Trump Claims He Has Every Right To Prosecute His Enemies

[22lcidw]

How is it "weaponizing" and how do you know it?

A simple way is watching those protest in major cities that were really riots and according to Progs now, Insurrections. So many innocent people involved from that as they did nothing wrong. It is really who you want to charge with crimes now.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

A simple way is watching those protest in major cities that were really riots and according to Progs now, Insurrections. So many innocent people involved from that as they did nothing wrong. It is really who you want to charge with crimes now.

Well there is the dumbest shit any of us will read all day.

 

[BackAgain]

The first mention of the FEC came from you, here.

I didn’t bring up the FEC. You did.

In response to something that was said.

And the FEC absolutely did not take any action against Trump for any such conduct. Yet, unlike Bragg, they had jurisdiction.

Bragg didn’t claim jurisdiction over these laws.

Of course he did.

The NY law does not require him to charge the object offense.

That’s debatable. And it will be one of the appeal points.

An intent to facilitate the violation of another law is all that is required.

An unspecified “other” law also denies the accused the due process of law. And again, this will be part of the appellate process.

The statute doesn’t say the object crime has to be state or federal.

It also doesn’t grant NY State any authority over federal law. Nor could it.

 

[Marener]

In response to something that was said.

The post you responded to said nothing about the FEC. You drug the FEC into it. Not me.

Of course he did.

Nope. Never.

That’s debatable. And it will be one of the appeal points.

It's not debatable. It's binding precedent.

An unspecified “other” law also denies the accused the due process of law. And again, this will be part of the appellate process.

The "other" law was specified.

It also doesn’t grant NY State any authority over federal law. Nor could it.

It doesn't have to.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

The post you responded to said nothing about the FEC. You drug the FEC into it. Not me.

Nope. Never.

It's not debatable. It's binding precedent.

The "other" law was specified.

It doesn't have to.

He has been told all of this 100 times.

 

[BackAgain]

The post you responded to said nothing about the FEC. You drug the FEC into it. Not me

Drug? lol. And no. You’re still wrong.

Nope. Never.

It's not debatable. It's binding precedent.

The "other" law was specified.

It doesn't have to.

We shall see. It’s part of the appellate process now, kid.

 

[Marener]

Drug? lol. And no. You’re still wrong.

I provided the first mention of the FEC, from your own quote. If you can show I mentioned them earlier, please do.

 

[BackAgain]

I provided the first mention of the FEC, from your own quote. If you can show I mentioned them earlier, please do.

I don’t recall saying that you mentioned the FEC before I did, stupid.

Stop quibbling.

Make a point or **** off.

 

[Marener]

I don’t recall saying that you mentioned the FEC before I did, stupid.

Stop quibbling.

Make a point or **** off.

I've made my point. You decided to try to make a point about the FEC, which you've been walking back ever since.

You’re wrong. I wasn’t the one who brought FEC into the discussion. I did respond to a comment about the FEC.

What comment about the FEC did you respond to exactly?

 

[BackAgain]

I've made my point. You decided to try to make a point about the FEC, which you've been walking back ever since.

I made my point. And I stand by what I’ve said (with the one correction which I conceded).

Your point remains vapid. As usual.

Again: the appellate process will determine this. Not you.

What comment about the FEC did you respond to exactly?

I told you to stop quibbling.

 

[Marener]

I made my point. And I stand by what I’ve said (with the one correction which I conceded).

Your point remains vapid. As usual.

Again: the appellate process will determine this. Not you.

I told you to stop quibbling.

You never had a point.

The NDA payment should have been categorized as a campaign expense. Cohen was charged and pled guilty to this. The business records were falsified in order to cover this up.

 

[BackAgain]

You never had a point.

Of course I did. Morons like you simply can’t keep up. It’s ok. You’re already established what a void you are.

The NDA payment should have been categorized as a campaign expense.

Nonsense.

Cohen was charged and pled guilty to this.

Has no bearing on whether it should have been a charge in the case against Trump. (People often plead guilty for reasons other than actual guilt. Try to play catch up.)

The business records were falsified in order to cover this up.

Nonsense.

 

[Marener]

Nonsense.

Not at all. It's pretty clear that the NDA would not have been made if he hadn't been running for president.

Has no bearing on whether it should have been a charge in the case against Trump. (People often plead guilty for reasons other than actual guilt. Try to play catch up.)

It sure does when you consider the Bragg successfully argued before the jury that the entire process was overseen and approved by Trump himself.

Nonsense.

The evidence says otherwise.

 

[BackAgain]

Not at all. It's pretty clear that the NDA would not have been made if he hadn't been running for president.

No. It’s not. But even if it was sought to conceal the mere claim of the whore, that still doesn’t make it a campaign expense. That claim is ridiculous.

It sure does when you consider the Bragg successfully argued before the jury that the entire process was overseen and approved by Trump himself.

Bragg didn’t argue shit in front of the jury. The persecution can argue anything the law (or the judge) allows. That doesn’t make it a solid or valid argument.

The evidence says otherwise.

No. It doesn’t.

