The verdict is in.

ATTENTION...
PLEASE READ....

BE AWARE THAT IF YOUR POST IS NOT ON TOPIC AND/OR IS ABOUT OTHER MEMBERS YOU MAY BE ABOUT TO HAVE POSTS REMOVED.
YOU MAY BE TEMPORARILY POST BANNED!
AND, PLEASE REMEMBER THERE IS NO MORE MUD PIT....MUD NOT ALLOWED. Just because the MUD PIT is gone, doesn't mean ATS allows muddy politics.

Everyone and I mean everyone is allowed to post here on topic and to do so without being called names or becoming the target of others' posts. Debate the topic and leave each other out of it. OPPOSING VIEWPOINTS are encouraged.
Those who refuse to get that concept may be POST BANNED!!!

These rules apply to all threads and if you want to engage in personal attacks there are other sites on the Internet where you can do that. Our goal is for ATS to be above that. For members here to post like mature adults.
YOU are responsible for your own posts

And, as always...
Do not reply to this post.

This guy...he is channeling the Dark Brandon

Link

originally posted by: RazorV66

originally posted by: Mahogani

originally posted by: FlyersFan

originally posted by: Mahogani
He was presumed innocent UNTIL he was found guilty. There is no longer any presumption, he is now convicted.

Convicted doesn't mean guilty.
It just means convicted.

That's exactly what it means.

The court read 34 GUILTY verdicts, right in front of him, and after the guilty verdicts were passed down, he became a convicted felon.

There 2 groups here…
Group 1 knows the trial was a rigged scam
Group 2 is too stupid to know the trial was a rigged scam

Which group are you in?

Group 3. Too smart to fall for this feeble attempt.

Also Group 4 -- supports Law and Order.

originally posted by: Mahogani
The court read 34 GUILTY verdicts, right in front of him, and after the guilty verdicts were passed down, he became a convicted felon.

Sure ... he's a convicted felon.
That doesn't mean that he actually did the crime and is guilty.
It just means the crooked court in NYC says he did.

originally posted by: FlyersFan

originally posted by: Mahogani
The court read 34 GUILTY verdicts, right in front of him, and after the guilty verdicts were passed down, he became a convicted felon.

Sure ... he's a convicted felon.
That doesn't mean that he actually did the crime and is guilty.
It just means the crooked court in NYC says he did.

Oh, I see now. You're denying it happened. Like if you close your eyes, it all goes away.

Carry on, then. Thought I could be helpful, but I joined something that's not for me.

originally posted by: Mahogani
Oh, I see now. You're denying it happened. Like if you close your eyes, it all goes away.

No. I"m saying he didn't do what the court has convicted him of doing.
Just because someone is convicted, doesn't mean they are actually guilty.
There are a lot of innocent people in prison.
And there are a lot of guilty people running around free.
The courts get a lot wrong because of incompetence, laziness, bad detective work,
faulty information, bias, and agenda ... etc etc

originally posted by: matafuchs
a reply to: LucidParadox89

Can you explain how a campaign contribution was made because the prosecution could not. Michael Cohen, not part of the campaign, paid a private citizen money from his own account using an LLC. Sounds like a private business transaction.

Then, after he paid the money for extortion he billed The Trump Organization, not the Trump Campaign.

So yes, it is not rocket science but they did it. I will say they were creative in how it happened and it all goes back to Cohen getting popped. They knew he was the weak link and it took awhile but they waited. If this was so important why wait so long?

It is what it is.

Yes, I can

Billing the Trump Organization INSTEAD of the Trump Campaign is literally part of the crime.

If the Trump Campaign was billed and it was recorded on the Trump Campaigns books properly. There would be no case.

The fact that the the transaction was seperated from the campaign in order to hide it, and then deliberately mis-recorded is what makes it a crime.

That's the entire point.

Paying off Stormi Daniels isnt a crime, its completely legal.

Paying off Stormi Daniels to protect your political campaign and NOT recording it as a campaign expense, and instead falsifying your personal business records to conceal that fact IS a crime, and is NOT legal.

originally posted by: LucidParadox89

originally posted by: matafuchs
a reply to: LucidParadox89

Can you explain how a campaign contribution was made because the prosecution could not. Michael Cohen, not part of the campaign, paid a private citizen money from his own account using an LLC. Sounds like a private business transaction.

