Trumps fraud case: Dems now begging to not be sanctioned

[TimHauck 2,615]

6 hours ago, F1erce said:

“Then you are grossly inflating how favorable it was for Trump” sounds pretty much like he said it was favorable for prosecution & NOT for Trump. 

Wow you’re dumb.

[squistion 1,949]

Was there ever any link provided by anyone to prove what is said in the OP thread title, that "dems (are) now begging to not be sanctioned"?

[Hardcore troubadour 14,932]

3 minutes ago, squistion said:

Was there ever any link provided by anyone to prove what is said in the OP thread title, that "dems (are) now begging to not be sanctioned"?

You cracked the  case Squid! Great job! 

[avoiding injuries 1,510]

This is the only website that works on the squishy internet 

[TimHauck 2,615]

22 minutes ago, squistion said:

Was there ever any link provided by anyone to prove what is said in the OP thread title, that "dems (are) now begging to not be sanctioned"?

No.  I’ve searched a bit and can’t find the actual video of it.  The most common clip seems to be what @Horseman posted where the lady barely says anything and gets cut off when she seemingly tries to say yes there is precedent.

If it happened like the guy in the video posted by @jerryskids says, that doesn’t really sound like “begging” to me.

[BrahmaBulls 628]

1 hour ago, The Real timschochet said:

Always a possibility. I am not an attorney myself though I seem to deal with them on a regular basis. I now have 3 attorneys that work for me regularly. I’m honestly confused as to how that happened. 

I’m honestly amused by the hubris implied in your opinion of me. 

3 mexican attorneys that got their degrees from Taco Bell and charge you $15/hour

[BrahmaBulls 628]

40 minutes ago, squistion said:

Was there ever any link provided by anyone to prove what is said in the OP thread title, that "dems (are) now begging to not be sanctioned"?

You always claim you don't click links so why are asking, troll?

[The Real timschochet 6,416]

13 minutes ago, BrahmaBulls said:

3 mexican attorneys that got their degrees from Taco Bell and charge you $15/hour

In California Del Taco is far more popular than Taco Bell. 

[Engorgeous George 2,126]

15 hours ago, The Real timschochet said:

I doubt it. Lawfare requires a conspiracy of people in pretty high positions acting without integrity. In our political system that is not impossible, but it is very rare and when it happens it’s usually discovered because of incompetence and stupidity. 

I agree, which is why Trump has done fairly well thus far on his appeals.  The higher courts are finding that incompetence and stupidity.  This is not to say that Trump will excape in all instances, as he is arrogant and stupid and his advisors and attorneys are incompetent to the extent that he overrides their advice and gets them to do what he wants, not what they know is advisable.  Trump always has been, and remains, his own worst enemy.

[Engorgeous George 2,126]

I went to the Court of Appeals website.  They have a rebroadcast feature for oral arguments.  In this instance the argument in question is not yet posted.  If someone has a link to the arguments, the complete arguments, i would be interested in listening to them.  Maybe i will look around some more later.

[avoiding injuries 1,510]

7 minutes ago, Engorgeous George said:

I went to the Court of Appeals website.  They have a rebroadcast feature for oral arguments.  In this instance the argument in question is not yet posted.  If someone has a link to the arguments, the complete arguments, i would be interested in listening to them.  Maybe i will look around some more later.

Chances are good they won’t be posted if it looks bad for the left. 

[Strike 5,186]

8 minutes ago, Engorgeous George said:

I went to the Court of Appeals website.  They have a rebroadcast feature for oral arguments.  In this instance the argument in question is not yet posted.  If someone has a link to the arguments, the complete arguments, i would be interested in listening to them.  Maybe i will look around some more later.

I found the hesring from 9/26 on YouTube .  AFAIK that is the last hearing on this case.  It was an hour and six minutes long IIRC. 

[TimHauck 2,615]

10 minutes ago, Engorgeous George said:

I went to the Court of Appeals website.  They have a rebroadcast feature for oral arguments.  In this instance the argument in question is not yet posted.  If someone has a link to the arguments, the complete arguments, i would be interested in listening to them.  Maybe i will look around some more later.

Not sure if this is all of it or not

 

 

[Engorgeous George 2,126]

1 minute ago, avoiding injuries said:

Chances are good they won’t be posted if it looks bad for the left. 

You may, of course, be correct, but I believe the video will be posted in due course, likely Monday or Tuesday, as seems the routine.

[Engorgeous George 2,126]

3 hours ago, TimHauck said:

Not sure if this is all of it or not

 

 

I should have found that.  I was looking in the October file, not the September file.  My Mistake.  Thanks for bringing this to my attention.

