gut

On Jun 14, 2024:

gut replied to "Trump. The convicted felon" at 02:28 pm
posted by CenterBHSFan

Did the site you're quoting also show how the vote for Hillary Clinton went? I wonder if the same people voted in both instances.

2 votes against, Democrat hacks AMiRiTE?  LMFAO, those "partisan hack" No, wait, Republicans were actually consistent against a consistent fact pattern voting AGAINST the fine.

Of course, there is one key difference in the factset - the actual campaign finance violation was Cohen, and he was CHARGED, not just fined (which, by the way, was specifically mentioned as a reason Repubs voted to dismiss because they felt the offending party had already been charged).

The other key difference is, clearly, the Dems were voting to fine, rather than charge, Clinton.  But they flipped with Trump because they wanted to charge him.


https://www.yahoo.com/news/fec-fines-hilary-clinton-campaign-014755915.html

"A source familiar with the situation told Axios that the FEC commissioners voted 4-2 to approve the fine agreement, with all three FEC democrats voting in favor along with Republican "commissioner Sean Cooksey. The board's two other Republicans reportedly voted against the conciliation.

LOL.  More analysis:

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/hillary-clinton-campaign-democratic-party-fined-fec-clears-steele-dossier-author-of-wrongdoing/

"Paul Kamenar, a member of the Coolidge Reagan Foundation's advisory board, called the DNC spokesperson's description "appalling" in a phone call with CBS News.

"It's outrageous that the DNC would minimize the serious violation that took place by calling campaign disclosure laws 'silly' violations," said Kamenar, who added that he believes the FEC should have made a criminal referral to the Justice Department."

gut replied to "Trump. The convicted felon" at 02:19 pm
posted by kizer permanente

"But the six-person bipartisan agency, which requires four affirmative votes to take most official actions, including launching an investigation, deadlocked on the recommendation, as it frequently does. By voting against the recommendation, Republican Commissioners Sean Cooksey and James “Trey” Trainor effectively killed any further inquiry into Trump’s actions, despite the fact that the agency’s professional staff believed the available evidence was at least sufficient to conduct a formal investigation"

 
I wouldn't consider 2 partisan hacks stonewalling efforts a ringing endorsement for absolving someone from wrongdoing... but you do you lol.  

You really should learn how to use google before making an ass of yourself mocking someone.  You got gaslit by someone ignoring the 4-1 vote.

https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/552271-fec-drops-investigation-into-trump-hush-money-payments/

"The FEC voted 4-1 to close the inquiry after failing to find that Trump or his campaign “knowingly and willfully” violated campaign finance law when his former attorney Michael Cohen paid $130,000 to porn star Stormy Daniels to keep her from disclosing an alleged affair."

"

However, the FEC said that it failed by a 2-2 vote to prove any of the parties violated campaign finance law.

Republican Commissioners James “Trey” Trainor and Sean Cooksey voted to dismiss the matter. Republican Vice Chairman Allen Dickerson recused himself, while independent Commissioner Steven Walther did not vote."


So it was a 2-2 vote along partisan lines to dismiss the matter, with the independent abstaining.  WHICH MEANS the independent joined the 3 Republicans voting NOT to fine or charge Trump in the first instance (and I believe it requires 4 votes TO CHARGE, and this was 4 votes to close the matter).

Here's another link referencing the same:

https://www.politifact.com/article/2024/may/08/trump-says-the-fec-saw-no-merit-in-the-stormy-dani/

"However, in February 2021, the FEC deadlocked on a 2-2 vote on whether Trump willfully violated federal law. The commission often deadlocks along partisan lines when it considers controversial cases. (In this case, the FEC was down from six commissioners to four. One commissioner, an independent, was absent; and one commissioner, a Republican, opted to recuse.)"

That same commission, by the way, voted to charge Cohen.  So maybe the Republicans weren't the "partisan hacks" [as if the Dems aren't] you claim.

gut replied to "Wordle "Golf" tournament, 9/6 - 9/23" at 10:36 am

Thought for sure I had a 3

Wordle 1,091 4/6*

⬛⬛⬛⬛🟩
⬛⬛🟩⬛🟩
🟨⬛🟩🟩🟩
🟩🟩🟩🟩🟩

On Jun 10, 2024:

gut replied to "Wordle "Golf" tournament, 9/6 - 9/23" at 02:44 pm

I have never seen this word before.  Some of the words they include in their 2500 or so (out of 10,000 5-letter words) definitely seem much more obscure than some they've excluded.

Wordle 1,087 6/6*

⬛⬛⬛🟨⬛
⬛🟨🟨⬛⬛
⬛⬛🟨🟨🟨
🟩🟩🟩🟩⬛
🟩🟩🟩🟩⬛
🟩🟩🟩🟩🟩

On Jun 5, 2024:

gut replied to "Random TV Thread" at 03:50 pm

About two episodes into "Unlocked" on Netflix.  Enjoyable so far, but struggling with just how much seems scripted. There's also a deputy who not saying she's hot, at all, but seems far too attractive to be working in men's jail with people up on murder charges.

