Beidh Trump fós ina uachtarán?

[smashingjj]

who's calling me?

[smashingjj]

why do I keep getting these assignments?

[smashingjj]

what? dead... ok, one more, after that I am going to be an angel. haha! but what should I do with uhm the uh, bod

[smashingjj]

OH NO NOT

[smashingjj]

HE IS MY FATHER. AND BROTHER.

[smashingjj]

well I'm going to bed. I hope you all get certain diseases. Night night!

[Toast]

Anyone remember this? This bullshit has been floating around for years and they dig it back up every time they feel the need to fling their poo at Trump like zoo chimps.

Opinion | The rumored Trump 'N-word' tape could be an 'Access Hollywood' scandal 2.0

Even the greatest con men in history have needed accomplices to help pull off their schemes. Bill Pruitt, a former producer on “The Apprentice,” made that point explicit in an essay published in Slate on Thursday, hours before his former boss was convicted in Manhattan of 34 felony counts. He also says he heard the show’s host, Donald Trump, use the N-word during the taping of the show’s first season in 2004 and that, importantly, the exchange was caught on tape. If Pruitt’s account is true, then the video he described could shift the course of the 2024 election — but it’s doubtful Americans will ever get the chance to see it.

[Disco King]

Originally Posted by Toast

Anyone remember this? This bullshit has been floating around for years and they dig it back up every time they feel the need to fling their poo at Trump like zoo chimps.

Opinion | The rumored Trump 'N-word' tape could be an 'Access Hollywood' scandal 2.0

I don't understand what you're upset about here or what your point is.

"So, Trump got convicted of 34 felonies."

"Yeah, well I think it's bullshit that somebody says Trump might have said the N-word. Why is everybody so mean to him?"

[Elphenor]

Originally Posted by ovary

myoneand-killallthebabies-only lost her anti-fash cred with her israel support

the fraud charges on trump shouldn't have been brought. weird novel legal theory saying he used the wrong bank account to pay off stormy? paying someone for an NDA isn't illegal. bad optics for the independents and moderates biden needs to win. looks like political persecution and is political persecution--theyve never charged anyone with this shit before. won't hurt trump at all in the election, where he has been maintaining a solid lead in the polls.

too bad the dems shit the bed on the jan 6 charges, which are legitimate and might have made a difference. as usual, dems playing to lose.

another way of seeing this:

he coasted on his wealth and privilege for decades while NY looked the other way on his various crimes

[smashingjj]

He got convicted for lying about it, not for the bank whatever bank account he used for it. He still denies it

[Disco King]

Yeah, he wasn't charged under some "weird novel legal theory." He committed fraud by misrepresenting the nature of the payments. It was a felony instead of a misdemeanor because he committed the fraud with the intent to commit or cover up another crime. It had nothing to do with "which bank account" it came out of.

His defense didn't even make sense. They tried to claim that Cohen made the payments to Daniels without the knowledge or instruction of Trump, and that the payments to Cohen had nothing to do with compensating him for the payments to Daniels. At the same time, they tried to claim that Trump arranged the hush money payments to Daniels not to influence the election, but just to protect his family's reputation. Those two stories can't be true at the same time, and neither one of them held up with the evidence (literal notes, emails, and recordings).

[Disco King]

If not for Cannon ruling at an uncharacteristically slow pace on the stolen files case, Trump would be getting hit with all the other felony cases much sooner. He'd better arrange for Cohen to buy her a fruit basket and then pay him back later.

[Toast]

And Fani's case is officially dead in the water.

Georgia appeals court pauses Trump election interference case

Fani's case is on hold until Trump's appeal is heard, and they announced that the appeal case won't even start until October 4th at the earliest, and NOBODY will give a single solitary fuck about any of it after the election, because it'll all be utterly pointless.

So Fani's "election interference" case against Trump, the only real chance they had to disqualify his ability to run for president, is officially toothless and irrelevant.

[ovary]

because y'alls sophistocated media literacy skills just totally discount out of hand any articles from conservative-leaning outlets, here's one from a CNN contributor writing in NYmag:

https://nymag.com/intelligencer/arti...d-the-law.html

"Most importantly, the DA’s charges against Trump push the outer boundaries of the law and due process. That’s not on the jury. That’s on the prosecutors who chose to bring the case and the judge who let it play out as it did.

The district attorney’s press office and its flaks often proclaim that falsification of business records charges are “commonplace” and, indeed, the office’s “bread and butter.” That’s true only if you draw definitional lines so broad as to render them meaningless. Of course the DA charges falsification quite frequently; virtually any fraud case involves some sort of fake documentation.

But when you impose meaningful search parameters, the truth emerges: The charges against Trump are obscure, and nearly entirely unprecedented. In fact, no state prosecutor — in New York, or Wyoming, or anywhere — has ever charged federal election laws as a direct or predicate state crime, against anyone, for anything. None. Ever. Even putting aside the specifics of election law, the Manhattan DA itself almost never brings any case in which falsification of business records is the only charge.