[jonnyutah 248]

1 hour ago, The Real timschochet said:

In California Del Taco is far more popular than Taco Bell. 

As it should be. 

[Engorgeous George 2,126]

The Justices did seem to favor Trump's position.  I have learned, however, to not make assumptions based upon their questioning in oral arguments.  Sometimes they are playing the Devil's advocate.  In this instance I tend to believe that at worst Tyrump can expect a substantial reduction in the disgorgement fine and perhaps much more.  Still, I have been surprised in the past so I may be surprised here as well. 

[TimHauck 2,615]

21 minutes ago, Engorgeous George said:

The Justices did seem to favor Trump's position.  I have learned, however, to not make assumptions based upon their questioning in oral arguments.  Sometimes they are playing the Devil's advocate.  In this instance I tend to believe that at worst Tyrump can expect a substantial reduction in the disgorgement fine and perhaps much more.  Still, I have been surprised in the past so I may be surprised here as well. 

Was there any begging not to be sanctioned?

[Hardcore troubadour 14,932]

3 hours ago, Engorgeous George said:

I agree, which is why Trump has done fairly well thus far on his appeals.  The higher courts are finding that incompetence and stupidity.  This is not to say that Trump will excape in all instances, as he is arrogant and stupid and his advisors and attorneys are incompetent to the extent that he overrides their adive and gets them to do what he wants, not what they know is advisable.  Trump always has been, and remains, his own worst enemy.

Billionaire that became president the first time he actually tried.  With enemy’s like him who needs friends? 

[Engorgeous George 2,126]

10 hours ago, TimHauck said:

Was there any begging not to be sanctioned?

After the State's time was expired there was one question from the bench pertaining to sanctions.  There was no begging from the State.  I would have termed the matter a more or less collateral and insignificant issue.  The discussion referenced a point in a submitted brief which I did not read so perhaps I do not fully understand that issue, but to me it seemed the Justice asking the question was referencing the States request for sanctions against the Trump team for raising again in the appeal a matter previously ruled upon.

 

All in all I would characterize the Blogger's take on the hearing as extremely inaccurate.  The State did not take hours to try to come up with arguments, explanations, or evidence to answer the Court's questions.  The state got its 15 minutes of time and ran over by three minutes with the blessing and permission of the Court.

[jonmx 2,424]

2 hours ago, Engorgeous George said:

After the State's time was expired there was one question from the bench pertaining to sanctions.  There was no begging from the State.  I would have termed the matter a more or less collateral and insignificant issue.  The discussion referenced a point in a submitted brief which I did not read so perhaps I do not fully understand that issue, but to me it seemed the Justice asking the question was referencing the States request for sanctions against the Trump team for raising again in the appeal a matter previously ruled upon.

 

All in all I would characterize the Blogger's take on the hearing as extremely inaccurate.  The State did not take hours to try to come up with arguments, explanations, or evidence to answer the Court's questions.  The state got its 15 minutes of time and ran over by three minutes with the blessing and permission of the Court.

But the prosecution did fail miserably in answering those questions.  The court asked multiple times of other examples of cases like with similar facts and parties, and every example was shot down by the court.   Several of the justices indicated this case was only prosecuted because it was Trump.  This case is getting thrown out, although they will wait until after the election, which they will falsely claim because they did not want to influence the election.   Instead they are allowing a politically-motivated prosecution to impact the election.  

[Hardcore troubadour 14,932]

5 minutes ago, jonmx said:

But the prosecution did fail miserably in answering those questions.  The court asked multiple times of other examples of cases like with similar facts and parties, and every example was shot down by the court.   Several of the justices indicated this case was only prosecuted because it was Trump.  This case is getting thrown out, although they will wait until after the election, which they will falsely claim because they did not want to influence the election.   Instead they are allowing a politically-motivated prosecution to impact the election.  

As is often the case this guy is spot on.  

[Engorgeous George 2,126]

1 hour ago, jonmx said:

But the prosecution did fail miserably in answering those questions.  The court asked multiple times of other examples of cases like with similar facts and parties, and every example was shot down by the court.   Several of the justices indicated this case was only prosecuted because it was Trump.  This case is getting thrown out, although they will wait until after the election, which they will falsely claim because they did not want to influence the election.   Instead they are allowing a politically-motivated prosecution to impact the election.  

I was addressing only the oner asked question in that post.  If you rerad the others of my responses I agrere that some counts will be dismiswsed and that remittur will happen on any remaining disgorgement, if any.  i had many problems with this prosecution as apparently does the Court though the latter is not certain.  As for the time of the ruling i note that historically that Court is quicker than many but the issues are many so it may take time.  With so few days to thre election it could well come after.  I know some who follow that Court who believe it may be otherwise, but time is ticking away.