Judge Rejects Trump’s Immunity Claim in Hush Money Case, Conviction Stands

[thaipo7]

5 hours ago, jippytum said:

As a trump supporter  i think these charges where politically motivated. However after having been found guilty i think the judges ruling not to overturn the verdict and the reasons for not doing so are correct. 

Did you consider where the trial was held?  The pool that made up jury?  The judge being chosen for the case taken out of turn because he would have a better chance of being successful.  Every step of this process was politically motivated.  How about the judges daughter raising over $100 million on the case to give Schumer for Democrats needing money for their races?  I have to conclude the whole process was politically motivated.  Just my opinion.

[candide]

24 minutes ago, johnnybangkok said:

I think you are perhaps adding a few too many zero's there. 

 

'Comer cited three “direct monthly payments to Joe Biden from Hunter Biden’s business entity” as evidence that Joe Biden profited from a deal Hunter Biden made with a Chinese energy company. But Hunter Biden’s attorney said the payments — which totaled a little over $4,000 — simply reflect Hunter Biden repaying his father, who bought him a truck while Hunter was in the throes of drug and alcohol addiction. That explanation appears to be corroborated by emails obtained from Hunter Biden’s laptop, as reported by the New York Post last year.   https://www.factcheck.org/2023/12/gop-misleading-claims-in-biden-impeachment-investigation/

 

I will state this one last time - a GOP investigation (purposely set up to find evidence) has finally admitted there is ' still has no evidence, no crime' after literally years of trying to find some.  'Republican Rep. Don Bacon - “....at this point, there’s not a specific crime that has been committed.”   https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-news/don-bacon-admits-no-evidence-crimes-biden-impeachment-1234997042/

 

But you just keep drinking the Kool Aid without putting any objective reasoning to the echo chamber you so willingly inhabit.

He likely learned that trick from his master. Why provide an accurate number when you can use a more convincing made-up number instead? 🤣

[candide]

25 minutes ago, thaipo7 said:

Did you consider where the trial was held?  The pool that made up jury?  The judge being chosen for the case taken out of turn because he would have a better chance of being successful.  Every step of this process was politically motivated.  How about the judges daughter raising over $100 million on the case to give Schumer for Democrats needing money for their races?  I have to conclude the whole process was politically motivated.  Just my opinion.

You guys have a conspiracy theory about each and every subject! 

[BigStar]

49 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

What is disingenuous about the observation that the crime for which Trump has been convicted was not part of any Presidential Duty?

 

Yawn. Claiming this specific issue has something to do with Trump as pres-elect or his next term, when you know well it has to do with his last term and slightly previous to his last term.

[Chomper Higgot]

21 minutes ago, BigStar said:

 

Yawn. Claiming this specific issue has something to do with Trump as pres-elect or his next term, when you know well it has to do with his last term and slightly previous to his last term.

And yet still the crimes for which the Jury found him guilty have zilch to do with any Presidential duty.

[Chomper Higgot]

54 minutes ago, thaipo7 said:

Did you consider where the trial was held?  The pool that made up jury?  The judge being chosen for the case taken out of turn because he would have a better chance of being successful.  Every step of this process was politically motivated.  How about the judges daughter raising over $100 million on the case to give Schumer for Democrats needing money for their races?  I have to conclude the whole process was politically motivated.  Just my opinion.

Don’t want to be tried before a New York Court, don’t commit crimes in New York.

[BigStar]

6 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

And yet still the crimes for which the Jury found him guilty have zilch to do with any Presidential duty.

 

Are you that obtuse? The point is that, after a delay for careful consideration, the judge rejected Trump's attorneys' arguments that Trump's "actions" had anything to do with presidential duty. He can do so precisely because of the limitations decreed in the SCOTUS decision. So you libs can stop lying about the decision conferring "absolute power" and the horrors to follow.

