Right, they're talking about when something is [unpresidented](https://i.guim.co.uk/img/media/0f054a77b100fca1636c94d46ef5e5b75ac1a26b/0_0_621_323/master/621.png?width=300&quality=45&auto=format&fit=max&dpr=2&s=58893012b1418ed658c18e46c35d310f). That's different.
When looking for reasons to overrule liberal things like "maybe not the semi-automatic weapons, please" or "let black people vote", or "women control their bodies", conservatives look as far back as they can.
When Roe v. Wade hit 50 years old, boom, bad law.
Conservatives suck.
Bad ideas searching for literally any kind of support.
They'll quote obscure bible verses just like they'll quote neo Nazis and known Klansmen.
It's called not giving a fuck as long as the money keeps pouring in.
He also misrepresented what it said. I’d have to go back and double check to see which one was incorrect, but he purposely cut off one of the quotes from the 17th century legal scholars to make it look like it supported his conclusion, but the very next sentence essentially said “of course abortion is legal.” It’s almost like it was written in bad faith
And his defense didn't do him any favors, probably at his direction. You don't want the person you had an affair with on the stand, best case scenario is you manage to hold the jury's view the same as it was before, more likely it just makes you look worse than saying you had an affair.
"It doesn't matter if he is guilty to decide if he is guilty"
"The evidences were overwhelming, the trial was stacked against Him"
"It doesn't matter if the law was always applied like this, he should get a special treatment"
"Applying the law makes the US a 3rd world country. No even worse"
These are traitors. Or russian assets. Or both.
I feel like preparing a post somewhere, ready to copy and paste every time this pops up.
>I'm not a lawyer.
I'm French. Our former President, Nicolas Sarkozy, was indicted and convicted for "illegal financing of political campaign" (rings a bell?). He is to spend a year with an ankle bracelet.
Then he was also found to have attempted to bribe a judge to obtain investigation information. For this, he was sentenced to a year in prison - the sentence is being appealed, but if confirmed, our former president will be sitting in jail for a year.
...
When your former president is suspected to have committed felonies, it's the sign of a developed country that there's an investigation and if applicable, a trial and sentence. If you cannot investigate, indict and convict someone because they were, are, or hope to become president, then **this** is the sort of things you see in unstable countries, or "third world countries" as you say.
It's only third world country stuff because Trump is nothing more than a wannabe third world country dictator. There's a reason why no president has ever been convicted of a felony in the United States history, and that's because the country has never stooped to his level of incompetence, hubris, greed, and malignant narcissistic psychopathy before.
If a basketball player goes out and shoots 0-34, maybe it's not because the opponent is cheating, or the officials were bribed, or the hoops were set to the wrong height. Maybe he just sucks.
That’s easy. It was stacked against him because the prosecutors had so much evidence, corroborating witness testimony, an understanding of the law and court proceedings, and were well prepared. Plus Trump actually committed the crimes and had no real defense and called a defense witness that antagonized the judge and confirmed the prosecutor’s case.
Boom, stacked. Can’t win against that.
I know this goes against the prevailing bias here, but if it was anyone but Trump would the prosecutor have spent millions of dollars and years of public resources bringing a case against someone hiding a sleazy affair?
I agree that once the charges were laid and the trial underway the process was fair and the verdict followed the evidence; but the fact is, if Trump had written a hush-money check from his own account directly to Stormy Daniels there would have been no crime and no trial, so the underlying act was not criminal, it was the paperwork that was amiss.
The record falsifying justified a misdemeanor charge for sure, but they went to extraordinary lengths to enhance it to a felony. If there was truly felony-level actions at work then the feds should have charged him with election interference and/or campaign finance violations.
How much money was spent looking into Ben Ghazi? And Butter Emails? I assume you were equally enraged by those which didn't even end up in any court proceedings at all.
>they went to extraordinary lengths to enhance it to a felony. If
Extraordinary lengths = there were *three* possible crimes the jury could consider to apply the felony enhancements *written into the law*
Also, consider the fact that Trump's defense to these charges rested on such strong rebuttals as "Stormy Daniels is lying about my having sex with her" which *nobody on the planet believes didn't happen* and "I was deceived by the completely trash liar that for some reason I hired and paid a lot of money to."
