I'm not sure what you're talking about as I don't closely follow this thread, but yes, falsifying ones accounting to commit a crime is illegal as far as I know. On the receiving end of funny accounting, accepting bribes is completely legal as long as you don't actually say "bribe". If you need to accept big money it's a speaking engagement or consulting fee.Conservatives are desperately trying to push the conversation away from the crime.
@Greenman I assume you agree it should be a crime to falsify business records so that you can commit more crimes. Right?
Yes, hush money is completely legal but that’s not relevant here as Trump isn’t charged with paying people hush money.I'm not sure what you're talking about as I don't closely follow this thread, but yes, falsifying ones accounting to commit a crime is illegal as far as I know. On the receiving end of funny accounting, accepting bribes is completely legal as long as you don't actually say "bribe". If you need to accept big money it's a speaking engagement or consulting fee.
As far as I know hush money is completely legal as long as the taxes are paid and it's not covering up a crime.
Jesus it's terrible how you feign ignorance.I'm not sure what you're talking about as I don't closely follow this thread, but yes, falsifying ones accounting to commit a crime is illegal as far as I know. On the receiving end of funny accounting, accepting bribes is completely legal as long as you don't actually say "bribe". If you need to accept big money it's a speaking engagement or consulting fee.
As far as I know hush money is completely legal as long as the taxes are paid and it's not covering up a crime.
Then he'll be convicted and suffer the penalty. What's the problem?Yes, hush money is completely legal but that’s not relevant here as Trump isn’t charged with paying people hush money.
Trump is charged with cooking the books, and the evidence of that being done is overwhelming. He’s on tape discussing it!
Then he'll be convicted and suffer the penalty. What's the problem?
Nope, I just try to be a little careful about how I word my statements. Beyond that, I really don't follow this stuff all that closely. For the last year and a half I've been busy with setting up my shop and dialing in my new house, with some time off for a couple of medical issues.Jesus it's terrible how you feign ignorance.
Where did I say Trump was innocent? Where did I say the charges were bogus? Links please.The inevitable result of JAQing off and playing ignorant. Backed into a corner with facts...
There’s no problem, it’s just notable that you have no problem drawing conclusions about other topics on the basis of far less evidence. Why do you think that is?Then he'll be convicted and suffer the penalty. What's the problem?
Interesting that wasn't an issue for the GOP attempt to impeach Biden.Right wing media has been incessantly parroting that they don't even know what crime Trump has been charged with. So far as to pretend the trial has no purpose as there's nothing to prosecute.
They are gaslighting the public into believing this is just a political prosecution, that there is no rule of law, and oh... and wouldn't it be great if there was some stochastic terrorism from the good guys to right these wrongs and save us from the evil communists. They may have only implied that last part, or hoped and prayed really hard that it would happen after all these hours they pour into making it happen. Like Jan 6th.
We have not seen the last of the coup, their defense of Trump DEMANDS it.
Some wear their ignorance like a merit badge.Jesus it's terrible how you feign ignorance.
Not only that, he specifically added the "speaking engagement" as a dig at Hillary because it's enough evidence for him to believe it was corruption.Jesus it's terrible how you feign ignorance.
What topics? What evidence? If you can point to something I'll have a go at explaining it. But we should be honest and admit that some folks here get angry when they don't get the vindication they're looking for. I guess I'm some sort of freak because I don't need that vindication, and have trouble understanding that need in others.There’s no problem, it’s just notable that you have no problem drawing conclusions about other topics on the basis of far less evidence. Why do you think that is?
That's simply stupid. You're closing your eyes and putting your hands over your ears so you won't have to face the truth. There is absolutely no doubt at this point that she knowingly and willfully ignored the rules, attempted to destroy evidence, and continually lied to the American people and the FBI about it. It's either intent or stupidity on an enormous scale.
I was on the fence about this until today, but watching the FBI director's questioning, the truth is obvious. Hillary is either a complete idiot, a criminal, or absolutely certain that she's untouchable.
Dank69 offered a good example above. Can you explain?What topics? What evidence? If you can point to something I'll have a go at explaining it. But we should be honest and admit that some folks here get angry when they don't get the vindication they're looking for. I guess I'm some sort of freak because I don't need that vindication, and have trouble understanding that need in others.
Y'all can use this one *again* since Greenman seems to have forgotten already:
Speaking of jurors.If there is a hung jury, and it's only one juror holding out, I’d expect the prosecution to retry it. The Prosecution could decide to retry the case even if there were 11 votes for “not guilty,” but they typically don’t in that situation. But 11 to 1 for guilty is usually retried. Everything in between takes some thought about what to do, but one hold out is usually seen as an aberration, and they’ll read the tea leaves. Now if there is more than one juror, say like three or four .... then it's hard to say what happens.
Because I haven't been following the case. I catch a little bit here and a little bit on the far right forums, and as expected they proclaim with hard facts that Trump is innocent, just as vehemently as you fellows proclaim his guilt.Dank69 offered a good example above. Can you explain?
I also find it annoying that people get very angry when people don’t agree with them but I’m not angry, I think the question is a legitimate one for you.
There is vastly more evidence for Trump’s criminality than there ever was for Clinton but you drew strong conclusions for her and say ‘beats me!’ for Trump. Why?
Can't you just click "show ignored" or something like that? I don't know because I don't use the ignore list.Because I haven't been following the case. I catch a little bit here and a little bit on the far right forums, and as expected they proclaim with hard facts that Trump is innocent, just as vehemently as you fellows proclaim his guilt.
Btw, I don't see danks posts, he's on my do not disturb list. I can anyone that isn't civil. If someone can't express an opinion without insults and anger they have nothing worth saying.
That's simply stupid. You're closing your eyes and putting your hands over your ears so you won't have to face the truth. There is absolutely no doubt at this point that she knowingly and willfully ignored the rules, attempted to destroy evidence, and continually lied to the American people and the FBI about it. It's either intent or stupidity on an enormous scale.
I was on the fence about this until today, but watching the FBI director's questioning, the truth is obvious. Hillary is either a complete idiot, a criminal, or absolutely certain that she's untouchable.
So JD50 quoted the relevant post. Seems like you were very comfortable reaching conclusions based on far less complete information in that case. Can you explain the difference?Because I haven't been following the case. I catch a little bit here and a little bit on the far right forums, and as expected they proclaim with hard facts that Trump is innocent, just as vehemently as you fellows proclaim his guilt.
Btw, I don't see danks posts, he's on my do not disturb list. I can anyone that isn't civil. If someone can't express an opinion without insults and anger they have nothing worth saying.
So JD50 quoted the relevant post. Seems like you were very comfortable reaching conclusions based on far less complete information in that case. Can you explain the difference?
Page 23 - Development on Clinton Email Probe?
Page 23 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.forums.anandtech.com
Yup he’s the non partisan and sensible one in the room. *rolls eyes*The fact of the matter is, it's just another sign of a brainwashed sheep, spouting the conservative party lies.
Where did I say Trump was innocent? Where did I say the charges were bogus? Links please.
This is the fundamental issue with P&N, it's tribalism and hostility. You get angry when I won't jump on the accepted bandwagon, or accept the stories and conclusions as facts. Your burning need to be vindicated isn't my problem, it's yours.