Also has a tweaker featured fairly prominently who appears to have OD'd and died just recently.

gut replied to "Trump. The convicted felon" at 10:25 am

While I think it's a low chance of reversal on appeal to the state appellate court, if they think there's a reasonable chance then they should stay any sentence until after they rule on the appeal.

I think it's highly suspect if the state statute in question applies to a federal election.  Even if it does, it's then an open question as to whether they actually have jurisdiction.  Not sure how exactly that might work, but it could be something like "yes, this charge can apply to a federal crime", however the state wouldn't be able to prosecute a federal violation or consider one might have occurred without a federal charge or conviction.

This doesn't seem that complicated.  How can you possibly charge someone with violating a statute without proving the predicate crime?  That seems like a clear-cut constitutional violation (likely multiple).

On Jun 4, 2024:

gut replied to "Trump. The convicted felon" at 02:07 pm
posted by BR1986FB

Such a shit show that the best the Dems can trot out there is trailing the "convicted felon" in the polls....lol

If this gets overturned on appeal, it's probably game over for Biden given the other two trials won't even start before the election.

Although if Trump loses on appeal, which is very possible at least on the state level, it might hurt him.

Hochul almost has to pardon him.  The risk of it being overturned is too great.  No idea if you can still appeal if you were pardoned (not sure why the court would waste its time), or if you can reject a pardon.

gut replied to "Trump. The convicted felon" at 01:45 pm
posted by Heretic

Kind of tough to get legit great lawyers wanting to rep you when your style is to personally grandstand at every possible opportunity instead of just letting them do their job.

He's also pretty well known, at this point, for consistently trying to "renegotiate" the fees after the fact.  And that's before even considering that representing him can cost you future business with other clients, ESPECIALLY in NY.

He also handcuffs his lawyers maintaining control over the strategy.  Which isn't that unusual with someone trying to preserve reputation [LOL], particularly one running for federal office.

But Trump LIED to his own lawyers with the documents case, and I'm not sure if they were charged (believe so) but he got them in hot water with his lies causing them to unintentionally commit perjury on the affidavit.

gut replied to "Trump. The convicted felon" at 10:35 am

I agree Gaetz is a clown, but right now he's carving up AG Garland.

I disagreed with McConnell refusing to confirm Garland, but wow did we dodge a bullet there.

On Jun 3, 2024:

gut replied to "Trump. The convicted felon" at 06:03 pm
posted by geeblock

It could also be said that is is possible with all his money he should have got better lawyers? 


By all accounts, he had very good lawyers for this case.  But a partisan and complicit judge let a prosecutor abuse the law to lead the jury pied-piper style to a conviction.

They turned a bookkeeping error into election fraud.  Full stop.  That's not hyperbole.

gut replied to "Trump. The convicted felon" at 06:00 pm
posted by geeblock
Yea you leave a lot out here.. but I really don’t care that much to argue. 

Probably best, because you pretty clearly have only a very surfacory-level understanding of the case, probably from a Mother Jones article or something of the sort.

gut replied to "Trump. The convicted felon" at 05:58 pm
posted by Heretic

Maybe to a degree? When Trump is out of the game (ie: deceased, since that dude's never shutting up about stuff while alive), I can see the MAGA movement collapsing due to how its main followers like MTG might have his abrasive combativeness, but are very lacking in charisma and I tend to get the idea that every little bit of respect/status they have among their fellow officeholders is due to Trump's presence. When daddy's still around, can't be ignoring his most faithful acolytes!..

Well, it's probably instructive to remember the Tea Party movement was eventually hijacked and co-opted by the religious right, which I guess then ultimately morphed into the MAGA movement.  So can't say I'm excited for what comes next.

And something similar may be happening on the left, with Bernie's Democrat Socialist movement ultimately giving way to some combination of Woke, DEI, BLM, Climate Change and anti-Israel.

Otherwise I agree that safe districts create a self-reinforcing feedback loop.

I'll just end by pointing out many of Trump's policies are actually straight out of Slick Willy's platform.  It's not out of the realm of possibility if Hillary wasn't there in 2016 he runs as a Democrat, and where would that leave us today?  But, consider the Dossier started out as Republican oppo research, so that whole thing still happens.  Covid still happens.

gut replied to "Trump. The convicted felon" at 05:46 pm
posted by geeblock

but I don’t think it’s in question even by his own words that it was illegally paid for. I’ll yield my time 


Again, try to keep up.  It's absolutely a question - Trump said he paid a legal bill.  That is an indisputable fact, and I'm 100% certain that paying a legal bill is not a crime.