[Chomper Higgot]

29 minutes ago, BigStar said:

 

Are you that obtuse? The point is that, after a delay for careful consideration, the judge rejected Trump's attorneys' arguments that Trump's "actions" had anything to do with presidential duty. He can do so precisely because of the limitations decreed in the SCOTUS decision. So you libs can stop lying about the decision conferring "absolute power" and the horrors to follow.

I’m not obtuse but I am one of those ‘libs’ you obsess over and I have never once claimed the SCOTUS ruling gives Trump (or the Presidency)  power. 
 

I do hold the view that it places Presidential acts above the law and is therefore fundamentally in breach of the separation and balance of powers.

 

[Hamus Yaigh]

5 hours ago, phetphet said:

Why? Can't he just pardon himself once in Office?

Presidents can only pardon federal crimes, and this was a state level conviction.

[WDSmart]

Wonderful news!  

[HappyExpat57]

7 hours ago, JonnyF said:

Who cares? Everyone knows they were politically motivated charges heard in a kangaroo court. Let the salty Libs cry "convicted felon" if it makes them happy. It certainly didn't matter to the voters. 

 

Trump will soon be President again. That's what matters.

No. Only folks blinded by MAGA think they know the charges were politically motivated, the rest of the world knows the truth..

[JonnyF]

Just now, HappyExpat57 said:

No. Only folks blinded by MAGA think they know the charges were politically motivated, the rest of the world knows the truth..

 

Well, certainly not the American electorate given his recent landslide victory over DEI Harris.  

[HappyExpat57]

Isn't it illegal for felons to associate with other felons? Aren't a large number of his proposed cabinet felons? Does anyone else see the conflict here?

[HappyExpat57]

1 hour ago, JonnyF said:

 

Well, certainly not the American electorate given his recent landslide victory over DEI Harris.  

Firchrissake it was NOT a landslide. Your trying to repeat that bull<deleted> just displays the MAGA blindness you are inflicted with.

[JonnyF]

1 hour ago, HappyExpat57 said:

Firchrissake it was NOT a landslide. Your trying to repeat that bull<deleted> just displays the MAGA blindness you are inflicted with.

 

Oh really?

 

Popular vote, all swing states, both houses. 

 

Booooyakasha!

 

How them polls working out for ya?

 

 

[riclag]

2 hours ago, thaipo7 said:

Did you consider where the trial was held?  The pool that made up jury?  The judge being chosen for the case taken out of turn because he would have a better chance of being successful.  Every step of this process was politically motivated.  How about the judges daughter raising over $100 million on the case to give Schumer for Democrats needing money for their races?  I have to conclude the whole process was politically motivated.  Just my opinion.

Brilliantly executed!

You have your fingers on the pulse, of

the conspiracy . 

[HappyExpat57]

6 minutes ago, JonnyF said:

 

Oh really?

 

Popular vote, all swing states, both houses. 

 

Booooyakasha!

 

How them polls working out for ya?

 

 

Who cares abot the polls? The numbers (facts, which you seem to have trouble understanding so I will provide pictures) show he barely squeeked by. 

Harris 74,981,313 votes (48.4%)

The other guy 77,266,801 votes (49.9%)

https://www.google.com/search?q=2024+us+presidential+election+final+results+numbers&newwindow=1&sca_esv=e1e3193eddeaa204&rlz=1C1CHZN_enTH1090TH1090&sxsrf=ADLYWIL9gpodP0p0EX1emBYd-Tg4Xp1Ynw%3A1734510437179&ei=ZYdiZ4O3CseRseMPls6c4QE&ved=0ahUKEwjD_d3z8rCKAxXHSGwGHRYnJxwQ4dUDCBA&uact=5&oq=2024+us+presidential+election+final+results+numbers&gs_lp=Egxnd3Mtd2l6LXNlcnAiMzIwMjQgdXMgcHJlc2lkZW50aWFsIGVsZWN0aW9uIGZpbmFsIHJlc3VsdHMgbnVtYmVyczIFECEYoAEyBRAhGKABMgUQIRigATIFECEYoAFIrCFQwgpY3BZwAXgBkAEAmAGpAaAB2gaqAQMzLjW4AQPIAQD4AQGYAgmgAvAGwgIKEAAYsAMY1gQYR8ICBhAAGBYYHsICCBAAGBYYChgewgILEAAYgAQYhgMYigXCAggQABiABBiiBMICBRAAGO8FwgIHECEYoAEYCpgDAIgGAZAGCJIHAzQuNaAHqTI&sclient=gws-wiz-serp

