IMO, the Fix is in
- Thread starter OrangeShogun
- Start date
Biden wouldn't want distraction
Now that is funny
He wouldn't want that distraction.
Seattle Husker
10,000+ Posts
Bill Barr, Chris Krebs, Governors of these states (a few which are Republicans), State SOS (a few which are Republicans), State AGs, Judges, basically anywhere and anyone in formal bi-partisan roles where it's their role to administer elections and investigate election impropriety.
Or go with the partisan Trump Campaign and Twitter-sphere.
Your choice.
Seattle Husker
10,000+ Posts
It's the local State and City prosecutors in NY that Trump needs to worry about, not Biden. The latter will happily let NY do its job to avoid sullying his reunification motto. You won't see Biden commenting pro or against the NY AG or Cy Vance actions.
I suspect those will quietly dissipate though not immediately.
The guys who have not analyzed any data, no understanding of computer security, or took any witnesses? No thanks. Krebs is the exception but he hasn't looked at a damn thing. He's already made a few comments that are wrong.
You want to listen to pencil pushers. I want to listen to the experts on the ground. When Princeton and MIT statisticians say this is BS I'm going to listen.
The only pencil pusher that I know that says there is fraud is our FEC chairman.
Last edited:
Seattle Husker
10,000+ Posts
It's possible although I doubt it as long as Trump continues his tirade. Vance has Trump dead to rights on Campaign Finance violation with Stormy Daniels payoff. Does anyone think Trump's finances are squeaky clean? They could likely get him on State tax evasion based onwhat we know he's telling the banks vs what he's telling local tax authorities for valuation of his properties.
Yep. People don't go to jail over so-called campaign finance violations. If Trump is found guilty more than likely it'll be a fine just like Obama's campaign was charged with.
towersniper
100+ Posts
I get your disagreement with Schiff, and you can accept Barr's characterization of the Mueller Report, if you want, but in light of the Senate Report (, I wonder why you term allegations of problematic activities vis-a-vis Russia in the Trump campaign (trying to stay away from that loaded, and ultimately Rorschachian "collusion" term) "ridiculously false." report_volume5.pdf (senate.gov)The bipartisan committee report is pretty disturbing, and downright damning with respect to Manafort, Stone and Wikileaks (not to mention Trump's involvement in Stone's shenanigans.) You are free to minimize it, as you will, or reject it entirely, but the claims of campaign misconduct are not by any reasonable measure "ridiculously false." Also, what is the "actual evidence to the contrary" to which you refer?
Seattle Husker
10,000+ Posts
Michael Cohen went to jail for the very transaction we are discussing in which Trump is directly implicated as "Indivdual 1".
Watch: Michael Cohen Testifies Before House Oversight Panel | C-SPAN.org
You're trying to equivocate bad accounting practices with intentional law breaking. Yes, bad accounting practices get fined...the other goes to jail.
He went to jail for tax evasion and being Trumps' lawyer more than anything else. This was political. Only in New York and being a republican can spending your own money be a campaign violation because the law isn't clear. Many legal scholars have said this. Trump's lawyers will get him off easy. At most a fine. If you think Trump's in trouble for an ambiguous law you're going to be disappointed.
If it was just a campaign violation what would he have gotten?
Seattle Husker
10,000+ Posts
Please tell me you realize that the other transactions were in relation to the initial payoff to Stormy Daniels.
Those were him working alone. Trump won't be charged with bank fraud or tax fraud in this case. Was it with Trump's money or actual campaign money? There's a reason why Deez thinks this will go nowhere like I do.
Last edited:
towersniper
100+ Posts
This would be a tough one to find Trump guilty of "beyond a reasonable doubt." If the reason for the payment was, as Giuliani said, because "Imagine if that came out on Oct. 15, 2016, in the middle of the last debate with Hillary Clinton?," then it is an illegal campaign contribution committed in a manner that demonstrates an intent to hide the payment. Guilty. If it was paid to keep an affair secret, to avoid his wife finding out, then it is a private bit of sleaze, and not a crime. I suspect that it was a bit of both, but as a juror, absent more, I would acquit based on reasonable doubt. Ironically, if Trump has a history of paying off his bimbo eruptions through Michael Cohen prior to the campaign, that is evidence that the payment would have been made irrespective of the campaign. Incidental benefit to the campaign would probably be insufficient to establish a campaign violation. Not Guilty.
towersniper
100+ Posts
To clarify, the theory was that Trump made an illegal, undisclosed, hidden contribution to his own campaign, and Cohen helped. That is a crime - and if true, a very bad example because it was clearly intentional. Again, as a juror, I acquit.
OUBubba
5,000+ Posts
Or did he use campaign funds for it? Biden will not mess with him and will sit back while SDNY makes hay.
towersniper
100+ Posts
Cohen said this was one payment. I don't know if any effort has been made to trace others. If they were all like this, I can't see a conviction. Are these the checks Donald Trump gave Michael Cohen for the Stormy Daniels payment?
I thought Trump set up a retainer for Cohen and told him to take care of it.
Why are you encouraging the wet dreams of the kooky left?
towersniper
100+ Posts
Huh? I said it doesn't look like a conviction is likely if the checks, like the one linked to, are drawn on DJT's account. I don't see that as encouraging anyone other than the kooky right.
Yeah, that was clear to me. I meant to say “engaging” not encouraging. Just talking about the possibility is giving the TDS folks mini-orgasms.
OUBubba
5,000+ Posts
There used to be a “smokin” emoji back in the day. Pretend that is here.
That all may be true. However, I suspect that Trump's finances have been somewhat dirty for years. In fact, in light of his history, they were probably at their dirtiest in the early to mid-'90s. However, the criminal authorities never cared about them before. Then he became president and suddenly they cared. When that happens, it suggests that their concern was driven mostly by politics, not a sincere desire to enforce the laws. Obviously they can't just suddenly drop the cases just because he leaves office. That's too obvious However, they can wait and quietly drop them for "lack of evidence," or they can reduce the charges and let him off for a small fine. That's the norm for campaign finance violations anyway. There's almost no chance of him going to jail. And though Biden can't publicly and formally stop a state or local prosecution, he can call up local prosecutors and the NY AG and tell them to make it go away. Remember, AGs and local DAs are partisan politicians before they're anything else.
Frankly, even outside of politics, prosecuting a political figure as big as a former president would be tough in this age, because it would be damn near impossible to impanel a jury. And of course it would only take one Trump supporter getting on the jury for him to walk. Even in NYC, that wouldn't be hard to stumble onto.
Last edited:
Weekly Prediction Contest
* Predict HORNS-AGGIES *
Sat, Nov 30 • 6:30 PM on ABC
Recent Threads
-
The Media Industry
- Started by texas_ex2000
- Replies: 8K
- West Mall
-
President Biden Accountability Thread
- Started by 2003TexasGrad
- Replies: 4K
- West Mall
Prediction Results Threads