 

[Marener]

No. It’s not. But even if it was sought to conceal the mere claim of the whore, that still doesn’t make it a campaign expense. That claim is ridiculous.

It is considered a campaign expense if the expenditure was not going to be made "but for" the campaign. This is the legal standard. Given this occurred in the context of David Pecker being the campaign's "eyes and ears" for catch and kill to help the campaign, it is extremely credible to say that this NDA was not going to be made "but for" the presence of his campaign for president.

It's not ridiculous when you acknowledge the legal standard and the context.

Bragg didn’t argue shit in front of the jury. The persecution can argue anything the law (or the judge) allows. That doesn’t make it a solid or valid argument.

The prosecution's case was quite strong. Strong enough to convince the jury. The defense had little to offer.

No. It doesn’t.

Absolutely they were. The fake retainer. The need to "gross up" the payment for tax purposes. These records were faked in order to disassociate it from Trump, when he was really the one calling the shots and paying for it.

 

[BackAgain]

It is considered a campaign expense if the expenditure was not going to be made "but for" the campaign.

Something you don’t and can’t know.

This is the legal standard. Given this occurred in the context of David Pecker being the campaign's "eyes and ears" for catch and kill to help the campaign, it is extremely credible to say that this NDA was not going to be made "but for" the presence of his campaign for president.

No. It’s not nuts your biased speculation.

It's not ridiculous when you acknowledge the legal standard and the context.

Yes. It’s absolutely ridiculous. And as for proof beyond a reasonable doubt of “intent,” that’s non existent.

The prosecution's case was quite strong.

No it was incredibly weak and wouldn’t be brought in any non deep blue jurisdiction.

Strong enough to convince the jury. The defense had little to offer.

A pathetic attempt by you. You simply cannot defend this persecution. It was election interference before the matter was ever brought before the grand jury. And it was intentional.

Absolutely they were. The fake retainer. The need to "gross up" the payment for tax purposes. These records were faked in order to disassociate it from Trump, when he was really the one calling the shots and paying for it.

None of that makes a difference as to Trump’s alleged intent. The retainer wasn’t a fake retainer anyway.

And paying for an NDA (which is a legal contract) is obviously a legal expense, too.

 

[Marener]

Something you don’t and can’t know.

There is no reasonable doubt.

No. It’s not nuts your biased speculation.

It's not speculation, if it's based on consistent evidence and testimony from those involved. David Pecker was tasked with buying stories from people to kill them and keep them from the press. He testified specifically that he met with Trump and Cohen to make this plan, specifically to protect the campaign.

Well, David Pecker's lawyers told him to stop doing this, so Trump had to do it on his own, which is what he tasked Cohen with doing.

Yes. It’s absolutely ridiculous. And as for proof beyond a reasonable doubt of “intent,” that’s non existent.

You made up your mind before hearing any evidence, so your opinion is not really all that relevant or reliable.

No it was incredibly weak and wouldn’t be brought in any non deep blue jurisdiction.

Maybe. Other jurisdictions are pretty afraid of pressing charges against rich people. They get away with all kinds of shit.

A pathetic attempt by you. You simply cannot defend this persecution. It was election interference before the matter was ever brought before the grand jury. And it was intentional.

I've been defending it all along.

None of that makes a difference as to Trump’s alleged intent. The retainer wasn’t a fake retainer anyway.

And paying for an NDA (which is a legal contract) is obviously a legal expense, too.

Yes, the retainer was fake. A retainer is used to pay the attorney for their time and effort. It is not for paying NDAs. That would be a different expense.

 

[BackAgain]

There is no reasonable doubt.

It's not speculation, if it's based on consistent evidence and testimony from those involved. David Pecker was tasked with buying stories from people to kill them and keep them from the press. He testified specifically that he met with Trump and Cohen to make this plan, specifically to protect the campaign.

Well, David Pecker's lawyers told him to stop doing this, so Trump had to do it on his own, which is what he tasked Cohen with doing.

You made up your mind before hearing any evidence, so your opinion is not really all that relevant or reliable.

Maybe. Other jurisdictions are pretty afraid of pressing charges against rich people. They get away with all kinds of shit.

I've been defending it all along.

Yes, the retainer was fake. A retainer is used to pay the attorney for their time and effort. It is not for paying NDAs. That would be a different expense.

No. It’s speculation. Most of what you post is

That’s why you can’t prevail in any discussion.

 

[Marener]

No. It’s speculation. Most of what you post is

That’s why you can’t prevail in any discussion.

You are incapable of considering information that conflicts with your conclusions.

Your argument always eventually boils down to "because I said so", as it does here.

It's the end of the road. You have nothing further to add. No argument to make. No facts to bring into discussion.

"because I said so"

 

[BackAgain]

You are incapable of considering information that conflicts with your conclusions.

Your argument always eventually boils down to "because I said so", as it does here.

It's the end of the road. You have nothing further to add. No argument to make. No facts to bring into discussion.

"because I said so"

You are guilty of the very shit you try to lay off on me.

You are stubborn — but you remain quite flatly wrong.