Don't forget that Trump is a convicted felon

[eccieuser9500]

Originally Posted by lustylad

Yes, I want exactly. Read my posts #95-96. Cite the specific language of the specific NY law(s) he was alleged to have violated. If it was a misdemeanor statute, how did he get "convicted" of a felony?

Has anyone else been prosecuted, let alone "convicted", under the same law(s) using the same legal reasoning? Or is trump's case unique and unprecedented?

Too bad our resident legal expert tigbitties isn't here to share his intimate, detailed scholarly knowledge of New York law with us ignoramuses.

We'll both have to wait sir. I hope to be in the mood and the state of consciousness to do the "yeoman's" work (as I remember you calling me out quite rightly about once before) and help you with that. I've already started my weekend getting ready to watch a blue blood matchup tonight.

So, I just might give it a shot. If I don't take too many shots myself before the match.

I've posted one of these here before as well. My dumbass is on a hooker for the fuck of it. With less money this time around but still more time than it. What are you doing here, money bags?

Short term memory sucks.

[Hdtown]

Convicted today.

[texassapper]

SO?

[winn dixie]

Magas played the word game here.
So by their definition....TODAY
TRUMPF IS A CONVICTED FELON
LOLLING

[lustylad]

Ok, lemme see if I understand all this correctly...

Trumpy was found guilty of a misdemeanor that no one here can explain. Something about falsifying business records because he paid his lawyer to obtain NDAs. Then somehow through the magical legal alchemy of Alvin Bragg and Juan Merchan, this alleged misdemeanor was transformed into a felony. No one here can explain that either. Meanwhile, the trump haters keep bleating about his being convicted of "34 felonies" because he happened to pay his lawyer in 34 instalments lol.

Now we learn the sentence or punishment meted out by Judge Merchan for this vague, arbitrary, non-specific, indecipherable, misdemeanor-masquerading-as-a-felony "crime" is... wait for it... (drumroll) ... UNCONDITIONAL DISCHARGE!

That's it? No jail time. No probation. No community service. No fine. No wrist slap. No nothing.

Anyone care to explain that?

Sounds more like UNCONDITIONAL SURRENDER by Judge Merchan, if you ask me.

[greenbook]

To compare our judicial system to Russia’s is insanely ignorant. It’s hard to believe that anything with the intellectual capacity of garden slug could be so ignorant. I used to live in Manhattan, and you are assuming that the epicenter of corporate America and all the bastions of capitalism are predisposed to a philosophical view that is antithetical to yours. Ipso facto, you are a communist.

[greenbook]

Fat Frumpy was found guilty of 34 FELONIES, not misdemeanors, how you don’t understand that is paradoxical. His non-penalty is, as eloquently elucidated by the chief justice is in deference to the office of the president, not in any way an endorsement of the soon to be orangutan-in-chief.

[greenbook]

Guilty: Trump becomes first former US president convicted of felony crimes

[greenbook]

https://apnews.com/article/trump-tri...5b694364470aa0

[The_Waco_Kid]

Originally Posted by greenbook

To compare our judicial system to Russia’s is insanely ignorant. It’s hard to believe that anything with the intellectual capacity of garden slug could be so ignorant. I used to live in Manhattan, and you are assuming that the epicenter of corporate America and all the bastions of capitalism are predisposed to a philosophical view that is antithetical to yours. Ipso facto, you are a communist.

president-elect Trump

Originally Posted by greenbook

Fat Frumpy was found guilty of 34 FELONIES, not misdemeanors, how you don’t understand that is paradoxical. His non-penalty is, as eloquently elucidated by the chief justice is in deference to the office of the president, not in any way an endorsement of the soon to be orangutan-in-chief.

president-elect Trump

Originally Posted by greenbook

Guilty: Trump becomes first former US president convicted of felony crimes

president-elect Trump

Originally Posted by greenbook

https://apnews.com/article/trump-tri...5b694364470aa0

president-elect Trump



bahahahahahahaaaa

[lustylad]

Originally Posted by greenbook

Fat Frumpy was found guilty of 34 FELONIES, not misdemeanors, how you don’t understand that is paradoxical.

Maybe it's because nobody can explain it to me. Can you? Go back and read my posts #95-96.

Originally Posted by greenbook

His non-penalty is, as eloquently elucidated by the chief justice is in deference to the office of the president, not in any way an endorsement of the soon to be orangutan-in-chief.

Lol. Of course Judge Merchan pretended he was being deferential to the "office of the President". The truth is he knew if he planned to impose any real penalty, the US Supreme Court would have been more inclined to rule in Trump's favor and postpone the sentencing. (Go back and read Lucas McCain's post #134.)

So Merchan signaled in advance he planned to end the case with a non-penalty sentence. That made it more likely Trump would lose his SCOTUS appeal. It worked:

Originally Posted by Lucas McCain

Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Amy Coney Barrett joined with the court’s three liberals in rejecting his emergency motion.