Where the crime comes in, without even getting into the novel way the DA linked the charges, errr a misdemeanor with an implied, nebulous non-charge, the "crime" is that he had knowledge and intent to commit fraud.  The ONLY evidence for that was the word of multi-convicted perjurer Michael Cohen.  No corroborating witnesses to that, and one person (perhaps equally un-credible) refuting it.  For any non-uber partisan person, that's a slam-dunk for reasonable doubt.

For something as trivial as this, if you're following the advice of counsel you're likely not going to be charged, much less convicted for the incompetence/fraud committed by your counsel.  But because Michael Cohen said Trump told him to do it...

And since you're so completely convinced Trump committed a crime, I'd just point out the FEC - the one that fined, but declined to charge, Hillary and the DNC for basically the exact same thing - voted NOT to charge or fine Trump.

Let that sink in for a minute - the expert regulatory body charged with oversight passed on even fining Trump for this "crime".  Yet somehow a state prosecutor revived an expired statute to charge Trump for that federal crime.  You can't find a much clearer example of "tell me who and I'll find the crime" (that's a reference to Stalinist USSR, in case you're unfamiliar).

gut replied to "Trump. The convicted felon" at 05:17 pm
posted by CenterBHSFan

It is my hope that that day will begin after the next four years. As in, immediately. Hopefully politicians will be sick of this shit, along with all of their constituents.

It's all about re-election and control.  Until voters start holding them accountable, nothing will change.

Still pretty amazing how we've gotten to the point where it's now almost all about investigating the other party, blaming the other party for all the problems, and "saving Democracy" while actually damaging it....and doing less and less real work.

Saw some of this morning's hearings on Fauci, and it was all the usual suspects with their typical nauseating partisan grandstanding.  Fauci is likely a sociopath with a god complex, but I do think he did everything with people's safety at heart to the best of his ability.  I think he made some horrible decisions and covered up some of that, but I don't think there was any ill intent.  This hearing was a giant waste of time, but then what else do any of them do?

If ever there was a year for 3rd parties....but I'll be shocked if they get 15%, combined.

gut replied to "Trump. The convicted felon" at 05:07 pm
posted by geeblock

We can debate if it was “bragging “ but six years ago along with 20 times in last two weeks he said it was fine and that he did it let’s not be stupid I thought we finally agreed on something and u still try to argue lol 


Yes, he admitted to the NDA and that's not illegal.  LOL try to pay attention.

gut replied to "Trump. The convicted felon" at 02:14 pm
posted by j_crazy

burn it all down. both sides are dumbfucks. libertarians say the best rhetoric, then wheel out a "there are no genders" retard. hopefully bobby jr wins and the CIA does another round of target practice then we can all get really wierd. 

LOL, I'm going to have to look at his [hers? theirs? its?] policies before deciding, but looks like I could be writing in Tulsi or Haley.

So long as neither major clown party gets my vote.

On Jun 2, 2024:

gut replied to "Trump. The convicted felon" at 05:08 pm
posted by majorspark

Biden v Trump you will not have to scroll far.  I think he did it and bragged about it.  Go on.

This should be good.  I don't recall ever hearing Trump brag about getting away with bookkeeping fraud, so I'm curious as to what crime geeblock thinks Trump is guilty of and what he thinks the charges were.

I consider myself to be a rational person, and I don't think Trump committed the crime he was accused of here.  I also think geeblock is talking about something completely different, and wrong, per usual.

gut replied to "Trump. The convicted felon" at 02:13 pm
posted by iclfan2

Getting them from misdemeanors to felonies seems complex since it’s never been used that way before.

Expired misdemeanors.  So, even more so.  

Also, Bragg didn't prove or charge the predicate crime, which he claimed he wasn't required to do.  And so the jury didn't have to agree or rule on what that felony was that he tried to cover up with the accounting, just that a crime was committed (and don't know if it's true, but apparently were given a menu of choices.).  And that strikes me as very novel, because for example if you bring 10 charges, the jury has to agree unanimously on at least one charge for a conviction.  And that's probably why Bragg did it the way he did, because the jury can't otherwise say "you think he's guilty of this, and I think he's guilty of that, so he's guilty".

Without that, there is no felony, and even the business records charge reverts to a misdemeanor, which was past the statute of limitations.  So there literally would be no case.

gut replied to "Trump. The convicted felon" at 10:33 am
posted by geeblock

Rough week for the lock her up crowd lol  

If Hillary was Donald Trump, I'm pretty sure she would be locked up.

LOL, they let her destroy evidence and then said "we can't prosecute because we can't prove intent".

Also, Hillary did the EXACT same thing as Trump was convicted of - a campaign finance violation that they tried to conceal as legal payments.

On Jun 1, 2024:

gut replied to "Trump. The convicted felon" at 08:40 pm

Right now, isn't this just the word of the Trump campaign of how much was given?

Also, 30% new donors could be small donations, maybe as low as $5.  Which could be a very small overall percentage of the total $53M or whatever claimed to have come in.

Login

Register

Already have an account? Login