Standing alone, falsification charges would have been mere misdemeanors under New York law, which posed two problems for the DA. First, nobody cares about a misdemeanor, and it would be laughable to bring the first-ever charge against a former president for a trifling offense that falls within the same technical criminal classification as shoplifting a Snapple and a bag of Cheetos from a bodega. Second, the statute of limitations on a misdemeanor — two years — likely has long expired on Trump’s conduct, which dates to 2016 and 2017.

So, to inflate the charges up to the lowest-level felony (Class E, on a scale of Class A through E) — and to electroshock them back to life within the longer felony statute of limitations — the DA alleged that the falsification of business records was committed “with intent to commit another crime.” Here, according to prosecutors, the “another crime” is a New York State election-law violation, which in turn incorporates three separate “unlawful means”: federal campaign crimes, tax crimes, and falsification of still more documents. Inexcusably, the DA refused to specify what those unlawful means actually were — and the judge declined to force them to pony up — until right before closing arguments. So much for the constitutional obligation to provide notice to the defendant of the accusations against him in advance of trial. (This, folks, is what indictments are for.)

In these key respects, the charges against Trump aren’t just unusual. They’re bespoke, seemingly crafted individually for the former president and nobody else."

[Disco King]

First of all, this article isn't even saying what you were saying earlier. You were saying that Trump was charged under some unusual interpretation of the law, some weird or novel theory about what a law means. The article you quote isn't saying that the law was interpreted in some non-standard way. It's just saying "they usually don't bother charging anybody for this." That's an entirely different claim, which makes me wonder if you understand the article you yourself are quoting. Like, if I get charged for some archaic law against wearing a beard on Sundays, that's not a matter of the law being interpreted strangely. It's a matter of a law that is typically ignored being invoked for some exceptional reason. The law itself may be totally unambiguous. Also, note how the crime wasn't "paying somebody from the wrong bank account." I think you misunderstand what Trump was actually charged for.

Secondly, the article you quote isn't convincing when it tries to argue that Trump was saddled with charges that are typically not pursued. "Violations of election laws have never been used as the predicate crime before." Maybe because it's not common for people to commit fraud to hide a violation of federal election law? Duh the first notable presidential candidate to get caught doing these sorts of crimes during their campaign is going to be the first one to be charged with it. If I, I dunno, stole a tank from a military base, tried to attack City Hall to overthrow the mayor, and tried to cover these actions up by falsifying business records in New York, I might be the first to be charged with felony falsifying records with whatever crime I did as the predicate crime, but the fact that I was the first wouldn't make it convincing for me to say "this is clearly a witch-hunt… you haven't charged anyone else with this shit before." Yeah, because they never caught anybody else doing it.

Thirdly, the article is just incorrect. Under New York Law, it's a felony to falsify business records with the intent of committing another crime or to aid or conceal the commission of another crime. The prosecution gave three possibilities for the predicate crime that would make the falsification a felony rather than a misdemeanour. All they had to do was prove that Trump had the intent to commit at least one of them.

The first possibility was tax fraud. In order to hide the fact that the Trump organization was reimbursing Cohen for paying off Daniels, they had to have him declare the money they paid him as "income" rather than as a "reimbursement." Showing that they were in on the plan, they paid Cohen double what they owed him to cover his tax liability. The Trump Organization CFO made notes explicitly acknowledging that they were doing this for him. This is tax fraud. This predicate crime has nothing to do with campaign-finance violations on it's own.

The second possibility for the predicate crime was the violation of the Federal Election Campaign Act. Federal law caps the maximum legal political campaign donation at $2,700. Cohen paid Daniels $130,000. That is an excessive campaign contribution. Even though the money was sent to Daniels and not directly to the Trump campaign, it was to benefit the Trump campaign, so it was a campaign donation. This is proven by the fact that Trump and National Enquirer owner David Pecker discussed the plan to bury the Daniels story and other such stories while promoting stories that hurt Trump's rivals. The $130,000 was part of that plan. They explicitly acknowledged it was for the campaign. Which makes this a campaign-finance violation.

The third possibility was a violation of New York election law. This law makes it a crime to "conspire to promote or prevent the election of anyone to public office through unlawful means." The unlawful means were specified: they would be either of the crimes specified as the first two possible predicate crimes. So, the third possible predicate crime contains the other two. But it's still only one of three possible predicate crimes.

And the prosecution only had to show that Trump intended to commit at least one of these. The jury didn't have to be unanimous on what the predicate crime actually was. They just had to agree that Trump had the intent to commit at least on. They could disagree on which one it was. While negotiating jury instructions, Trump's own defense acknowledged that unanimity was not ordinarily required. They asked the judge to make an exception for Trump and to instruct the jury that unanimity was required due to "special circumstances." The judge refused, stating that she wasn't going to "change the law" for the defense. If you thing that it's unusual for unanimity not to be required, then not even Trump's defense agreed with you in court. This is just what they said to the media because Trump fans watching the news don't know that they're lying.