Then, after he paid the money for extortion he billed The Trump Organization, not the Trump Campaign.

So yes, it is not rocket science but they did it. I will say they were creative in how it happened and it all goes back to Cohen getting popped. They knew he was the weak link and it took awhile but they waited. If this was so important why wait so long?

It is what it is.

Yes, I can

Billing the Trump Organization INSTEAD of the Trump Campaign is literally part of the crime.

If the Trump Campaign was billed and it was recorded on the Trump Campaigns books properly. There would be no case.

The fact that the the transaction was seperated from the campaign in order to hide it, and then deliberately mis-recorded is what makes it a crime.

That's the entire point.

Paying off Stormi Daniels isnt a crime, its completely legal.

Paying off Stormi Daniels to protect your political campaign and NOT recording it as a campaign expense, and instead falsifying your personal business records to conceal that fact IS a crime, and is NOT legal.

Where is the FEC charges?

Ya know, the organization that actually enforces campaign finance laws.

Edit - And even if there was FEC charges, it would only be a fine like all the other campaign finance law charges in history.

trump is a broken man. He knows how his future lawsuits will play out. Shouldn't Melania be "standing by her man?"
She knows as well....

at least trump has Eric for support!

a reply to: LucidParadox89

So, to inflate the charges up to the lowest-level felony (Class E, on a scale of Class A through E) — and to electroshock them back to life within the longer felony statute of limitations — the DA alleged that the falsification of business records was committed “with intent to commit another crime.” Here, according to prosecutors, the “another crime” is a New York State election-law violation, which in turn incorporates three separate “unlawful means”: federal campaign crimes, tax crimes, and falsification of still more documents. Inexcusably, the DA refused to specify what those unlawful means actually were — and the judge declined to force them to pony up — until right before closing arguments. So much for the constitutional obligation to provide notice to the defendant of the accusations against him in advance of trial. (This, folks, is what indictments are for.)

In these key respects, the charges against Trump aren’t just unusual. They’re bespoke, seemingly crafted individually for the former president and nobody else.


nymag.com...

So. Just out of the gate. Failure of equal application of the law. Not constitutional in that an accusation of a specify crime was withheld to the end of the trial.

a reply to: Sookiechacha

Yes. It is.

A police officer can absolutely stop a driver and run a check if they have a reason to pull them over. Sure. But not just because they don't like the color of their vehicle, or their skin, or their haircut, or whatever. They must have a reasonable suspicion that a crime has occurred or is about to occur or is currently occurring. And unless they make an arrest, they are only allowed to detain you for a very very limited amount of time. You are under no obligation to prove that you are not committing a crime and you are under no obligation to assist them in their investigation into whether you have committed a crime or not.

A government employee would have to 1) know that I was actually issued a parking fine (burden of proof), and 2) reasonably suspect that I haven't paid it. I am under no obligation to prove to any arbitrary government employee that I don't have an unpaid parking fine upon spontaneous request. I'll bet that sounded like quite the gotcha though, didn't it?

Actually the government can't just arbitrarily deprive you of life, liberty, or property during the process of proving your guilt. Deprivation of property is usually done when said property is considered to be evidence of your crime. Deprivation of your liberty, i.e. holding you in jail, is really only justified if you're accused/suspected of being violent or at risk of harming yourself, or if you are considered to be a flight risk. But here's a fun activity we can try. How about -you- define what due process is.

But hey, why argue my point with my own logic when I can just give you the US Supreme Courts own comments regarding the presumption of innocence? I suspect that you'll ignore that too, but whatever.

Taylor v. Kentucky

A few relevant excerpts.

MR. JUSTICE POWELL delivered the opinion of the Court.
Only two Terms ago, this Court observed that the "presumption of innocence, although not articulated in the Constitution, is basic component of a fair trial under our system of criminal justice." Estelle v. Williams, 425 U. S. 501, 425 U. S. 503 (1976). In this felony case, the trial court instructed the jury as to the prosecution's burden of proof beyond a reasonable doubt, but refused petitioner's timely request for instructions on the presumption of innocence and the indictment's lack of evidentiary value. We are asked to decide whether the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment requires that either or both instructions be given upon timely defense motions.