[riclag]

6 minutes ago, HappyExpat57 said:

Who cares abot the polls? The numbers (facts, which you seem to have trouble understanding so I will provide pictures) show he barely squeeked by. 

Harris 74,981,313 votes (48.4%)

The other guy 77,266,801 votes (49.9%)

https://www.google.com/search?q=2024+us+presidential+election+final+results+numbers&newwindow=1&sca_esv=e1e3193eddeaa204&rlz=1C1CHZN_enTH1090TH1090&sxsrf=ADLYWIL9gpodP0p0EX1emBYd-Tg4Xp1Ynw%3A1734510437179&ei=ZYdiZ4O3CseRseMPls6c4QE&ved=0ahUKEwjD_d3z8rCKAxXHSGwGHRYnJxwQ4dUDCBA&uact=5&oq=2024+us+presidential+election+final+results+numbers&gs_lp=Egxnd3Mtd2l6LXNlcnAiMzIwMjQgdXMgcHJlc2lkZW50aWFsIGVsZWN0aW9uIGZpbmFsIHJlc3VsdHMgbnVtYmVyczIFECEYoAEyBRAhGKABMgUQIRigATIFECEYoAFIrCFQwgpY3BZwAXgBkAEAmAGpAaAB2gaqAQMzLjW4AQPIAQD4AQGYAgmgAvAGwgIKEAAYsAMY1gQYR8ICBhAAGBYYHsICCBAAGBYYChgewgILEAAYgAQYhgMYigXCAggQABiABBiiBMICBRAAGO8FwgIHECEYoAEYCpgDAIgGAZAGCJIHAzQuNaAHqTI&sclient=gws-wiz-serp

The poll turned vote , you and yours lost!

 

[HappyExpat57]

1 hour ago, riclag said:

The poll turned vote , you and yours lost!

 

Again, you and facts appear to be merely nodding acquaintances. The bull<deleted> lie was Harris lost in a landslide. The facts are the felon barely squeeked by.

 

1.5% is NOT a landslide. Try to keep up.

 

When you folks can't behave like adults and deal honestly with the truth, no one can take you seriously.

[CallumWK]

18 minutes ago, HappyExpat57 said:

Again, you and facts appear to be merely nodding acquaintances. The bull<deleted> lie was Harris lost in a landslide. The facts are the felon barely squeeked by.

 

1.5% is NOT a landslide. Try to keep up.

 

When you folks can't behave like adults and deal honestly with the truth, no one can take you seriously.

 

1.5%?

 

[connda]

That's Ok.  After Biden issues blanket pardons for all Democrats, members of his cabinet, his entire administration including all members of all government agencies, and all prosecutors and judges using Lawfare to go after Trump - and includes himself - against all possible future prosecutions? 

  Trump will do the same thing before leaving office!  End of story.  Biden will set into motion that exact mechanisms of universal pardons that will then simply be used by Trump.  Perfect "Own Goal" by Biden.

"He who has the last laugh, laughs the best!"

[connda]

7 minutes ago, CallumWK said:

 

1.5%?

 

Ya'll know what is simply Epic!  Kamala Harris as US Vice President has to be the one to certify the electoral college election results!    Talk about a cosmic kick-in-the-butt as she heads out the door into political obscurity. Well, she can always become the Governor of California as Californians love vegan word-salad. Then she can endorse Gavin Newsom as the 2028 Democrat candidate for presidency as, unlike her, he may actually have a chance at winning.  