The article you posted plays with words to make it sound like Trump was kept in the dark about what he was being charged for when it says the prosecution "refused to specify what those unlawful means actually were." They gave three possibilities for a predicate crime, but only had to convince the jury that Trump had the intent to commit at least one, whichever one (or ones) they think that is. And for the third possible predicate crime, breaking New York election law by using unlawful means to influence an election, they did specify those unlawful means: the same acts as the first two predicate crimes (tax fraud and federal campaign donation violations). The article is trying to confuse you by not mentioning that the violation of the NY election law was only one of three possible predicates, and trying to obscure the fact that the prosecution didn't have to specify which one was THE predicate by using words to twist this into "the prosecution didn't have to tell Trump or the court what crimes he was accused of." So, the article is garbage.

I get that you're not a Trump Acolyte and are just trying to be Fair and Balanced™ by showing skepticism about possible puffed-up accusations against Trump, because it's not inconceivable that he is unpopular enough that he is going to get held responsible for some stuff he actually shouldn't be. But, well, in this case, he got nailed fair and square, and he's not likely to win any appeals on this. Legally, his conviction is not controversial. His legal team and allies have just been taking advantage of people's lack of understanding of a the law to make it sound like something unorthodox happened here, and certain media outlets are regurgitating it.

[Disco King]

I know that I'm just going to get a tl;dr but whatever. The intricacies of the law can't be explained in a Tweet.

[Toast]

This lawyer is nonbiased, and he gives the clearest explanation of that clusterfuck trial I've seen yet. It's the first time I actually understood the full picture.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u23t__ysVjU

The Q&A is also very informative.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4bYGxQnwGes

[killtrocity]

I found this amazing deal, 66% off

https://www.ebay.com/itm/226140253993

"NEVER SURRENDER!" (near mint condition)

reverse side: "voluntarily surrendering to authorities"



This shit is self-selecting for low-intelligence rubes. Same concept as Nigerian prince emails intentionally littered with spelling and grammar issues to filter out folks who've never used inhalants.

Can Trump keep in president? I think a more interesting question is whether there's a market for counterfeit dummy thicc pokemon cards like this one

[redbreegull]

high speed donking tell me more

[redbreegull]

I was always a meoth fan though if you know what I mean

[ninsp]

Originally Posted by TheAlter

Yeah tl;dr sorry buddy, it's Saturday morning

Just saw Biden attend the D-Day Ceremony in beautiful Normandy and damn i'm afraid you're gonna get another four years of that guy from Queens of the Stone Age

Joe has that "zoned out" look now while he's talking...it is almost frightening to watch

it's almost as though they actually want to lose, let Trump run his last race and come back in four years with a fresh prez candidate

Biden might as well be propped up by his Secret Service agents. Yet, I'd vote for a dead guy over Trump.

[Plasticine Rap Star]

It's a shame that it comes down to a choice between a corpse and a big angry potato.

[ninsp]

Originally Posted by Elijah Moon

It's a shame that it comes down to a choice between a corpse and a big angry potato.

Just shows how fundamentally broken our country is. The fact that the Dems keep screaming "but look at the economy!" when stockholders are making $$ and no normal person is, shows you how out of touch every politician is.

[redbreegull]

Originally Posted by TheAlter

Yeah but you're a godless anarchist, an unrepentant flouter of authority

Dems with a minimum of conscience might just decide to stay home and that, my friends, is how it always begins: very small

eat shit bootlicker

[ninsp]

Originally Posted by TheAlter

Yeah but you're a godless anarchist, an unrepentant flouter of authority

Dems with a minimum of conscience might just decide to stay home and that, my friends, is how it always begins: very small

no

[smashingjj]

Yeah that is, predictably, the dumbest advice

[Joey Goldberg]

not gonna lie, i'm still confused as to how The Orange Daddy could even go for a 2nd term by this point

[Joey Goldberg]

you'd think the "convicted felon" part would be enough this time around but apparently not

you can't even drive for Doordash with a misdemeanor, lol

[redbreegull]

Originally Posted by TheAlter

Yeah, it's called democracy

you only like democracy as a foot in the door for your racist authoritarian dicksucking

[Joey Goldberg]

Originally Posted by TheAlter

Thing is you can’t bar someone from running for president just because they are convicted felons as that would effectively disrupt the balance between legislative, executive and judicial branches of government

This, friends, is the first installment of six exclusive columns for Netphoria untitled: Alter the Zeitgeist: Politics and vision in an ever-changing world

much like our iron-clad separation of government & religion, innit

brb gotta fly to New York City to take care of some... "fetal matters"