But, he used his own money!

Damocles said:
I remain within my opinion as I expressed it, which you keep rewording, "wishing for" and repeating now:

Unless the Trump team says or does something stupid (has to be the fourth time I've said this, and you "wished" into being to make it a magically "strong" case), this case will be seen as political persecution and will only help Trump, which I suspect is the goal of some very misguided individuals who believe they can beat him because he lost to a basement dwelling dementia patient.
Click to expand...

It’s not wishing, it’s explaining how it could be a good case.
 
Damocles said:
Again, it is impossible to prove that it was not for any of those other reasons, thus reasonable doubt will continue to exist. You must prove the negative to remove the reasonable doubt. Thus... making it, as I said earlier, appear politically motivated. Which IMHO only benefits the Ds as they know that even a basement dwelling dementia patient can beat Trump.
Click to expand...

See above where you said it was “Impossible to prove…”

I simply gave you a very possible scenario in which you would be wrong.
 
Jarod said:
It’s not wishing, it’s explaining how it could be a good case.
Click to expand...

It is wishing. Evidence not in hand being "iffed" into being does not a case make.

A case can be made based on what I noted.

If Trump's team says or does something stupid... Which is the same thing as "wishing" it into being while noting that we have no evidence that has happened here.

In this case, unless that happens (or has happened and was magically kept quiet in the most leaked investigation ever), the evidence we have is very weak. You are basing an entire case on "timing" and I am basing the other result on the actual weakness of the evidence we have.
 
Damocles said:
It is wishing. Evidence not in hand being "iffed" into being does not a case make.

A case can be made based on what I noted.

If Trump's team says or does something stupid... Which is the same thing as "wishing" it into being while noting that we have no evidence that has happened here.

In this case, unless that happens (or has happened and was magically kept quiet in the most leaked investigation ever), the evidence we have is very weak. You are basing an entire case on "timing" and I am basing the other result on the actual weakness of the evidence we have.
Click to expand...

You very specifically said it was impossible, I was not wishing, I was giving you a scenario where it is very possible
 
Damocles said:
It is wishing. Evidence not in hand being "iffed" into being does not a case make.

A case can be made based on what I noted.

If Trump's team says or does something stupid... Which is the same thing as "wishing" it into being while noting that we have no evidence that has happened here.

In this case, unless that happens (or has happened and was magically kept quiet in the most leaked investigation ever), the evidence we have is very weak. You are basing an entire case on "timing" and I am basing the other result on the actual weakness of the evidence we have.
Click to expand...

The most leaked investigation ever? Really? Please tell me what has been leaked here. I suspect you can’t come up with a single thing that has been leaked.
 
SmarterthanYou said:
unlike many other political campaign issues of the same type, where democrats were found to have received or dispensed campaign funds illegally and were allowed to reverse it with a small penalty, i'm betting that you low IQ hate filled lefties are not going to be that forgiving because it's trump. i'm right, aren't I?
Click to expand...

You are never right. This is about Trump breaking the campaign laws. The guy who did the work for him got 3 years and about a million in fines. In Cohen's trial, he was shown to be following the orders of person 1, who was not named because he had presidential protections. Those are gone, so person 1 can face the music. The laws are plain and in this case simple to understand. Trump was criming away. But you downplay it because you are Trump suckup.
 
Damocles said:
You are allowed to spend as much money as you want of your own money, there are no limits. Saying it makes no difference is absurd. There are also a myriad of reasons to want to either promote or hush your tryst with a porn star that have nothing to do with an election. It will be impossible to prove that this was not done for any of those other reasons beyond any reasonable doubt. I get that you don't like him, but this is not a worthwhile prosecution. You won't even need a "if the glove doesn't fit" moment to cast reasonable doubt.
Click to expand...

Again where you said it was impossible, yet I gave you an example where it is possible… Then you accused me of wishing it with nothing to support that claim.
 
Damocles said:
It is wishing. Evidence not in hand being "iffed" into being does not a case make.

A case can be made based on what I noted.

If Trump's team says or does something stupid... Which is the same thing as "wishing" it into being while noting that we have no evidence that has happened here.

In this case, unless that happens (or has happened and was magically kept quiet in the most leaked investigation ever), the evidence we have is very weak. You are basing an entire case on "timing" and I am basing the other result on the actual weakness of the evidence we have.
Click to expand...

Maybe you had to go… or maybe you ran… but this is clearly not the most leaked investigation ever, in fact I know of 0 leaks.
 
Damocles said:
I know you disagree. Regardless, unless Trump's team says something stupid to prove it was because he was running this has built in reasonable doubt even if you disagree. Pretending that you cannot possibly convince 1 out of 12 that there is reasonable doubt in this case is simple pretense. Even a bad attorney could do it.
Click to expand...

There is no reasonable doubt. The guy who Trump had do the dirty deeds was found guilty and got a 3 year sentence and about a million in fines and paybacks. During Cohen's trial, Trump was person 1 since he had presidential protections. Now he does not. In essence, trump has already been found guilty. Now that his protections are gone, he can face the courts like any other person.
 
Nordberg said:
There is no reasonable doubt. The guy who Trump had do the dirty deeds was found guilty and got a 3 year sentence and about a million in fines and paybacks. During Cohen's trial, Trump was person 1 since he had presidential protections. Now he does not. In essence, trump has already been found guilty. Now that his protections are gone, he can face the courts like any other person.
Click to expand...

Your point is well taken, however In Damo’s defense… This is a different court and a somewhat different law with different elements. Additionally it’s likely harder to prosecute Trumps roll than Cohen’s… But it’s the same criminal scheme even if harder to get a conviction.
 
Nordberg said:
You are never right. This is about Trump breaking the campaign laws. The guy who did the work for him got 3 years and about a million in fines. In Cohen's trial, he was shown to be following the orders of person 1, who was not named because he had presidential protections. Those are gone, so person 1 can face the music. The laws are plain and in this case simple to understand. Trump was criming away. But you downplay it because you are Trump suckup.
Click to expand...

you are proving me right, right now, with your willful ignorance of what I said about you allowing democrats to get away with it. you downplay those because you are a democrat sucker........it embarrasses you which is why your triggered mindset must refer to me as a trumper, with zero evidence.
 
SmarterthanYou said:
you are proving me right, right now, with your willful ignorance of what I said about you allowing democrats to get away with it. you downplay those because you are a democrat sucker........it embarrasses you which is why your triggered mindset must refer to me as a trumper, with zero evidence.
Click to expand...

You are a trumper, that is why I call you that. You have a million posts proving who you are. You are fooling no one by pretending you are not all red.
 
Damocles said:
You are allowed to spend as much money as you want of your own money, there are no limits. Saying it makes no difference is absurd. There are also a myriad of reasons to want to either promote or hush your tryst with a porn star that have nothing to do with an election. It will be impossible to prove that this was not done for any of those other reasons beyond any reasonable doubt. I get that you don't like him, but this is not a worthwhile prosecution. You won't even need a "if the glove doesn't fit" moment to cast reasonable doubt.
Click to expand...
I'm sure rich and powerful men try to conceal their affairs everyday even if they are not politicians. Trump is no different. And if you would have paid the expense anyway it is not considered a campaign expense by the FEC. This is much to do about nothing.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top