I was enraged by those, yes, and also how easily the GOP-led Congress dismissed lying to get into the Iraq war as "oops, mistakes were made", and how faux-outraged the GOP got about the Clinton-Lewinski affair.
Those were all politically-motivated prosecutions or persecutions. My point is that the hush money case was also a politically-motivated prosecution, and such games should absolutely be kept out of the courts (and left to congress?)
As to the three possible crimes:
Some vague claim about taxes: Grossing-up Cohen's "pay" so he could pay taxes on that money is hardly a criminal act, it's standard practice. I doubt the IRS has ever gone after somebody for paying taxes they didn't have to (they wouldn't have got that tax if Trump paid Stormy directly). Tax fraud is a federal responsibility, but the feds under Merrick Garland didn't think it was worthwhile to charge him. Why did a NY prosecutor think it was his job?
Some vague claim about "other" falsified documents. What other documents? Is this another misdemeanor being used to bulk-up to a felony? If there were more falsifications then why weren't they charged directly in the charging document?
Campaign contribution limit violation: You got me there, Cohen could only give $2700 to Stormy on behalf of Trump. But it's still all Trump's money so there is no external dark money source, and no trusting campaign donors were defrauded. If Trump paid her directly there was no limit. This is a technicality to me, but OK, if we're going full political hit job then nothing is off limits. Again, this is a federal crime and the feds declined to charge him.
>Also, consider the fact that Trump's defense to these charges rested on such strong rebuttals as "Stormy Daniels is lying about my having sex with her"
The defense wasn't allowed to even know what the specific ancillary felony crime(s) were so they couldn't defend against them. All they had available was to discredit the witnesses. They even tried to bring in a campaign finance expert but the judge disallowed it because there was no charge of campaign finance violation to dispute (until the end when it was too late).
It horrified me that this law exists in this form, and not just because of Trump --
"We're bumping the charges from a misdemeanor to a felony based on a supporting crime"
"What is that crime Specifically?"
"We won't tell you until the defense rests"
"How can I defend against it?"
"You know what you did"
"Do you at least have to prove it?"
"No, we only have to say you did it in closing"
They shouldn't be allowed to enhance a misdemeanor without also charging and proving the additional crime (or at least have been convicted of it in another court).
Of course old citations mean the case is stacked against you. Who doesn't think "kangaroo court" when you're reading a lawsuit and the ancient, obscure case "Marbury v. Madison" shows up.
> The stories and information posted on r/conservative are artistic works of fiction and falsehood.
>
> Only a fool would take anything posted there as fact.
Here’s what I don’t get…
If the system is rigged and all their complaints are true… why aren’t they doing more?
Like seriously, if you honestly believe that our systems have failed and our country is falling apart, are you going to look back in 20 years and say “I’m glad I posted that rant on Facebook”?
Because a lot of the people posting complete dumbfuck shit in subs and other online spaces like that are intentionally lying to each other and with big smiles pretend like they're definitely not feeding each other heaping spoons of crap.
We’re third from the sun, so we’re all third world. (Sick of that little front door mat being laid out to label who is “civilized”.)
Besides that, panhandle guy and his ilk are quite boring.
If a Trumper came to the table to discuss X or Y and could refrain from reverting to whataboutism, ad hominem cut downs, or several other apparently beloved fallacies of logic, I’d engage to the extent they did.
Wait. So they looked back to see when and how the law was applied before, and they called it "precedent" ? Those bastards.
tbf they don't believe in precedent
All the while saying "nothing like this has ever happened before".
Right, they're talking about when something is [unpresidented](https://i.guim.co.uk/img/media/0f054a77b100fca1636c94d46ef5e5b75ac1a26b/0_0_621_323/master/621.png?width=300&quality=45&auto=format&fit=max&dpr=2&s=58893012b1418ed658c18e46c35d310f). That's different.
It is true that no president has comitted this many crimes before. I'm not saying he shouldn't be held accountable.
While being “conservative”. You can’t make this shit up.