They found his sentencing wouldn’t be a serious burden since Merchan has indicated he won’t give Trump jail time, fines or probation.

Now that "sentencing" is complete, the libtards can call trump a "convicted felon" even though everyone knows the whole case is a politically motivated farce.

But hey, if it makes you feel better keep pretending Juan Merchan is a man of integrity who sincerely holds respect for the "office of the presidency" lol. People who follow these matters closely recognize him for what he really is - a slimy, sleazy corrupt partisan sock-puppet of the far left.

[eccieuser9500]

Originally Posted by lustylad

Maybe it's because nobody can explain it to me. Can you? Go back and read my posts #95-96.




Lol. Of course Judge Merchan pretended he was being deferential to the "office of the President". The truth is he knew if he planned to impose any real penalty, the US Supreme Court would have been more inclined to rule in Trump's favor and postpone the sentencing. (Go back and read Lucas McCain's post #134.)

So Merchan signaled in advance he planned to end the case with a non-penalty sentence. That made it more likely Trump would lose his SCOTUS appeal. It worked:



Now that "sentencing" is complete, the libtards can call trump a "convicted felon" even though everyone knows the whole case is a politically motivated farce.

But hey, if it makes you feel better keep pretending Juan Merchan is a man of integrity who sincerely holds respect for the "office of the presidency" lol. People who follow these matters closely recognize him for what he really is - a slimy, sleazy corrupt partisan sock-puppet of the far left.

Unfortunately, the piece of shit Colombian sees the executive as a higher branch than the one he serves.

I did not account for that. Fuck him. No integrity. No dignity. No . . . fuckin' . . . balls. At. All.









Fuck you . . .

Juan.

[Tiny]

Originally Posted by eccieuser9500

Unfortunately, the piece of shit Colombian sees the executive as a higher branch than the one he serves.

I did not account for that. Fuck him. No integrity. No dignity. No . . . fuckin' . . . balls. At. All.









Fuck you . . .

Juan.

Eccieuser, If this were the election charges trial that Judge Chutkan was scheduled to hear in Washington, D.C, and it had progressed to the point where Trump were found guilty, I'd agree with you.

I believe Merchan handled this well, unlike Kangaroo Engoron (New York civil fraud case) who was out to stick it to Trump. Or Judge Cannon (confidential records case) who went too easy on him.

I don't believe Trump should have even been charged for paying off Stormy Daniels. It was a politically motivated case. But that's what the jury ruled, and Merchan imposed an appropriate sentence.

A possible silver lining is that this could be a step towards stopping the criminalization of everything. Too many people have criminal records, 70 million to 100 million or 1 out of 3 Americans according to this:

https://www.sentencingproject.org/ap...ty-Profile.pdf

If politicians get hit with dumb shit charges like Trump was in the Merchan case, perhaps they'll take criminal justice reform more seriously. Maybe that's optimistic though. It will be interesting to see if Republicans retaliate and start going after Democrats like Joe Biden and Hillary Clinton with baseless charges. I hope not.

[Tiny]

Originally Posted by lustylad

I would argue the payments fall under the rubric of legal services. Businesses seek NDAs all the time, e.g. to protect corporate trade secrets, competitive strategies, etc. when someone quits.

And so what if they're "reimbursed" payments? When lawyers hire an expert witness, they add payment of the expert witness' fee to the client's legal bill. Nothing wrong with that.

If the argument is the NDA payments were personal in nature and not "ordinary and necessary business expenses", then their deductibility should be challenged by tax authorities. Trump could argue the payments were needed to protect the brand image of his business, but he probably wouldn't win that one in tax court.

If the Trump Organization was publicly held, I would agree he shouldn't make the business pay for expenses that are arguably personal in nature. But since it's a privately held conglomerate owned by trump, who is he "hiding the truth" from? Himself?

And what is the specific New York state law/statute he was charged with violating? I would hope it isn't as flaky and phony as the New York Executive Law 63(12) that NY State AG Tish James abused to seize all of his business assets.

Correct me if this is wrong, but I don't believe Trump deducted the "expense" from his taxable income.

He obviously didn't want his wife, children, employees or the public knowing he was paying off Stormy. How much would a divorce cost Trump? Who knows, but A LOT more than he spent on Stormy.

I imagine your typical billionaire doesn't have a personal bank account where he's the only one with access to the bank records. Paying off a porn star or sugar baby is more complicated for Trump than for most of us.

[lustylad]

Originally Posted by Tiny

Correct me if this is wrong, but I don't believe Trump deducted the "expense" from his taxable income.

Not on his personal tax return. It was deducted as a legal-services business expense by the Trump Organization.

Originally Posted by Tiny

I imagine your typical billionaire doesn't have a personal bank account where he's the only one with access to the bank records. Paying off a porn star or sugar baby is more complicated for Trump than for most of us.

Naaaah. The more billions you have, the easier it is to stash and hide some of it from your spouse.