---President Elect Musk and Convicted Felon Donald J Trump---

Lerxst1992 said:

Halifax2TheMax said:

mace1229 said:

Lerxst1992 said:

mace1229 said:

Lerxst1992 said:

Hilary was paying for oppo research (fun fact, the Steele Dossier was originated by the GOP). Oppo research is sleazy but it’s done all the time.

Trump? He screwed a porn star. A few of them. Did it when his child was entering the world. He then bribed her, moments after a recording came out where he was vulgar about women and moments before an election. He never bribed a porn star at any other time in his 80 year life. But no, he bribed her to save his reputation. Seems far fetched, but some believe that’s a reasonable defense. That’s why we have trials.

Are these comparable? Seems absurd.

Often, we get caught up on technicalities as to whether behavior is deplorable or not. In this case, what trump did was deplorable, whether or not his lawyers can wedge legal technicalities onto the jurors or judge. What Hilary did, started by republicans, was everyday political warfare. 

Neither of those things are illegal. The way they reported it was. Trump didn't want people to find out about his affair, Clinton didn't want people to know she (or her campaign) was funding the dossier research.
Both filed false paperwork to hide where their spending was going. I still see a lot of similarities.
The difference is Trump handled it personally, while Clinton's campaign handle it and not Hilary herself. 

Well a huge difference I think you are not recognizing Hilary did report the contribution, but mislabeled it, trump didn’t report it(because he claims it’s not tied to the election ). The Dems believe they were correct, but settled the matter with the FEC to make it go away. It was there for the FEC to find.

Also, didn’t you earlier comment that trump is not facing tax fraud because the legal fees were to keep his business reputation intact, so he can properly deduct on his business taxes? Now he handled it personally? The indictment alleges the business handled the bribe, so I am assuming they have proof of that. If so, the burden falls on him to prove the business angle, as that’s how tax laws work. If it’s personal, and if he is allegedly a serial cheater, why has he never ever bribed a mistress in his 78 years when an election is not days away and a vulgar recording days before?

mace, I give you a ton of credit here for standing up at the plate day after day in liberalland, but I’m not so sure I’m reading impartiality in these comments.

I believe I said if they were to pursue tax fraud charges my prediction is the defense would say it was too help his image for and in return the business. I don't know if that is or not a reason for any lack of charges. Just what their defense will be if they are accused of claiming the payment on their taxes as a business expense or whatever it was. 

I'm not too familiar with how multi-million dollar companies work. But I do know they have copies of checks signed by Trump. Whether it was trump signing for his own personal account or for his business account, I didn't think it would make a difference in this case. That's why I used that interchangeably. He was still ultimately the person responsible for the finances if he's signing the checks. 

Of course Hilary and the DNC are not going to admit any fault. But it seems pretty clear. They paid an attorney who hired a group to create the dossier. They claimed it as "legal consultation" and didn't pay Steele directly, they paid him through their attorneys. Its pretty clear what they did and why. But no one should be surprised they denied it, especially since the fines are so low and would cost more to fight it. Makes an easy excuse to say I'll just pay but we didn't do anything wrong. 

Makes all the difference in the world. POOTWH's mistake was NOT paying it out of his "personal" account, if he even has one, and instead paying for it from his "business" account. And then falsifying business records that are required to be filed with NYS and disguising said payments as "business expenses," "legal fees," for an attorney that was not on a retainer. In what way does this compare with Hillary's case?

If you still think this is the same, and if its "no big deal" or "why one and not the other," POOTWH was offered the opportunity to clear everything up before the Grand Jury. Had he done so, maybe he wouldn't have been indicted?

And I'll add, POOTWH's shit for brains should have paid for it out of his personal expenses and when exposed, admitted it. If he had done so, we wouldn't be discussing it and that POS wouldn't be indicted for 34 counts of falsifying NYS business records.

The indictment alleges the payoff was claimed as part of trumps business records, and im guessing that means he took a tax deduction for it.

I think the trial would favor the party with the best evidence. If the phone and email records show minimal contact with stormy before the genital tape was released and alot in the week afterwards (as Cohen claims) and if there is evidence the offer was $20k before, then shot up to $130k after, the prosecution has a good case.

One would think there is solid evidence here, given that the defendant is a former President. 

Gern Blansten said:

I can't wait for the GA indictment

mace1229 said:

Halifax2TheMax said:

mace1229 said:

Lerxst1992 said:

mace1229 said:

Lerxst1992 said:

Hilary was paying for oppo research (fun fact, the Steele Dossier was originated by the GOP). Oppo research is sleazy but it’s done all the time.

Trump? He screwed a porn star. A few of them. Did it when his child was entering the world. He then bribed her, moments after a recording came out where he was vulgar about women and moments before an election. He never bribed a porn star at any other time in his 80 year life. But no, he bribed her to save his reputation. Seems far fetched, but some believe that’s a reasonable defense. That’s why we have trials.

