|
davecrazy posted:So by getting checks sent to him to sign at the White House didn’t the Trump org lackey who testified basically prove what we all ready knew that he was involved with the day to day operations of Trump org WHILE president?  Dems gave up on that boat before he even took office. Not to mention all of the scenarios where he forced government agencies to use his hotels/businesses at marked up rates, etc.
|
#
?
May 11, 2024 12:40
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 6, 2024 18:54 |
|
|
Asproigerosis posted:
SCOTUS essentially read that out of the constitution. I suppose congress has to define an emolument and set a penalty for it explicitly rather than it just falling under all the already established rules about government personnel accepting gifts. Which seems backwards. Since it’s explicitly called out in the constitution then any general guidelines or laws should be applicable.
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2024 12:49
|
|
|
Asproigerosis posted:
Which dems?
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2024 14:40
|
|
|
Murgos posted:SCOTUS essentially read that out of the constitution. Raenir Salazar posted:Which dems?
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2024 14:41
|
|
|
Another potential source of trouble for Trump: Trump May Owe $100 Million From Double-Dip Tax Breaks, Audit Shows Nonpaywalled link: https://archive.ph/KcYAx quote:Former President Donald J. Trump used a dubious accounting maneuver to claim improper tax breaks from his troubled Chicago tower, according to an Internal Revenue Service inquiry uncovered by The New York Times and ProPublica. Losing a yearslong audit battle over the claim could mean a tax bill of more than $100 million. Article is long and kind of dry (accounting/taxes chat) but seems well-researched.
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2024 15:52
|
|
|
Deteriorata posted:Another potential source of trouble for Trump: Huh seems like the kinda thing that sounds important, but will result in no action when Trump simply doesn't pay it. Yeah, the IRS can claw what's owed to them, but what are the chances they even try to garnish a president's wages
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2024 16:21
|
|
|
The IRS and what army?
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2024 16:34
|
|
|
Judge Schnoopy posted:Huh seems like the kinda thing that sounds important, but will result in no action when Trump simply doesn't pay it. Seems likely that there’s a corporate veil between this tax bill and any salary that Trump would personally collect, anyway.
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2024 16:36
|
|
|
Judge Schnoopy posted:Huh seems like the kinda thing that sounds important, but will result in no action when Trump simply doesn't pay it. On what grounds are you asserting this?
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2024 20:47
|
|
|
Raenir Salazar posted:On what grounds are you asserting this? I believe they’re citing the evolving jurisprudence of the last 70-odd years in Trump v. Consequences.
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2024 22:16
|
|
|
Raenir Salazar posted:On what grounds are you asserting this? Recorded history? Trump being a tax cheat isn't news to anyone. If they haven't doe it by now, it is odd to suggest that they are suddenly going to because of yet another nyt story on him doing a fraud. Now hunter Biden tax fraud? That is where it is at. Edit: Not to be pithy, but we are talking about fraud from 2008 and 2010. This fraud is nearly older than my foster child and predates Trump's presidential run. If they were going to do anything about it, they would have done so already. Caros fucked around with this message at 01:10 on May 12, 2024 |
|
#
?
May 12, 2024 01:08
|
|
|
Didn't Biden get a bunch more money for the IRS specifically so they could discover and claim tax revenue that wasn't worth pursuing when they were spread too thin? Is there a statute of limitations for back taxes?
|
|
#
?
May 12, 2024 02:00
|
|
|
haveblue posted:Didn't Biden get a bunch more money for the IRS specifically so they could discover and claim tax revenue that wasn't worth pursuing when they were spread too thin? 10 years for unpaid back taxes. There is no statute of limitations on tax fraud, however.
|
|
#
?
May 12, 2024 02:18
|
|
|
Caros posted:Recorded history? As haveblue mentions a LOT of rich people "got away with" not paying their legal obligations due to lack of funding and manpower to pursue those accounts; and that as the IRS ramps up training and hiring of staff its plausible they eventually go after Trump for unpaid taxes; but probably in whatever order and process that places him in whatever spot in the queue as to avoid ethical issues or accusations of singling out a candidate.
|
|
#
?
May 12, 2024 02:42
|
|
|
Its almost as if the destruction of a functional government so the rich can get away with anything was on purpose
|
|
#
?
May 12, 2024 03:14
|
|
|
So I have to ask, does anyone understand Trump's legal strategy for the NY case? He seems to have functionally better lawyers than some of his civil cases (in that they are not harassing the judge's clerk or forgetting how to submit evidence) but in their opening statement they made bold claims about proving that the transaction never happened, despite the fact that we currently have Michael Cohen on the stand authenticating audio recordings of them talking about the deal. It seems like a bold strategy, is all I'm saying. Jury nullification?
|
|
#
?
May 13, 2024 16:40
|
|
|
Caros posted:So I have to ask, does anyone understand Trump's legal strategy for the NY case? "Cohen is a liar and Daniels is a liar" and/or "MISTRIAL!" That about sums it up.
|
|
#
?
