Jump to content
League Champion

Donald Trump claims he will be arrested Tuesday in Manhattan probe, calls for protests

Recommended Posts

16 minutes ago, thegeneral said:

Convicted by a jury, right? Boo hoo

Who’s convicted by a jury?  I say this to my young kids.  

“Use your words, communicate”

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, KSB2424 said:

Who’s convicted by a jury?  I say this to my young kids.  

“Use your words, communicate”

Sorry thought that would be implied. This guy who your tweet was talking about. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, thegeneral said:

Sorry thought that would be implied. This guy who your tweet was talking about. 

Speak your mind dude. Stop being cryptic and have an opinion and spell it out. Stop being a puzzy. Say it aloud. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, KSB2424 said:

Speak your mind dude. Stop being cryptic and have an opinion and spell it out. Stop being a . 

I said it 😂 

This guy was found guilty of this by a jury. The crime has sentencing recommendations. Isn’t this pretty typical for criminals?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, thegeneral said:

I said it 😂 

This guy was found guilty of this by a jury. The crime has sentencing recommendations. Isn’t this pretty typical for criminals?

What was the crime?  I’ll hang up and listen.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, KSB2424 said:

What was the crime?

Whatever they found him guilty of. I only briefly read about this dumbass.

A jury however spent time listening to it and found him guilty. They were advised about the crime, listened to the arguments, and found him guilty.

Good enough for me.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, thegeneral said:

Whatever they found him guilty of. 

Look at the big brain on Brad. :lol:
 

Just does with what he’s told, believes everything on the internet. Thank goodness he’s not actually The General.  

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, KSB2424 said:

Look at the big brain on Brad. :lol:

You realize you can google this, right? I wouldn’t consider myself as up to speed on this as the jury who found him guilty.they spent a week listening to the details. 

What is your issue with this?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, thegeneral said:

You realize you can google this, right? I wouldn’t consider myself as up to speed on this as the jury who found him guilty.they spent a week listening to the details. 

What is your issue with this?

I can’t imagine being as obtuse as this new guy. My issue is stupidity and you immediately came on radar. Go back to Footballgays or whatever hole you crawled from. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, KSB2424 said:

I can’t imagine being as obtuse as this new guy. My issue is stupidity and you immediately came on radar. Go back to Footballgays or whatever hole you crawled from. 

What is your problem with this case dummy?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, thegeneral said:

What is your problem with this case dummy?

1. It’s completely Un American if you follow to bread crumbs 

2. I’m done with you, my wife just gave me “the wink” I’m signing off and going upstairs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, KSB2424 said:

1. It’s completely Un American if you follow to bread crumbs 

2. I’m done with you, my wife just gave me “the wink” I’m signing off and going upstairs.

A trial by jury is very American. Not sure where you are coming from. Have a nice night!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Serious question for Trump supporters: if a prospective juror says that he didn’t vote for Trump and doesn’t like his politics, is that enough for you to disqualify him from the jury? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
37 minutes ago, KSB2424 said:

I can’t imagine being as obtuse as this new guy. My issue is stupidity and you immediately came on radar. Go back to Footballgays or whatever hole you crawled from. 

Good thing you don't have to imagine it. 

  • Like 1
  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
42 minutes ago, KSB2424 said:

I can’t imagine being as obtuse as this new guy. My issue is stupidity and you immediately came on radar. Go back to Footballgays or whatever hole you crawled from. 

💯

Next is 20 questions game and having to get the last post in.  FBGs breed man vaginas that post like adolescents.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, RogerDodger said:

💯

Next is 20 questions game and having to get the last post in.  FBGs breed man vaginas that post like adolescents.  

Not sure who you are creeper 😂

I answered all that dudes questions and asked a one of my own. So mean.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
57 minutes ago, The Real timschochet said:

Serious question for Trump supporters: if a prospective juror says that he didn’t vote for Trump and doesn’t like his politics, is that enough for you to disqualify him from the jury? 