[HappyExpat57]

11 minutes ago, CallumWK said:

 

1.5%?

 

Typical - you only use info that fits your narrative. Just a damned shame how those pesky facts keep exposing you for the blinded sycophants you are. Here's the REST that you conveniently left out:

 

[HappyExpat57]

4 minutes ago, connda said:

Ya'll know what is simply Epic!  Kamala Harris as US Vice President has to be the one to certify the electoral college election results!    Talk about a cosmic kick-in-the-butt as she heads out the door into political obscurity. Well, she can always become the Governor of California as Californians love vegan word-salad. Then she can endorse Gavin Newsom as the 2028 Democrat candidate for presidency as, unlike her, he may actually have a chance at winning.  

And she did it without whinging about how the election was stolen like some whiny bastard continues to do to this very day. That's how adults behave.

[connda]

20 minutes ago, HappyExpat57 said:

Again, you and facts appear to be merely nodding acquaintances. The bull<deleted> lie was Harris lost in a landslide. The facts are the felon barely squeeked by.

 

1.5% is NOT a landslide. Try to keep up.

 

When you folks can't behave like adults and deal honestly with the truth, no one can take you seriously.

That reminds me of a joke.

What do you call a person who graduates at the bottom of their class in Med School?
"Doctor"

Trump could have won by a handful of electoral college and popular votes and he'd still be called "President Trump."  Bottom line though - he received a significant amount of the vote.  I wouldn't necessarily call it "a landslide" but I will call it "a mandate."  Now - I'll let all the far-Left progressives on my ignore list who are triggered have their rant which I won't be reading. 

[CallumWK]

6 minutes ago, HappyExpat57 said:

Typical - you only use info that fits your narrative. Just a damned shame how those pesky facts keep exposing you for the blinded sycophants you are. Here's the REST that you conveniently left out:

 

 

Sorry to break it for you, but even if she had 20% more popular vote than Trump, she would still not be elected.

What a shame that you want to DENY facts

[CallumWK]

7 minutes ago, HappyExpat57 said:

And she did it without whinging about how the election was stolen

 

Yeah she's taken her loss very well, and January 20 is still more than a month away, so much can happen.

 

https://www.msn.com/en-in/news/world/was-kamala-harris-drunk-during-christmas-speech-in-dc-social-media-reacts-to-viral-vide/ar-AA1vMWik?apiversion=v2&noservercache=1&domshim=1&renderwebcomponents=1&wcseo=1&batchservertelemetry=1&noservertelemetry=1

 

 

 

 

[Srikcir]

7 hours ago, riclag said:

Still waiting for the adjudicated verdict 

process of criminality by the dem judge!

The jury delivered the adjudicated verdict - guilty.

What we're now waiting for is the sentencing by the judge. SCOTUS has since ruled that the court (judge and not jury) must examine whether presidential immunity applies and that it may or may not determined by actions of the President, ie., whether Trump was acting as a civilian or within his duties as President. The SCOTUS did not provide any guidance per se on such an analysis. For example, being a candidate for President is not the same as being the President.

[johnnybangkok]

23 minutes ago, connda said:

  Now - I'll let all the far-Left progressives on my ignore list who are triggered have their rant which I won't be reading. 

The usual MAGA response - I don't like the facts you are presenting so I will stick my fingers in my ears and loudly shout 'la, la, la,la, la'

Proper schoolyard antics.

[HappyExpat57]

44 minutes ago, CallumWK said:

 

Sorry to break it for you, but even if she had 20% more popular vote than Trump, she would still not be elected.

What a shame that you want to DENY facts

That was not the discussion. Shouldn't stick your nose in and assume. Deal with that fact.

 

Some idiot claimed Harris lost in a landslide. Not true.