t have anything to do with it. Certainly a president can talk to state officials

Cohen was prosecuted federally, so yes

yes Xiden did, hence why the sweet heart deal the court rejected.

Hunter is still being prosecuted. Why is Biden choosing to prosecute his son?

 

[struth]

Hunter is still being prosecuted. Why is Biden choosing to prosecute his son?

A special prosecutor was appointed after the court rejected xiden’s sweet heart deal. It’s a little harder now to drop the case and certainly a death blow politically.

 

[ThisIsMe]

Nothing wrong with any of that. None of that means he can’t do his job. He was assigned the case, went to an ethics committee to see there were conflicts, got the green light. Has done a good job so far. Yall just can’t help with the lazy attacks.

merchan has presided over trump legal matters in the past…it’s a bit odd that he got selected for this as well

But I’m glad you think donations to the opposition is on the up and up..I’ll have to archive this post for future reference when trump gets some legal wins, and you accuse them of being in trumps pockets…I can pull that quote out and say “it’s okay!”

 

[Faun]

And that’s why i said read my post, even the one post you got that quote from explains all of it. Had you read the entire post that quote came from..you’d see what I was talking about but you didn’t..and you don’t…

Again...

Trump was not charged with § 175.05. There was absolutely no reason to discuss the statute of limitations attached to § 175.05 after I pointed out the statute of limitations for what he was actually charged with is at least 5 years, potentially more with tolling.

 

[para bellum]

That's ok, I don't expect you to understand the implications on the statute of limitations by Trump NOT being charged with § 175.05.

Well the misdemeanor is time-barred. We all know that.

175.05 is the first element of 175.10, and it requires intent to defraud.

The second element of 175.10 is that the fraud must be in furtherance or concealment of another crime.

You cannot pretend the elements of 175.05 do not apply to 175.10.

If the "intent to defraud" under 175.10 is the recording of the payments as legal expenses, it cannot be used as the "unlawful means" in the underlying crime of conspiracy to promote an election. That is a circular argument, and even this judge recognized that much...e.g.

1. The crime is falsifying the records to conceal the NDA. (in violation of 175.10)
2. The NDA was unlawful because it was falsely recorded. ("unlawful means" requirement of 17-152)

^^^ This dog won't hunt.

 

[ThisIsMe]

Again...

Trump was not charged with § 175.05. There was absolutely no reason to discuss the statute of limitations attached to § 175.05 after I pointed out the statute of limitations for what he was actually charged with is at least 5 years, potentially more with tolling.

And again, had you read my post in full..you’d see why 175.05 is relevant to 175.10…

This is what I get the feeling you’re doing.

 

[Faun]

And I don’t expect you to have an honest debate. These things are far above your reading level

Moans the idiot who thinks the president prosecutes people.

 

[Faun]

And again, had you read my post in full..you’d see why 175.05 is relevant to 175.10…

View attachment 945326

This is what I get the feeling you’re doing.

There's no relevance to a crime Trump was not charged with. I posted the statute of limitations is at least 5 years and you seriously tried to rebut that with something not even on the table.

 

[struth]

Moans the idiot who thinks the president prosecutes people.

Haha you still don’t know what the power of the executive is! Haha

 

[Slade3200]

A special prosecutor was appointed after the court rejected xiden’s sweet heart deal. It’s a little harder now to drop the case and certainly a death blow politically.

Hard? Why would it be hard if Biden controls it. Why wouldn’t he have stopped it before it got started?