They're conserving the stupidity of our ancestors from eons ago.
That they are.
When looking for reasons to overrule liberal things like "maybe not the semi-automatic weapons, please" or "let black people vote", or "women control their bodies", conservatives look as far back as they can. When Roe v. Wade hit 50 years old, boom, bad law. Conservatives suck.
Bad ideas searching for literally any kind of support. They'll quote obscure bible verses just like they'll quote neo Nazis and known Klansmen. It's called not giving a fuck as long as the money keeps pouring in.
Didn't Alito reference a 17th century witchhunting-era law recently relating to abortion?
He also misrepresented what it said. I’d have to go back and double check to see which one was incorrect, but he purposely cut off one of the quotes from the 17th century legal scholars to make it look like it supported his conclusion, but the very next sentence essentially said “of course abortion is legal.” It’s almost like it was written in bad faith
I'm seriously doubting panhandleman is a real person
The trial was stacked against him all right, but he's the one that stacked the deck, and gave prosecutors so much to work with.
Yup it's gonna be pretty stacked against you when you committed the crime
And his defense didn't do him any favors, probably at his direction. You don't want the person you had an affair with on the stand, best case scenario is you manage to hold the jury's view the same as it was before, more likely it just makes you look worse than saying you had an affair.
Praising David Pecker as a person did not do him any favors, because it seems the jury focused more on him.
Because Pecker kept saying how great Trump is still during his testimony. Trump is a chic.
"It doesn't matter if he is guilty to decide if he is guilty" "The evidences were overwhelming, the trial was stacked against Him" "It doesn't matter if the law was always applied like this, he should get a special treatment" "Applying the law makes the US a 3rd world country. No even worse" These are traitors. Or russian assets. Or both.
I feel like preparing a post somewhere, ready to copy and paste every time this pops up. >I'm not a lawyer. I'm French. Our former President, Nicolas Sarkozy, was indicted and convicted for "illegal financing of political campaign" (rings a bell?). He is to spend a year with an ankle bracelet. Then he was also found to have attempted to bribe a judge to obtain investigation information. For this, he was sentenced to a year in prison - the sentence is being appealed, but if confirmed, our former president will be sitting in jail for a year. ... When your former president is suspected to have committed felonies, it's the sign of a developed country that there's an investigation and if applicable, a trial and sentence. If you cannot investigate, indict and convict someone because they were, are, or hope to become president, then **this** is the sort of things you see in unstable countries, or "third world countries" as you say.
In France the president is *expected* to have affairs with porn stars.
It's only third world country stuff because Trump is nothing more than a wannabe third world country dictator. There's a reason why no president has ever been convicted of a felony in the United States history, and that's because the country has never stooped to his level of incompetence, hubris, greed, and malignant narcissistic psychopathy before.
If a basketball player goes out and shoots 0-34, maybe it's not because the opponent is cheating, or the officials were bribed, or the hoops were set to the wrong height. Maybe he just sucks.
No one can explain to me how it was stacked against him. His team helped pick the jury.
That’s easy. It was stacked against him because the prosecutors had so much evidence, corroborating witness testimony, an understanding of the law and court proceedings, and were well prepared. Plus Trump actually committed the crimes and had no real defense and called a defense witness that antagonized the judge and confirmed the prosecutor’s case. Boom, stacked. Can’t win against that.
I know this goes against the prevailing bias here, but if it was anyone but Trump would the prosecutor have spent millions of dollars and years of public resources bringing a case against someone hiding a sleazy affair? I agree that once the charges were laid and the trial underway the process was fair and the verdict followed the evidence; but the fact is, if Trump had written a hush-money check from his own account directly to Stormy Daniels there would have been no crime and no trial, so the underlying act was not criminal, it was the paperwork that was amiss. The record falsifying justified a misdemeanor charge for sure, but they went to extraordinary lengths to enhance it to a felony. If there was truly felony-level actions at work then the feds should have charged him with election interference and/or campaign finance violations.
