IMO, the Fix is in

4th_floor said:
Dinesh D'Sousa says hello.
Click to expand...

5 years probation. 8 months in a halfway house. He was actually doing something illegal and way worse than what Trump did by using straw donors and he still didn't go to prison.
 
Last edited:
Garmel said:
5 years probation. 8 months in a halfway house. He was actually doing something illegal and way worse than what Trump did by using straw donors and he still didn't go to prison.
Click to expand...
A community confinemment center is not a halfway house. It is closer to a county jail. So technically not prison, but not a halfway house either.

Is D'Sousa the only one who funneled campaign contributions through an intermediary? No. If he had used BLM to funnel money to Biden, he would have been applauded instead of prosecuted.
 
towersniper said:
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?
Click to expand...
That report is 1000 pages of no collusion between Trump and Russia. The only collusion shown is between the DNC, the Clinton Campaign, Steele, Perkins Coie, and a few lowlifes at the FBI that have been discredited and terminated.
 
Mr. Deez said:
It's just hard imagine that he would plan to run again in four years. He'll be 78 in 2024 - 5 years older than Reagan when he was running for his second term.
Click to expand...

DJT had this to say at a White House Holiday party last night. The emphasis is mine. It's possible he's pulling the chain of the media which he loves to do to stay relevant but my money is on him announcing his 2024 bid sometime during Biden's Inauguration week.

"It's been an amazing four years," Trump told the room, filled with many people not wearing masks despite public health officials' guidance amid the Covid-19 pandemic. "We are trying to do another four years. Otherwise, I'll see you in four years."
Click to expand...
 
towersniper said:
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.
Click to expand...

I may have overstated the "dead to rights" based on a jury trial which can be more easily influenced. Senator John Edwards had 2 hung juries in a similar case where he was paying $$ to a mistress during the 2000 campaign. It sucks but "justice" is different for more powerful people. This is why Hillary got off without even being charged for something a military grunt would spend 10 years in Leavenworth. In this case, is Trump guilty? Yes based on the facts. Can that court case be won? Probably not.
 
Mr. Deez said:
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.
Click to expand...

I think Biden would like to the cases to go away. The primary thing he has to gain from a protracted Trump legal battle is the potential that he'd lose access to Twitter if he served jail time. ;) Seriously, a Trump court case could go either way. It distracts Trump from beating on Biden and it potentially exposes a bit more of the financial shenanigans that DJT has fought tooth and nail to hide. Can Trump be more of a martyr than he's already claiming and his supporters giving him credit for?

I'm also not sure Biden is the type to put his finger on the scale in this case, especially if it means going against the extreme members of the party that want to see Trump held accountable.
 
81,001,401 52.22%
74,102,251 47.78%
155,103,652 4.45%
6,899,150 Difference

65,853,625 51.11%
62,985,106 48.89%
128,838,731 2.23%

2016 compared to 2020. CONCEDE already. Biden won by double the amount that Hillary won by. It's up to almost 7,000,000 votes.
 
OUBubba said:
Update. 1-40.
Click to expand...


When you can't win in court you talk yourself to vict....confirming you lost. For those that don't want to listen to the 45 minute video Trump claims his lawyers submitted all the evidence in court. If his supporters will simply send him some more money I'm certain he'll be able to prove he won and overturn the election. ;)
 
Last edited:
I said in the summer that Biden could win by +4 nationally and still lose. Since Biden is above that currently and that he basically won by <0.3% each in GA, AZ, WI, and PA, I am emphatically claiming I was right. Imagine Biden winning 51–47 and losing the EC by 10,000 votes collectively.
 
mchammer said:
I said in the summer that Biden could win by +4 nationally and still lose. Since Biden is above that currently and that he basically won by <0.3% each in GA, AZ, WI, and PA, I am emphatically claiming I was right. Imagine Biden winning 51–47 and losing the EC by 10,000 votes collectively.
Click to expand...

I never understood the rationale of those who said he could only win by a few points and still lose. He could have run up the score in California, New York, and Illinois even more, racked up a huge popular vote margin, and still lost.

The root cause of the misconception is that I think the media and pollsters underestimate just how much of political outliers those big Democratic states really are compared to the swing states. They think those states are somewhat left of the swing states, and they're actually wingnut left of the swing states.
 
Last edited:
Mr. Deez said:
So is anyone offering this in court where it can be authenticated or where we can get to the bottom of it?
Click to expand...
The person speaking about the video said they just reviewed it last night. They said they need more time to fully watch the entire chain of events.
 
Last edited:
Mr. Deez said:
They're getting pretty short on time, and I wonder why it has taken so long to show up.
Click to expand...
I’m leaning to amending the constitution for a) state governors appoint senators as originally written (with state legislature approval?) and 2) house representatives select president and Vice President based on state delegate votes. As such inauguration is moved back to March.
 
So is anyone offering this in court where it can be authenticated or where we can get to the bottom of it?
Click to expand...

This has been the big problem. Too many press conferences. Not enough putting cases together to actually challenge the outcomes. Also, the best evidence wasn't shown. The server data matched to the time series vote count graphs was the most important. They needed to match that to example ballot records seeing what the condition of the ballots counted at the anomalous events.

But they just kept talking about mail in ballot submission things.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Weekly Prediction Contest

* Predict HORNS-AGGIES *
Sat, Nov 30 • 6:30 PM on ABC

Recent Threads

Prediction Results Threads

2024 Schedules

Back
Top