May 13, 2024 16:41
|
|
|
Caros posted:So I have to ask, does anyone understand Trump's legal strategy for the NY case?
|
|
#
?
May 13, 2024 16:49
|
|
|
Make the trial extend past January 2025, at which point he gets 4 years in which to make himself untouchable (pardoned, permanent presidency, dead)
|
|
#
?
May 13, 2024 16:51
|
|
|
Caros posted:So I have to ask, does anyone understand Trump's legal strategy for the NY case? Tenkaris posted:That's the best (or worst) thing about Trump, honestly. It doesn't matter how far down the line he is, he still wants to just give a blanket denial that anything ever happened. Like he's at a hearing to determine how much they are going to fine him, and he's still insisting he be able to claim it never happened even though that's two trials ago you dumb gently caress, that's not up for argument at all! It's just how he is. He still wants to say he never met EJC and was still trying to say it at closing arguments on the trial for his punishment. He's delusional and thinks he can will the truth away with confident lying. Tenkaris fucked around with this message at 20:32 on May 13, 2024 |
|
#
?
May 13, 2024 17:48
|
|
|
Caros posted:So I have to ask, does anyone understand Trump's legal strategy for the NY case? Their only available strategy, given the case and their client, is to wing legal basketballs at the net from the other end of the court and hope one somehow goes in. My client didn't do it, everyone's lying, these are not the crimes you're looking for, I rest my case and cash my check.
|
|
#
?
May 13, 2024 18:53
|
|
|
Man, reading Cohen's testimony, it is really telling just how much of a cheapskate Trump is and how much it has bitten him in the rear end in this whole thing.
|
|
#
?
May 13, 2024 19:25
|
|
|
DTurtle posted:Man, reading Cohen's testimony, it is really telling just how much of a cheapskate Trump is and how much it has bitten him in the rear end in this whole thing.
|
|
#
?
May 13, 2024 19:32
|
|
|
I have a question from a quote of Cohen.quote:Jonathan Swan How is this hearsay if the witness heard the defendant?
|
|
#
?
May 13, 2024 19:35
|
|
|
Independence posted:I have a question from a quote of Cohen. The biggest issue with that last statement, (I believe, not a lawyer etc) is that Cohen is testifying about what Trump was thinking - he didn't say 'I believe Trump was thinking...', but rather stated it as if it were a fact. However, I don't see how this would have any impact on Cohen's credibility. The defense should be objecting to hearsay statements and having them stricken as they arise, but it doesn't follow that Cohen is lying - he is just stating things in a way that isn't allowed in court as a witness.
|
|
#
?
May 13, 2024 19:44
|
|
|
Gully Foyle posted:The biggest issue with that last statement, (I believe, not a lawyer etc) is that Cohen is testifying about what Trump was thinking - he didn't say 'I believe Trump was thinking...', but rather stated it as if it were a fact. It’s not hearsay. Definitionally, no statement by “a party opponent” - by the defendant in a criminal case, by a party to a civil suit, when offered by the other party, is hearsay. And Cohen going on to offer his own impression of what that statement meant simply isn’t hearsay, but it does depend on the jury both finding him credible and believing he understood his boss, rather than it being dark humour or something.
|
|
#
?
May 13, 2024 19:51
|
|
|
Point of order, I think for civil cases it isn't "beyond a reasonable doubt" this isn't a murder trial; its by the preponderance of the evidence. The defence would absolutely want the jury to think its beyond a reasonable doubt probably! The prosecution just needs to show that it is more likely than not that Trump committed these crimes.
|
|
#
?
May 13, 2024 19:56
|
|
|
Raenir Salazar posted:Point of order, I think for civil cases it isn't "beyond a reasonable doubt" this isn't a murder trial; its by the preponderance of the evidence. The defence would absolutely want the jury to think its beyond a reasonable doubt probably! The prosecution just needs to show that it is more likely than not that Trump committed these crimes. This is a criminal trial. "Beyond a reasonable doubt" is the standard.
|
|
#
?
May 13, 2024 19:57
|
|
|
Raenir Salazar posted:Point of order, I think for civil cases it isn't "beyond a reasonable doubt" this isn't a murder trial; its by the preponderance of the evidence. The defence would absolutely want the jury to think its beyond a reasonable doubt probably! The prosecution just needs to show that it is more likely than not that Trump committed these crimes. This is a criminal case.
|
|
#
?
May 13, 2024 19:58
|
|
|
The Legal AF podcast (I know, I know...) had an interesting take that a better defense would have been, "Oops, it was an honest mistake. Yes, the sordid thing happened, and yes we paid her, but it was my first time running for office and we just kind of lumped it in with "things lawyers do" and thus a legal expense, and didn't pay it any mind thereafter. We weren't trying to do anything malicious, it was just an honest mistake." The idea being such an argument could sow a reasonable doubt in the mind of at least one juror. Instead it's just the same playbook as ever: never give up the scam, deny, deny, deny, claims it's sunny when it's pouring rain on you, etc.
|
|
#
?
