- 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: Liberal debates Trumps conviction and is asked what crime he committed
Posted on 6/4/24 at 1:18 pm to Sofaking2
Posted on 6/4/24 at 1:18 pm to Sofaking2
quote:
It’s almost like the charges were curated for Trump only?
When you run for office by promising to get a certain person this shite happens.
He was targeted. They were going to search until they found something.
Then they found shite and twisted it to fit some weird legal theory. Then tried the case in a place that hates Trump now after years of the press dragging him through the mud.
Sounds like a healthy America and justice system. lol.
0
Posted on 6/4/24 at 1:28 pm to RedHog260
quote:He was indeed convicted of falsifying records, 34 times for the same payment by the way, But you are also correct if one remembers the first rule of show trials- it has to appear legally correct.
You idiot he personally did not falsify business records. An out of date charge way past the statute of limitations. He was convicted of running against the guy whose depends your adore smelling and whose balls you love to wash.
Usually you stack the jury and use the judge to create that impression... could that have happened here? /sarcasm.
Posted on 6/4/24 at 1:32 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:When law firms hire experts or investigators to help with a case, do they ever invoice those expenses to the client, or is the client always billed directly by those experts or investigators?
You are claiming a law firm never hires outside corporations which in turn generate fees, fees which are paid by the firm, and then invoiced as expenses to the client?
-----
I think you may need to clean up the language of this question.
Posted on 6/4/24 at 1:34 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
I actually skimmed some NY appeals cases yesterday and I do not believe this is required.
Stalin is sooo proud of you. He loves his ballwashing retards.
Posted on 6/4/24 at 1:35 pm to I20goon
Suddenly it becomes clear why our voter registration is used to choose prospective jurors.
Posted on 6/4/24 at 1:42 pm to JellyRoll
quote:
I would love to see that whole exchange.
This post was edited on 6/4/24 at 1:46 pm
Posted on 6/4/24 at 2:06 pm to reddy tiger
quote:
Are you retarded? Is it really your belief that a story involving infidelity would have only impacted NY voters?
Lol. Oh you poor poor damaged person that has TDS. I really feel bad for you that their brain washing of you was “successful”.
Since when did a DA in Manhattan get to assert voter fraud effecting a Federal election occurring in multiple states?
Thought that would be a DOJ responsibility.
You people just don’t get it and never will.
I really have written all of you off as lost causes.
Posted on 6/4/24 at 2:09 pm to NC_Tigah
quote:
Costello was opinion testimony?
Costello was allowed to testify
Posted on 6/4/24 at 2:10 pm to RaoulDuke504
It’s obvious she is no expert. She is just parroting back what she has been told by her mainstream media overlords. The fact of the matter is Trump committed no crime. Just as in with the real estate evaluation matter, no one was deprived of their rights or freedoms through force or fraud.
Posted on 6/4/24 at 2:13 pm to NC_Tigah
quote:
When law firms hire experts or investigators to help with a case, do they ever invoice those expenses to the client
Typically the client pays the expenses directly.
If the attorney fronts the payment, the invoice specifically lists the exact amount spent.
Had Cohen Billed (1) Legal fee $x (2) Reimbursement $130,000 TOTAL: $x + $130,000 then there would be no case. That is not what happened. Cohen didn't even pay the money, a third party company did. And the invoice was from Cohen (as a lawyer/firm) and not for $x + $130,000.
Posted on 6/4/24 at 3:42 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:Right. Cohen is slime. He is an embarrassment to your field. Those are knowns. That is not the issue.
Had Cohen Billed (1) Legal fee $x (2) Reimbursement $130,000 TOTAL: $x + $130,000 then there would be no case. That is not what happened.
Where is the TRUMP criminal transgression in simply paying a bill as submitted by his lawyer?
Posted on 6/4/24 at 4:16 pm to SlowFlowPro
(no message)
Posted on 6/4/24 at 4:40 pm to ezride25
Exactly. I got roped in yesterday and that guy is the most obtuse, argumentative die on any anti Trump hill I have seen.
Posted on 6/4/24 at 6:21 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:quote:I actually skimmed some NY appeals cases yesterday and I do not believe this is required.
To have Trump personally indicated they would have needed to show proof he knew or directed specifically,
Then they aren't following their own law because you can't have intent to do something without first having knowledge that it needs to/should be done.
quote:
A person is guilty of falsifying business records in the first degree
when he commits the crime of falsifying business records in the second
degree,
§ 175.05 Falsifying business records in the second degree requires intent to defraud. It even says it prior to its definition:
quote:
A person is guilty of falsifying business records in the second degree when, with intent to defraud, he:
If they don't show any proof the defendant knew of nor directed the false records, they cannot prove intent. If they aren't proving intent, then the foundational requirement of 175.05 isn't met. If that isn't met, then 175.10 cannot legally be convicted of violating it.
quote:
and when his intent to defraud includes an intent to commit another crime or to aid or conceal the commission thereof.
This latter part is then irrelevant. Even if it weren't, there has to also be some sort of proof that another crime was intended to be committed through the action in question.
Posted on 6/4/24 at 7:03 pm to RaoulDuke504
Typical Liberal dumb frick. Asked a very simple question, and can NEVER give a legit answer. Cuz they know they aren't capable of doing so.
Liberals are the worst.
Liberals are the worst.
Posted on 6/4/24 at 7:11 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
We don't know, and will likely never know.
So because "we don't know, and will likely never know", which is correct no one fricking knows, that's good enough to convict someone of being guilty of all 34 fricking felonies he's being accused of?
You Liberals are mother fricking beyond help.
Posted on 6/4/24 at 7:12 pm to A Menace to Sobriety
quote:
So because "we don't know, and will likely never know", which is correct no one fricking knows, that's good enough to convict someone of being guilty of all 34 fricking felonies he's being accused of?
Did you stop reading or something?
Posted on 6/4/24 at 7:15 pm to Bard
quote:
Then they aren't following their own law because you can't have intent to do something without first having knowledge that it needs to/should be done.
I think I thought we were discussing the specific journal entries.
The intent is part of the conspiracy. I took his comment about knowing to be part of a digression on the specific journal entries and not general knowledge of the scheme.
quote:
Even if it weren't, there has to also be some sort of proof that another crime was intended to be committed through the action in question.
That's what we have been discussing, ITT.
Posted on 6/4/24 at 7:33 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
I think I thought we were discussing the specific journal entries.
I was commenting on the appeals cases you mentioned skimming in reference to the question on Trump's intent, not the Trump case itself.
Posted on 6/4/24 at 7:36 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
SlowFlowPro
How long would it take to reverse a conviction?
Page 7 of 9
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News