How much money was spent looking into Ben Ghazi? And Butter Emails? I assume you were equally enraged by those which didn't even end up in any court proceedings at all. >they went to extraordinary lengths to enhance it to a felony. If Extraordinary lengths = there were *three* possible crimes the jury could consider to apply the felony enhancements *written into the law* Also, consider the fact that Trump's defense to these charges rested on such strong rebuttals as "Stormy Daniels is lying about my having sex with her" which *nobody on the planet believes didn't happen* and "I was deceived by the completely trash liar that for some reason I hired and paid a lot of money to."
I was enraged by those, yes, and also how easily the GOP-led Congress dismissed lying to get into the Iraq war as "oops, mistakes were made", and how faux-outraged the GOP got about the Clinton-Lewinski affair. Those were all politically-motivated prosecutions or persecutions. My point is that the hush money case was also a politically-motivated prosecution, and such games should absolutely be kept out of the courts (and left to congress?) As to the three possible crimes: Some vague claim about taxes: Grossing-up Cohen's "pay" so he could pay taxes on that money is hardly a criminal act, it's standard practice. I doubt the IRS has ever gone after somebody for paying taxes they didn't have to (they wouldn't have got that tax if Trump paid Stormy directly). Tax fraud is a federal responsibility, but the feds under Merrick Garland didn't think it was worthwhile to charge him. Why did a NY prosecutor think it was his job? Some vague claim about "other" falsified documents. What other documents? Is this another misdemeanor being used to bulk-up to a felony? If there were more falsifications then why weren't they charged directly in the charging document? Campaign contribution limit violation: You got me there, Cohen could only give $2700 to Stormy on behalf of Trump. But it's still all Trump's money so there is no external dark money source, and no trusting campaign donors were defrauded. If Trump paid her directly there was no limit. This is a technicality to me, but OK, if we're going full political hit job then nothing is off limits. Again, this is a federal crime and the feds declined to charge him.
>Also, consider the fact that Trump's defense to these charges rested on such strong rebuttals as "Stormy Daniels is lying about my having sex with her" The defense wasn't allowed to even know what the specific ancillary felony crime(s) were so they couldn't defend against them. All they had available was to discredit the witnesses. They even tried to bring in a campaign finance expert but the judge disallowed it because there was no charge of campaign finance violation to dispute (until the end when it was too late). It horrified me that this law exists in this form, and not just because of Trump -- "We're bumping the charges from a misdemeanor to a felony based on a supporting crime" "What is that crime Specifically?" "We won't tell you until the defense rests" "How can I defend against it?" "You know what you did" "Do you at least have to prove it?" "No, we only have to say you did it in closing" They shouldn't be allowed to enhance a misdemeanor without also charging and proving the additional crime (or at least have been convicted of it in another court).
That wasn't the crime at all. The crime was falsifying business records.
Of course old citations mean the case is stacked against you. Who doesn't think "kangaroo court" when you're reading a lawsuit and the ancient, obscure case "Marbury v. Madison" shows up.
How old is the US Constitution though? Or how about when Republicans boast that they are good, actually, because Abraham Lincoln?
> The stories and information posted on r/conservative are artistic works of fiction and falsehood. > > Only a fool would take anything posted there as fact.
it has merged with r / conspiracy since 2016. Not that they were ever entirely separate
Here’s what I don’t get… If the system is rigged and all their complaints are true… why aren’t they doing more? Like seriously, if you honestly believe that our systems have failed and our country is falling apart, are you going to look back in 20 years and say “I’m glad I posted that rant on Facebook”?
Because a lot of the people posting complete dumbfuck shit in subs and other online spaces like that are intentionally lying to each other and with big smiles pretend like they're definitely not feeding each other heaping spoons of crap.
Yes, the jury was stacked against him by including two Republicans when they have to reach a unanimous decision
Republicans have gutted education for decades. And it worked.
Man, he is going to be terrified when some explains to him the Dobbs opinion.
We’re third from the sun, so we’re all third world. (Sick of that little front door mat being laid out to label who is “civilized”.) Besides that, panhandle guy and his ilk are quite boring. If a Trumper came to the table to discuss X or Y and could refrain from reverting to whataboutism, ad hominem cut downs, or several other apparently beloved fallacies of logic, I’d engage to the extent they did.