Trump accused of a Felony in today's Southern District of New York Filing

a reply to: BlackJackal

The truth and those who are really guilty of high crimes.
It is a waste of time and money to go back many years
to find any dirt you can.Everyone has something in their
past they wouldn't want made public.
The losing side in the last presidential election has gone
way off the deep-end. They call out for the mote in one's
eye and forget the beam in their own.

originally posted by: Sillyolme
a reply to: highvein

Start your own thread. Dont troll this one.

Troll? You may need to reply to the person I replied to. He raised the pot, so I called.

originally posted by: mamabeth
a reply to: BlackJackal

The truth and those who are really guilty of high crimes.
It is a waste of time and money to go back many years
to find any dirt you can.Everyone has something in their
past they wouldn't want made public.
The losing side in the last presidential election has gone
way off the deep-end. They call out for the mote in one's
eye and forget the beam in their own.

I’m sorry I don’t see your point. These crimes were committed only three years ago and they are not being prosecuted by the losing side in the election. They are being prosecuted by people Trump appointed.

If there were high crimes committed by the Clintons the Republicans should have prosecuted them. If they didn’t they have no one to blame but themselves. If they had evidence enough to prosecute the Clintons you know as well as I do that they would have already. The fact that they haven’t goes a long way to saying there isn’t anything there, regardless what the pundits say.

This case against Trump has nothing to do with any perceived crimes by the Clintons. If Trump committed a crime shouldn’t he be prosecuted? Or do you think he deserves special treatment?

originally posted by: BlackJackal

originally posted by: timequake

originally posted by: BlackJackal

originally posted by: timequake

originally posted by: BlackJackal

originally posted by: burdman30ott6
a reply to: BlackJackal

Paying someone hush money, so long as it is not paying them to keep them quiet about a crime, is not a crime. Adultery is no longer a crime, so while I am very sure a number of people wish a crime had taken place here, none did. Covering up something prior to an election... also not a crime.

I guess I should have expected this type of reaction on this site.

So your defense is just denial. So how well do you think that is going to work out for the president? Do you honestly believe he can just tell the prosecutors “I don’t think that’s a crime, go away!”

Yep, let’s see how well that defense works out.

Well, pointing out the fact that the alleged act does not violate any criminal statute or federal regulation is in fact an excellent legal defense.

Ok get a lawyer to say that and then you may have a point. Otherwise, you are grasping at straws at an attempted defense.

I am a lawyer.

Good for you, sorry but I don’t believe you. There are tons of lawyers on record calling this a crime and then there is one guy on a message board by the name ‘timequake’ who claims to be a lawyer that says there is no crime.

Hmmmmm, who would any rational person believe?

You could get a room full of lawyers and they would all disagree with each other. However, you asked for me to get a lawyer to say it. I just pointed out that a lawyer did say it. Then you moved the goal post saying that you don't believe me just because I don't agree with you.

originally posted by: BlackJackal

originally posted by: mamabeth
a reply to: BlackJackal

The truth and those who are really guilty of high crimes.
It is a waste of time and money to go back many years
to find any dirt you can.Everyone has something in their
past they wouldn't want made public.
The losing side in the last presidential election has gone
way off the deep-end. They call out for the mote in one's
eye and forget the beam in their own.

I’m sorry I don’t see your point. These crimes were committed only three years ago and they are not being prosecuted by the losing side in the election. They are being prosecuted by people Trump appointed.

If there were high crimes committed by the Clintons the Republicans should have prosecuted them. If they didn’t they have no one to blame but themselves. If they had evidence enough to prosecute the Clintons you know as well as I do that they would have already. The fact that they haven’t goes a long way to saying there isn’t anything there, regardless what the pundits say.

This case against Trump has nothing to do with any perceived crimes by the Clintons. If Trump committed a crime shouldn’t he be prosecuted? Or do you think he deserves special treatment?

You keep talking nonsense stating that the " Republicans should have prosecuted them". That isn't how this is all supposed to work. Political parties aren't supposed to be prosecuting people. That mind-set that you show indicates that this is how you actually think. That political parties can use the system to attack political enemies. This is what democrats have been doing since Obama was in officeand that it the real danger to this country .