I'd say it's going to be impossible for high profile politicians or their families from either party to ever get a fair shake in modern times.  You could try Hunter Biden today where I'm from and he would be found guilty of most anything you wanted to charge him with by most jurors just as Trump would be by the majority of NY jurors.  It's really to the point we all hate one another and are going to believe the worst of the other, want to take some kind of vengeance, or some mix of the two.  This may be the first, but it most assuredly won't be the last.  Whatever one "side" does, the other will look for retribution and to take it further if they can.  We've seen it over rhetoric, setting aside the filibuster for judicial nominees, no reason to believe this will be any different.  All you need is a prosecutor wanting to score political points in a jurisdiction where the primary is all that matters and some political figure he can use to do so.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The left cries about “mass incarceration “ and then throws out “no one is above the law” and “the courts have spoken”. Lol. Same idiots that think people are in prison for simply possessing marijuana.   Happy that our justice system spent the time to convict someone for an internet meme. Who was harmed? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Mark Davis said:

I'd say it's going to be impossible for high profile politicians or their families from either party to ever get a fair shake in modern times.  You could try Hunter Biden today where I'm from and he would be found guilty of most anything you wanted to charge him with by most jurors just as Trump would be by the majority of NY jurors.  It's really to the point we all hate one another and are going to believe the worst of the other, want to take some kind of vengeance, or some mix of the two.  This may be the first, but it most assuredly won't be the last.  Whatever one "side" does, the other will look for retribution and to take it further if they can.  We've seen it over rhetoric, setting aside the filibuster for judicial nominees, no reason to believe this will be any different.  All you need is a prosecutor wanting to score political points in a jurisdiction where the primary is all that matters and some political figure he can use to do so.

Wow. I think this is extremely cynical. It’s one thing to get an indictment. But I believe that if you tried Hunter Biden before a jury of strong Trump supporters, if there wasn’t enough evidence to convict him they would acquit him. I don’t think we’ve gone that far off the rails to the point that most people would behave the way you’re describing. Donald Trump believes the legal system, like the political system, should be completely transactional. To him, IMO, everything is about “how do I personally benefit?” This makes him a man of low character, without honor. But I refuse to believe that most of America, including his most devout followers, feel that way. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, The Real timschochet said:

Serious question for Trump supporters: if a prospective juror says that he didn’t vote for Trump and doesn’t like his politics, is that enough for you to disqualify him from the jury? 

What if almost all of the the jurors say that, not just one? One no. A large majority? Yeah, I think a venue change is warranted. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, Hardcore troubadour said:

The left cries about “mass incarceration “ and then throws out “no one is above the law” and “the courts have spoken”. Lol. Same idiots that think people are in prison for simply possessing marijuana.   Happy that our justice system spent the time to convict someone for an internet meme. Who was harmed? 

You’ve raised this point twice now. I think it’s a non-sequitur. 

But your last sentence , “who was harmed?” Is a more interesting question. I think it’s pretty clear that if Stormy Daniels had never been paid off, Donald Trump would still have been elected President. The public already knew all about his womanizing and didn’t care. So why are we going through with this? 

The argument the DA will likely make is that our political system can’t afford a major Presidential candidate paying people off to keep silent; it’s our entire system of government which is therefore harmed. The problem with this argument is that most Democrats will probably accept it at face value in this case, just about every Republican, even those who have no love for Donald Trump, will reject it because they believe that the prosecution is being selective. 

In theory, nobody should be above the law. In reality, it may be impossible for a fair, objective resolution to the legal challenges involving Donald Trump’s actions- which would put him, if not above the law, at least outside of it. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, The Real timschochet said:

You’ve raised this point twice now. I think it’s a non-sequitur. 

But your last sentence , “who was harmed?” Is a more interesting question. I think it’s pretty clear that if Stormy Daniels had never been paid off, Donald Trump would still have been elected President. The public already knew all about his womanizing and didn’t care. So why are we going through with this? 

The argument the DA will likely make is that our political system can’t afford a major Presidential candidate paying people off to keep silent; it’s our entire system of government which is therefore harmed. The problem with this argument is that most Democrats will probably accept it at face value in this case, just about every Republican, even those who have no love for Donald Trump, will reject it because they believe that the prosecution is being selective. 