May 13, 2024 20:23
|
|
|
Tenkaris posted:It's just how he is. He still wants to say he never met EJC and was still trying to say it at closing arguments on the trial for his punishment. He's delusional and thinks he can will the truth away with confident lying. It's how narcissists are. True, in-their-heart-of-hearts narcissists just do not operate in objective reality. They do this thing where the external world doesn't exist to them, it's all playing on an Etch-a-Sketch in their minds and if they don't like something they just give it a good shake then draw in whatever reality they want. It's one of the more destructive forms of emotional abuse they inflict on people around them. If you're the victim of a narcissist you spend every minute of your entire life impossibly hyper-attuned to what the narcissist is doing so you can spot the split second they do this Etch-a-Sketch and get out ahead of it by playing along with whatever scenario they've drawn in their heads. You have to guess their every action, mood and whim and stay inside the new picture in their head or they are going to target you and blow the gently caress up in a nuclear-volcano rage induced category 5 shitstorm that they will abuse you with.
|
|
#
?
May 13, 2024 20:27
|
|
|
Tenkaris posted:It's just how he is. He still wants to say he never met EJC and was still trying to say it at closing arguments on the trial for his punishment. He's delusional and thinks he can will the truth away with confident lying. I just thought to myself " what if for once DJT wasn't lying - what if he didn't assault EJC and she has actually scored tens of millions of damages on false pretences" and nobody believed his denials.... Part of me wishes it were true but we only find out after she dies and she's left a postmortem confession. The schadenfreude would be insane. In reality that just proves he did what she said - because I don't think he could stop screaming about it even after two trials.
|
|
#
?
May 13, 2024 20:49
|
|
|
Ynglaur posted:The Legal AF podcast (I know, I know...) had an interesting take that a better defense would have been, "Oops, it was an honest mistake. Yes, the sordid thing happened, and yes we paid her, but it was my first time running for office and we just kind of lumped it in with "things lawyers do" and thus a legal expense, and didn't pay it any mind thereafter. We weren't trying to do anything malicious, it was just an honest mistake." The idea being such an argument could sow a reasonable doubt in the mind of at least one juror. Im just afraid that a hardcore MAGA wormed their way onto the jury somehow and it'll be hung
|
|
#
?
May 13, 2024 20:54
|
|
|
bird food bathtub posted:It's how narcissists are. True, in-their-heart-of-hearts narcissists just do not operate in objective reality. They do this thing where the external world doesn't exist to them, it's all playing on an Etch-a-Sketch in their minds and if they don't like something they just give it a good shake then draw in whatever reality they want. It's one of the more destructive forms of emotional abuse they inflict on people around them. If you're the victim of a narcissist you spend every minute of your entire life impossibly hyper-attuned to what the narcissist is doing so you can spot the split second they do this Etch-a-Sketch and get out ahead of it by playing along with whatever scenario they've drawn in their heads. You have to guess their every action, mood and whim and stay inside the new picture in their head or they are going to target you and blow the gently caress up in a nuclear-volcano rage induced category 5 shitstorm that they will abuse you with. I'm in this post and I don't like it.
|
|
#
?
May 13, 2024 20:54
|
|
|
BigBallChunkyTime posted:Im just afraid that a hardcore MAGA wormed their way onto the jury somehow and it'll be hung This, and Cohen is a weeny witness even by flipped collaborater standards
|
|
#
?
May 13, 2024 20:58
|
|
|
BigBallChunkyTime posted:Im just afraid that a hardcore MAGA wormed their way onto the jury somehow and it'll be hung Then it's a mistrial and they do it again. Not that big of a deal.
|
|
#
?
May 13, 2024 21:00
|
|
|
BigBallChunkyTime posted:Im just afraid that a hardcore MAGA wormed their way onto the jury somehow and it'll be hung
|
|
#
?
May 13, 2024 21:02
|
|
|
Deteriorata posted:Then it's a mistrial and they do it again. Not that big of a deal. Unless he's elected. Even though these are state charges, he'd still be the most powerful person in the free world.
|
|
#
?
May 13, 2024 21:07
|
|
|
FMguru posted:The way they were able to find 12 jurors who had no problem quickly convicting Trump in the EJC defamation case gives me hope that MAGA die hards are rare enough that they probably won't end up the Manhattan jury pool. There may be Republicans on the jury, but I doubt there are too many “MAGA die hards” who never posted about it on social media, never had a photograph in a red cap, etc, and so would pass voir dire. And if you’re just a Republican, even one predisposed to believe Trump here, it’s really hard, as a function of how the brain works, to sit there and disagree with a whole room of people you’ve now gotten to know quite well. It’s this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asch_conformity_experiments except you actually see for yourself the two lines are different length as well as hearing everyone else say it.
|
|
#
?
May 13, 2024 21:27
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 6, 2024 18:54 |
|
|
BigBallChunkyTime posted:Unless he's elected. Even though these are state charges, he'd still be the most powerful person in the free world. Even if he's found guilty on all 34 felonies, it's not going to stop him from being elected. You have unrealistic expectations.
|
|
#
?
May 13, 2024 21:28
|
|