Are these comparable? Seems absurd.

Often, we get caught up on technicalities as to whether behavior is deplorable or not. In this case, what trump did was deplorable, whether or not his lawyers can wedge legal technicalities onto the jurors or judge. What Hilary did, started by republicans, was everyday political warfare. 

Neither of those things are illegal. The way they reported it was. Trump didn't want people to find out about his affair, Clinton didn't want people to know she (or her campaign) was funding the dossier research.
Both filed false paperwork to hide where their spending was going. I still see a lot of similarities.
The difference is Trump handled it personally, while Clinton's campaign handle it and not Hilary herself. 

Well a huge difference I think you are not recognizing Hilary did report the contribution, but mislabeled it, trump didn’t report it(because he claims it’s not tied to the election ). The Dems believe they were correct, but settled the matter with the FEC to make it go away. It was there for the FEC to find.

Also, didn’t you earlier comment that trump is not facing tax fraud because the legal fees were to keep his business reputation intact, so he can properly deduct on his business taxes? Now he handled it personally? The indictment alleges the business handled the bribe, so I am assuming they have proof of that. If so, the burden falls on him to prove the business angle, as that’s how tax laws work. If it’s personal, and if he is allegedly a serial cheater, why has he never ever bribed a mistress in his 78 years when an election is not days away and a vulgar recording days before?

mace, I give you a ton of credit here for standing up at the plate day after day in liberalland, but I’m not so sure I’m reading impartiality in these comments.

I believe I said if they were to pursue tax fraud charges my prediction is the defense would say it was too help his image for and in return the business. I don't know if that is or not a reason for any lack of charges. Just what their defense will be if they are accused of claiming the payment on their taxes as a business expense or whatever it was. 

I'm not too familiar with how multi-million dollar companies work. But I do know they have copies of checks signed by Trump. Whether it was trump signing for his own personal account or for his business account, I didn't think it would make a difference in this case. That's why I used that interchangeably. He was still ultimately the person responsible for the finances if he's signing the checks. 

Of course Hilary and the DNC are not going to admit any fault. But it seems pretty clear. They paid an attorney who hired a group to create the dossier. They claimed it as "legal consultation" and didn't pay Steele directly, they paid him through their attorneys. Its pretty clear what they did and why. But no one should be surprised they denied it, especially since the fines are so low and would cost more to fight it. Makes an easy excuse to say I'll just pay but we didn't do anything wrong. 

Makes all the difference in the world. POOTWH's mistake was NOT paying it out of his "personal" account, if he even has one, and instead paying for it from his "business" account. And then falsifying business records that are required to be filed with NYS and disguising said payments as "business expenses," "legal fees," for an attorney that was not on a retainer. In what way does this compare with Hillary's case?

If you still think this is the same, and if its "no big deal" or "why one and not the other," POOTWH was offered the opportunity to clear everything up before the Grand Jury. Had he done so, maybe he wouldn't have been indicted?

And I'll add, POOTWH's shit for brains should have paid for it out of his personal expenses and when exposed, admitted it. If he had done so, we wouldn't be discussing it and that POS wouldn't be indicted for 34 counts of falsifying NYS business records.

I wish I had this problem, but don't billion, even multi-million airs pay for much of their personal life through their business? That's how they end up paying almost no income tax, because their actual "income" is very low, but the business is what pays for everything. I always thought that was common, but never paid much attention to it since I'm only about $999,935,000 away from being a billionaire and have to worry about it. .
Is it tax fraud if the business buys your car and you don't report it as income?

PJ_Soul said:

mace1229 said:

The Juggler said:

Hypothetically (of course)-- but if Trump gets sentence to prison for one of these indictments, how would his secret service detail work?

I don't see him, or anyone of his level, receiving actual prison time for the complications of protection like that.
I would guess, of it were to come down to some sort of sentence, it would be house arrest or something like that.

If so, that would definitely prove that he is above the law, depending on the nature of the conviction.

HughFreakingDillon said:

Orange Man was at UFC last night. It was in Miami. When the crowd saw him, chants of “USA USA USA” broke out. 😂 frickin floridians. 

HughFreakingDillon said:

mickeyrat said:

full trump supporter now. at this point its just trolling.

are you seriously saying that mace is a trump supporter or just trolling, for asking legitimate questions? lol

HughFreakingDillon said:

gimmesometruth27 said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

mickeyrat said:

full trump supporter now. at this point its just trolling.

are you seriously saying that mace is a trump supporter or just trolling, for asking legitimate questions? lol

mace has given trump the benefit of the doubt waaaaay more than most people would. i know if i was on a jury with him i would be pissed lol. i would want to convict and go home, haha

But this whole exchange had nothing to do with giving trump the benefit of anything. I read it as questioning whether the law was being applied equally. 

Sometimes I think it could be beneficial for some to put aside their trump hate (as difficult as that is for many of us, myself included) and approach it with an objective lens.