The issue is that the proper authorities were made up of individuals who demonstrated a political bias in favor of one political campaign. Whether it was Comey's book or Strozk's text messages, in light of how the FBI/DOJ treated the Hilary issue, it indicates that there was no intent on the part of the proper authorities to indict Hilary. They did everything they could to avoid it and to minimize damage to Hilary's campaign. They have done the exact opposite to the Trump campaign, and in back-to-back fashion.

originally posted by: timequake

originally posted by: BlackJackal

originally posted by: mamabeth
a reply to: BlackJackal

The truth and those who are really guilty of high crimes.
It is a waste of time and money to go back many years
to find any dirt you can.Everyone has something in their
past they wouldn't want made public.
The losing side in the last presidential election has gone
way off the deep-end. They call out for the mote in one's
eye and forget the beam in their own.

I’m sorry I don’t see your point. These crimes were committed only three years ago and they are not being prosecuted by the losing side in the election. They are being prosecuted by people Trump appointed.

If there were high crimes committed by the Clintons the Republicans should have prosecuted them. If they didn’t they have no one to blame but themselves. If they had evidence enough to prosecute the Clintons you know as well as I do that they would have already. The fact that they haven’t goes a long way to saying there isn’t anything there, regardless what the pundits say.

This case against Trump has nothing to do with any perceived crimes by the Clintons. If Trump committed a crime shouldn’t he be prosecuted? Or do you think he deserves special treatment?

You keep talking nonsense stating that the " Republicans should have prosecuted them". That isn't how this is all supposed to work. Political parties aren't supposed to be prosecuting people. That mind-set that you show indicates that this is how you actually think. That political parties can use the system to attack political enemies. This is what democrats have been doing since Obama was in officeand that it the real danger to this country .

The issue is that the proper authorities were made up of individuals who demonstrated a political bias in favor of one political campaign. Whether it was Comey's book or Strozk's text messages, in light of how the FBI/DOJ treated the Hilary issue, it indicates that there was no intent on the part of the proper authorities to indict Hilary. They did everything they could to avoid it and to minimize damage to Hilary's campaign. They have done the exact opposite to the Trump campaign, and in back-to-back fashion.

You’re exactly right political parties should not prosecute people. Yet, the only people screaming for the prosecution of Hillary Clinton are Republicans. Republicans currently control the DOJ so if there was evidence of a crime they should be prosecuting it, wouldn’t you agree? If there is legitimate evidence of a crime and the people currently in the DOJ appointed by Trump choose not to prosecute they themselves are guilty of ignoring a crime.

Look, the people who started the Mueller investigation were individuals appointed by Trump. The people is the SDNY running this investigation were appointed by Trump. So how is this the Democrats? How are these crimes that Trump and associates accused of, the result of actions by Democrats?

Bottom line is that Trump is being prosecuted by his own appointees and that the Republican controlled DOJ has not gone after Hillary even though every political pundit on the right accuses her of being the worst criminal since Al Capone. That is a clear indication that they don’t have any evidence of these crimes which they accuse her of.

Remember Benghazi? How Hillary was responsible for the deaths of all those people? It was the same pundits that pushed that story as well. And how did that end? The Republican led House Intelligence Committee found no evidence of wrongdoing. It’s the same with Uranium one and the rest of this crap. If there was evidence you can bet your bottom dollar that the Republican led DOJ would be like a dog on a bone on that case.

So if the DOJ has evidence Hillary committed a crime why have they not prosecuted?

a reply to: highvein

no what you did was try to change the subject.

originally posted by: Rewey

originally posted by: UKTruth
a reply to: chr0naut

Perhaps you could shortcut the discussion by listing the crimes Trump has committed and pay particular attention to listing the crimes related to collusion with Russia to influence the election - put those at the top as they would be the most pertinent in your list.

Hmmm... Interesting that your request dried up the conversation for a while. I wonder what to make of that...?

I have a life.

originally posted by: UKTruth
a reply to: chr0naut

The sentencing document is not a legal finding. It is a prosecutors opinion. There was no trial. There will not be any case brought against Trump. As I have already pointed out, the rules for campaign finance permit the use of private funds to be spent on private matters regardless of whether they influence an election.

It does not matter what others have said about the veracity of the SC. The actual person appointing the SC made it clear that he had not determined a crime had been committed. Thus the creation of the SC was counter to the statute on the books.