......."The principle that there is a presumption of innocence in favor of the accused is the undoubted law, axiomatic and elementary, and its enforcement lies at the foundation of the administration of our criminal law."

.....While use of the particular phrase "presumption of innocence" -- or any other form of words -- may not be constitutionally mandated, the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment must be held to safeguard "against dilution of the principle that guilt is to be established by probative evidence and beyond a reasonable doubt."

So you agree that the lack of the specific phrase "separation of church and state" not being written verbatim doesn't mean that the concept behind the phrase isn't backed by the constitution.

originally posted by: lilzazz
trump is a broken man. He know how his future lawsuits will play out. Shouldn't Melania be "standing by her man?"
She knows....

at least trump has Eric for support!

Broken? 🤣🤣🤣

What alternate reality are you in?

He will be president again and this will be you again…..

originally posted by: lilzazz
trump is a broken man. He know how his future lawsuits will play out. Shouldn't Melania be "standing by her man?"
She knows....

He got a 6 point bump in the polls.
He’s most likely moving back into White House in January.
His donors ponied up a record $35 million.
Biden and his crew exposed once again.
A democrat senator jumped ship.
He’s made a few billion so far this year already.

Broken you say? 😆

$5 million defamation trial - the jury is corrupt, the system is broken, everyone is against me!

$80 million defamation trial - the jury is corrupt, the system is broken, everyone is against me!

Half a billion dollar civil fraud trial - the judge is corrupt, the system is broken, everyone is against me!

Financial felony trial - the jury is corrupt, the judge is corrupt, the system is broken, everyone is against me!

But he lost all of them, while having the best lawyers your money could buy.

__________________

When a group of people choose a leader for their group, and then make an idol of that leader, and then they compare that leader to Messiah and attribute God-like mystical properties to him, and they believe him to be infallible and without sin... well, there is a name for that.

Guilty of all charges.

And still arguing there was no crime.

originally posted by: Annee
Guilty of all charges.

And still arguing there was no crime.

You think it’s just us saying that?

Legal experts across the entire country are saying it too.

All except the Liberal cultists.

a reply to: Mahogani

This is the state we are taking about?

WASHINGTON — The U.S. Supreme Court on Thursday revived the National Rifle Association’s lawsuit accusing a New York state official of coercing banks and insurers to avoid doing business with the gun rights group in a ruling that warned public officials against wielding their power to punish speech they dislike.

The justices, in a 9-0 decision authored by liberal Justice Sonia Sotomayor, threw out a lower court’s ruling that had dismissed the NRA’s 2018 lawsuit against Maria Vullo, a former superintendent of New York’s Department of Financial Services.


www.unionleader.com... 9273288.html

New York isn’t very “constitutional”…


I’ll post this for your benefit..

So, to inflate the charges up to the lowest-level felony (Class E, on a scale of Class A through E) — and to electroshock them back to life within the longer felony statute of limitations — the DA alleged that the falsification of business records was committed “with intent to commit another crime.” Here, according to prosecutors, the “another crime” is a New York State election-law violation, which in turn incorporates three separate “unlawful means”: federal campaign crimes, tax crimes, and falsification of still more documents. Inexcusably, the DA refused to specify what those unlawful means actually were — and the judge declined to force them to pony up — until right before closing arguments. So much for the constitutional obligation to provide notice to the defendant of the accusations against him in advance of trial. (This, folks, is what indictments are for.)

In these key respects, the charges against Trump aren’t just unusual. They’re bespoke, seemingly crafted individually for the former president and nobody else.


nymag.com...

So. Just out of the gate. Failure of equal application of the law. Not constitutional in that an accusation of a specify crime was withheld to the end of the trial.

originally posted by: Annee
Guilty of all charges.

And still arguing there was no crime.

It’s because Trump told them there is no crime. So there is nothing you can say, do or show them that’ll convince them any other way… dear leader has spoken.

originally posted by: spacedoubt
Convicted Felon Ex President should get a tattoo.

Maybe Willie/Julio portraits? With underlying text
“To all the girls I loved before”?

Or something simple
THIRTY44FORTY5
All caps of course.

Alright, who gave that dude the idea that giving a “day after” presser, was a good idea?

Anyways
Given his habit of staying up way “After Midnight” I propose another tattoo.

FELONIOUS TRUMP