In theory, nobody should be above the law. In reality, it may be impossible for a fair, objective resolution to the legal challenges involving Donald Trump’s actions- which would put him, if not above the law, at least outside of it. 

What’s a non sequitur? On one hand you and your ilk claim no one is above the law and the courts have spoken. Then why are you complaining about people in prison? They broke the law too. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There is also the highly troubling fact that this District Attorney campaigned on the promise of prosecuting Donald Trump. This represents more than a potential flaw in this case; it’s a flaw in our system IMO. How can we have justice if our prosecutors are politically motivated? Yet every public prosecutor is either elected or appointed by a politician, so there is no way to keep politics out. Bragg is certainly not the first DA to promise this sort of thing when running for office. Nonetheless it’s problematic. 

I suppose the answer is that no matter what he promises he still has to perform. If his evidence against Trump is weak then there will be an acquittal. In that sense, the system is supposed to protect against unwarranted prosecution. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Hardcore troubadour said:

What’s a non sequitur? On one hand you and your ilk claim no one is above the law and the courts have spoken. Then why are you complaining about people in prison? They broke the law too. 

I don’t think your point is relevant to this case. It’s not a contradiction to believe that too many people are in prison and to believe that nobody should be above the law. Most of us who want criminal justice reform are not looking to break any laws; we’re looking to change them. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, The Real timschochet said:

I don’t think your point is relevant to this case. It’s not a contradiction to believe that too many people are in prison and to believe that nobody should be above the law. Most of us who want criminal justice reform are not looking to break any laws; we’re looking to change them. 

Then change them.  Until then the law is the law and no one is above it. I wonder what laws you want to change and how that would result in a decrease in the prison population? Drug use? That’s not going to have the decrease you think It is. Drug use is generally treated as a local crime, resulting in short jail sentences, if any. Not many people are in prison anymore for just using drugs. So what laws do you want to change with the goal of reducing prison population? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Hardcore troubadour said:

Then change them.  Until then the law is the law and no one is above it. I wonder what laws you want to change and how that would result in a decrease in the prison population? Drug use? That’s not going to have the decrease you think It is. Drug use is generally treated as a local crime, resulting in short jail sentences, if any. Not many people are in prison anymore for just using drugs. So what laws do you want to change with the goal of reducing prison population? 

This is thread is devoted to the Trump case so I don’t think we need to get bogged down in a more general discussion about criminal reform. If you want at some point in the near future we can have a thread discussing that subject. Not for the immediate time being as I would like to focus on this, 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, The Real timschochet said:

This is thread is devoted to the Trump case so I don’t think we need to get bogged down in a more general discussion about criminal reform. If you want at some point in the near future we can have a thread discussing that subject. Not for the immediate time being as I would like to focus on this, 

Listen up fascist, this ain’t FBG’s. You don’t get to dictate what people say. The subject matter  around here often expands, like it or not. Don’t respond if you don’t want to. You just don’t like where it went and being held to your own standard.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, KSB2424 said:

Look at the big brain on Brad. :lol:
 

Just does with what he’s told, believes everything on the internet. Thank goodness he’s not actually The General.  

 

 

Umm, not to support this dude, but have you seen some of our generals/admirals recently…

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, avoiding injuries said:

Umm, not to support this dude, but have you seen some of our generals/admirals recently…

 

Yeah, it’s the new culture. Don’t fight it. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Hardcore troubadour said:

Listen up fascist, this ain’t FBG’s. You don’t get to dictate what people say. The subject matter  around here often expands, like it or not. Don’t respond if you don’t want to. You just don’t like where it went and being held to your own standard.

It’s very difficult to have ANY kind of conversation with you, frankly. You constantly change the subject and your ability to reason seems very limited to me. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Hardcore troubadour said:

What if almost all of the the jurors say that, not just one? One no. A large majority? Yeah, I think a venue change is warranted. 

