- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Would someone please explain the crimes Trump committed?
Posted on 4/26/24 at 12:00 pm to ronricks
Posted on 4/26/24 at 12:00 pm to ronricks
quote:
Trump doesn't get 74.x million.
You think Trump benefited from mail in voting? You are delusional!! Republican turnout at the polls was higher than any time before.
1
Posted on 4/26/24 at 12:01 pm to CreoleTigerEsq
quote:
The part of the statute that enhances the crime from a misdemeanor to a felony doesn't require the person who committed the initial crime to have committed the subsequent crime that enhances the crime from a misdemeanor to a felony.
So no mens rea required? You’re going to go with that? Really?
This post was edited on 4/26/24 at 12:02 pm
Posted on 4/26/24 at 12:02 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:Why should I have to explain that to a legal expert?
What does a case involving allegedly illegal payment schemes prior to a person running for President have to do with potential immunity while that person is later President?
...
Posted on 4/26/24 at 12:02 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
that's for the jury to decide
I imagine, like me, many on the jury will have a hard time reaching a decision beyond a reasonable doubt. This is a very abstract case and the burden is on the prosecutor to clarify the nature of the crime. Seems very ambiguous the way this law is being applied in Trumps case.
Posted on 4/26/24 at 12:02 pm to ronricks
quote:
Again, if Trump never met Stormy he wouldn't be in this situation
What would stop her from claiming she had an affair with Trump even if he never met her? People lie all of the time.
Posted on 4/26/24 at 12:03 pm to BBONDS25
quote:
Notice you left out “illegal” votes.
When can we expect the 2020 election to be voided? You know simply because Wisconsin made a ruling. What about all the other States Trump lost (there were many)
Posted on 4/26/24 at 12:04 pm to SoggyBottomBaw
OK, I'll give you a hint: Supremacy Clause...
Posted on 4/26/24 at 12:04 pm to MFn GIMP
quote:
What would stop her from claiming she had an affair with Trump even if he never met her? People lie all of the time.
Is this what you people are now reduced to? Come on man!
Posted on 4/26/24 at 12:04 pm to SoggyBottomBaw
quote:
OK, I'll give you a hint: Supremacy Clause...
The supremacy clause has literally no application here.
Posted on 4/26/24 at 12:05 pm to ronricks
quote:
When can we expect the 2020 election to be voided?
You dumb frick. This isn’t a remedy those cases sought. You got caught being completely ignorant, so you have to default to these ridiculous statements. You’re a moron. No big deal. The world needs ditch diggers too.
This post was edited on 4/26/24 at 12:06 pm
Posted on 4/26/24 at 12:07 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
Even if the jury finds that this behavior violates the wacky business records law, they have to rely on a second statute with a longer SOL, which requires the campaign association.
Ok, I think I'm starting to get it.
quote:
"Mr. Trump’s lawyers argued that the New York statute requires that the predicate (underlying) crime must also be a New York crime, not a crime in another jurisdiction. The Manhattan DA responded with judicial precedents only about other criminal statutes, not the statute in this case. In the end, they could not cite a single judicial interpretation of this particular statute supporting their use of the statute," Shugerman wrote.
I guess it all comes down to Bragg's effort to try a federal crime in a state court. The expert also stated there was no previous case of "any state prosecutor relying on the Federal Election Campaign Act,". Thoughts?
Posted on 4/26/24 at 12:08 pm to jrodLSUke
quote:
Thoughts?
I have always said this is the weakest of the criminal cases.
Posted on 4/26/24 at 12:09 pm to BBONDS25
quote:
This isn’t a remedy those cases sought.
So no Kraken? Seems like it is you who is the idiot. How are you so dumb and gullible?
Posted on 4/26/24 at 12:11 pm to ronricks
quote:
Is this what you people are now reduced to? Come on man!
You must not know who I am here because I am not a Trump guy..
Posted on 4/26/24 at 12:13 pm to CreoleTigerEsq
quote:
for which Cohen has already pled guilty and served time in prison
Do you think this adds credibility to that prosecution ? (It doesn't)
Posted on 4/26/24 at 12:14 pm to MFn GIMP
quote:
You must not know who I am here because I am not a Trump guy..
Neither am I. It doesn't matter. This whole thing was easily avoidable by Trump just admitting to the affair(s) and not paying anyone. It would be like the Access Hollywood tape at this point - nobody really cares or remembers it. Why? Because Trump owned up to it instead of trying to bury it like he did with Daniels and McDougal.
Posted on 4/26/24 at 12:16 pm to ronricks
quote:
So no Kraken?
You’re the only one bringing that up. You were not aware of the court cases that ruled illegal votes in swing states were indeed counted. Your retort is “but no muh cracken”. It is to be expected from an uneducated moron like you. You don’t know what you don’t know and I do enjoy consistently making you look like a fool. Keep bringing up these strawmen to try and save face. It isn’t working.
Posted on 4/26/24 at 12:18 pm to BBONDS25
quote:
You were not aware of the court cases that ruled illegal votes in swing states were indeed counted.
This is irrelevant in 2024. Means literally nothing. I was well aware of it because you keep repeating it month after month on here like it actually somehow matters
This isn't the first time you have mentioned this to someone on here. 'Wisconsin ruling' does not prove fraud or cheating. You are the biggest fool on here other than SDVTiger Tate. You post about stuff that doesn't mean diddly shite.
This post was edited on 4/26/24 at 12:20 pm
Posted on 4/26/24 at 12:20 pm to ronricks
quote:
This is irrelevant in 2024. Means literally nothing.
What? You don’t know what those rulings change for the 2024 election? Holy shite you are a complete moron. Not a single synapse firing. You really don’t understand what those rulings mean for 2024? Holy shite.
Posted on 4/26/24 at 12:27 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
I have always said this is the weakest of the criminal cases.
I'm no expert, but I don't know how this even went to trial. Legal experts seem to agree in general.
I guess it will come down to the jury, which I know we can't predict. However, it seems highly possible that there will be some on the jury that have already made up their minds to convict Trump and won't be swayed by evidence. IMO Trump's best outcome would be a hung jury.
Page 5 of 8
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News