Sp0rtsBa11

:lol:

This shite is pretty damn tame by The Onion standards. Don't worry, you snowflakes will get over it.

quote:

---

Here we go again with "intent."

---

Intent is part of it, but it's also like the difference between filing your taxes a day late and committing tax fraud.

The FEC also hit the Trump campaign with thousands of counts of civil FEC infractions (i.e., reporting errors) just like the ones Trump keeps pointing out about Obama. You're unaware of those because, like they were with Obama, they're barely newsworthy. That's not what Cohen plead guilty to and claims Trump was an active participant in.

quote:

---

At what point was it no longer an honor to be mentioned/meet the President?

---

January 20th, 2017 at 12:00 pm Eastern Standard Time.

quote:

---

Cohen also told Congress that Trump did not know about the meeting

---

Which is why he would need corroborating evidence. Cohen also said that Trump didn't know about the hush money payments. Now he says Trump did know, AND we've all heard the audio tape of them discussing it in October 2016.

Cohen already made his plea deal, and his lawyer has indicated that they are cooperating with Mueller.

quote:

---

That’s a solid spin to defend the most corrupt administration since Ulysses S Grant.

---

That's a nice way to dodge the fact that you're simply horribly uninformed about the very issue you've got your panties in a bunch over.

And beyond that, the FEC has already hit Trump for thousands of reporting errors just like the Obama campaign. Trump's campaign finance reporting errors were barely covered, even by the so called "anti-Trump" media, because, like Obama's they are barely newsworthy. Trump knowingly conspiring to both facilitate and then coverup illegal campaign contributions is completely different.

The crybabies comparing the two might as well be saying that driving with an expired brake tag is the exact same thing as vehicular homicide since they're both traffic violations. And the cherry on top is that Trump is guilty of BOTH.

quote:

---

No need for 3 exclamation points in a paragraph. It's socially awkward

---

Just trying to fit in with you guys and Trump! I guess I should throw in some more spelling errors to get the full effect though...

quote:

---

What's this board's opinion on Proud Boys?

---

They are exactly what you'd expect given that they're basically a mashup Stormfront and /r/nofap.

quote:

---

Wasn't Obama campaign found guilty of this?

---

Simple errors in reporting. The FEC has already hit the Trump campaign with complaints about over 1000 such errors.

The difference is run of the mill errors in reporting that occur in every campaign vs Trump explicitly endorsing and overseeing illegal campaign contributions and the plan to knowingly hide those contributions. The former is barely news, which is why you were apparently unaware that the Trump campaign has already been dinged for thousands of such errors because the supposedly "anti-Trump" media has barely reported on them. The latter is a different beast entirely.

But hey, tell yourself it's the same if you need to. :lol:

They received more scrutiny. They didn't have a corrupt Republican congress carrying water for them and trying to shut down and discredit investigations.

quote:

---

The jury asked in a note signed by the foreman today: "If we cannot come to a consensus for a single count, how can we fill in the verdict sheet?"

I think we are misinterpreting this .....looks like the jury cannot reach a consensus on any of the counts

---

Not true, this is the actual text of the note.

“Your honor, if we cannot come to a consensus on a single count, how should we fill in the jury verdict form for that count, and what does that mean for the final verdict?”

The simplest interpretation is that they are unanimous on 17 out of 18 counts, and there is one "single" count that they are not unanimous on.

I could also see the foreman phrasing it this way if they had a consensus on multiple counts, but maybe couldn't agree on just a few. The phrasing definitely indicates that there is just one that they can't agree on, but they're jurors, not lawyers, and maybe they just want to know how to mark the verdict sheet for a few counts for which they cannot agree on guilty or not-guilty.

Also, the fact that they are asking how this would affect the "final verdict" definitely seems to indicate that they do intend to deliver a verdict on some of the counts even if that they can't reach one for all 18. It seems they want to be assured that mistrial on one count doesn't automatically mean a mistrial on all counts (and it doesn't).