You’re saying somebody cannot be tried in their own hometown?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Rather long article, but goes into some of the details that might not be known and good for summing up this very long(duration) affair(yeah, I did that on purpose)

CNN - Inside the long and winding road to Trump’s historic indictment

A $130,000 hush money payment

It was just weeks before the 2016 election when Cohen, Trump’s then-lawyer, paid adult film actress Stormy Daniels $130,000 to keep silent about an alleged affair with Trump. (Trump has denied the affair.) Cohen was later reimbursed $420,000 by the Trump Organization to cover the original payment and tax liabilities and to reward him with a bonus.

That payment and reimbursement are keys at issue in the investigation.

Cohen also helped arrange a $150,000 payment from the publisher of the National Enquirer to Karen McDougal to kill her story claiming a 10-month affair with Trump. Trump also denies an affair with McDougal. During the grand jury proceedings, the district attorney’s office has asked questions about the “catch and kill” deal with McDougal.

When Cohen was charged by federal prosecutors in New York in 2018 and pleaded guilty, he said he was acting at the direction of Trump when he made the payment.

At the time, federal prosecutors had determined they could not seek to indict Trump in the scheme because of US Justice Department regulations against charging a sitting president. In 2021, after Trump left the White House, prosecutors in the Southern District of New York decided not to pursue a case against Trump, according to a recent book from CNN senior legal analyst Elie Honig.

But then-Manhattan District Attorney Vance’s team had already picked up the investigation into the hush money payments and begun looking at potential state law violations. By summer 2019, they sent subpoenas to the Trump Org., other witnesses, and met with Cohen, who was serving a three-year prison sentence.

Vance’s investigation broadened to the Trump Org.’s finances. New York prosecutors went to the Supreme Court twice to enforce a subpoena for Trump’s tax records from his long-time accounting firm Mazars USA. The Trump Org. and its long-time chief financial officer Allen Weisselberg were indicted on tax fraud and other charges in June 2021 for allegedly running an off-the-books compensation scheme for more than a decade.

Weisselberg pleaded guilty to the charges last year and is currently serving a five-month sentence at Rikers Island. Prosecutors had hoped to flip Weisselberg to cooperate against Trump, but he would not tie Trump to any wrongdoing.

Disagreements about the pace of the investigation had caused at least three career prosecutors to move off the investigation. They were concerned that the investigation was moving too quickly, without clear evidence to support possible charges, CNN and others reported last year.

Vance authorized the attorneys on the team to present evidence to the grand jury near the end of 2021, but he did not seek an indictment. Those close to Vance say he wanted to leave the decision to Bragg, the newly elected district attorney.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, dogcows said:

You’re saying somebody cannot be tried in their own hometown?

I’m saying that venue changes exist in order to insure a fair trial for the accused. If the jury pool demonstrates a bias against the accused I think it’s up for debate. That’s how the system works, and seeing as you guys are all about the system now, I don’t see why you have a problem with it.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
29 minutes ago, The Real timschochet said:

Just stop, Tim.  Not a good look.

I mean, your blinders are so thick it is unbelievable.  The Koch Brothers are apparently evil, but Soros?  No, he's not doing anything.  He's an angel just sitting there doing nothing.

GTFO.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
31 minutes ago, The Real timschochet said:

It’s very difficult to have ANY kind of conversation with you, frankly. You constantly change the subject and your ability to reason seems very limited to me. 

This is absurd.  YOU'RE the one who thinks Soros descended from the heavens.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, EternalShinyAndChrome said:

Just stop, Tim.  Not a good look.

I mean, your blinders are so thick it is unbelievable.  The Koch Brothers are apparently evil, but Soros?  No, he's not doing anything.  He's an angel just sitting there doing nothing.

GTFO.

Sheldon Adelson was Jewish. There was no issue with attacking him for his political donations. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Reality said:

What a stupid article, you should be embarrassed for posting it.

They think Soros is criticized for who he is , not what he does. Which is kinda funny, because they love to attack people for who they are. It’s that old truth that the left accuses you of what they are actually doing. Rules for Radicals. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

“I HAVE GAINED SUCH RESPECT FOR THIS GRAND JURY, & PERHAPS EVEN THE GRAND JURY SYSTEM AS A WHOLE.”

-Donald J Trump

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

×