No one has been found guilty of any crime relating to Russian collusion - or indeed any crime associated to Trump's campaign effort. the current conviction count relating to the actual issue of the 2016 election is 0.

You can try and muddy the waters, but the claim pushed daily by the media and their uninformed viewers/readers is that Trump colluded with Russia to influence the election. Those that made that claim carry the embarrassment of it. It will take a long time to wash the egg off the face. No amount of process crime or decades old crime unrelated to the campaign will change that.

Perhaps you could shortcut the discussion by listing the crimes Trump has committed and pay particular attention to listing the crimes related to collusion with Russia to influence the election - put those at the top as they would be the most pertinent in your list.

I have answered everything you have just repeated in this post, in my previous posts.

originally posted by: Tempter

originally posted by: Sillyolme
a reply to: timequake

Haha if it's not a crime then what the hell is the southern district of New York doing?

I don't have the link now but INDIVIDUAL 1 is not Trump. It is a Russian dude named Omar (I think, could be wrong on the name). Anyways, this SDNY prosecution is about the taxi business.

Campaign finance violations will produce nothing more than a fine.

There are a few people I've been following regarding this and they have been very critical of Trump and they were underwhelmed by these filings.

Individual 1 was a candidate for President who has become the President of the United States. Read the depositions.

a reply to: timequake

what kind of lawyer?

a reply to: BlackJackal

People are afraid of one and not the other.

a reply to: BlackJackal

I have not forgotten about 4 dead Americans,get over it! Then,there is that uranium
deal with a Russian firm.

originally posted by: BlackJackal
POST REMOVED BY STAFF

It doesn't really matter. That is why I mention the lawyers in the same room spiel. besides, you brought up lawyers not me. Either way, what I stated is still valid. You're still way off the mark. And you seem to try very hard to push some agenda without knowing what you're talking about. You really don't understand how the system works.

a reply to: BlackJackal

You’re exactly right political parties should not prosecute people. Yet, the only people screaming for the prosecution of Hillary Clinton are Republicans. Republicans currently control the DOJ so if there was evidence of a crime they should be prosecuting it, wouldn’t you agree

You just contradicted yourself within three sentences... I just stated that Parties should not prosecute.

Look, the people who started the Mueller investigation were individuals appointed by Trump. The people is the SDNY running this investigation were appointed by Trump.

Really? Who among them did he appoint exactly? You're saying Trump appointed Comey? Orr? do you have any clue what you're talking about? He didn't appoint any of those people SDNY included.

Bottom line is that Trump is being prosecuted by his own appointees and that the Republican controlled DOJ has not gone after Hillary even though every political pundit on the right accuses her of being the worst criminal since Al Capone. That is a clear indication that they don’t have any evidence of these crimes which they accuse her of. ext

Trump isn't being prosecuted. He hasn't even been charged. Additionally, Republicans do not control the DOJ. AT the time Hilary was "exonorated" it was by Comey and Strozk who, as had been made obvious, where very bias. In fact, Just recently the email case for Hilary was offically reopened by a federal judge. Surprised you didn't realise that.

a reply to: BlackJackal

I am a simpleton but how does paying people for rights to stories that may or may not be the truth a felony? Also why is it a big thing for Mr Trump to ask for nda s. From people everyone in Hollywood does it . Remember when lady broke her dna about Michael Jackson and his Jesus juice in the coke cans what happened to her? Stormy Daniels took money to keep quiet then decided to run her mouth I would sue her for 20 million dollars if I was potus she broke a contract. Remember when Congress got caught with a multimillion dollar off books slush fund for paying off ladies to keep them quiet nobody made a big stink about that did they?

a reply to: Sillyolme


No. You are wrong.

a reply to: BlackJackal

Where’s the crime? Did he alter votes? Did he campaign inside of a polling station? Nope. He paid off women to keep their mouths shut about affairs. EVERYONE already knew Trump had affairs. That’s why he’s not with Ivanna anymore.

At least Trump paid people to keep their mouths shut, and didn’t author their suicide note, like other presidential candidates we might know.

a reply to: Painterz

Farmers have been going bankrupt for decades , GM was talking about not making cars and closing plants in 2015 and early 2016 . Some of the GM plants will be retooled , as for the workers I hope they find jobs with other companies . The only thing you can blame Trump for is talking too much . He has been doing that for decades .