Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty

[TexasHooch 5215]

6 minutes ago, Sbbruin said:

I always love the Christian Nationalist portrayal of Jesus as a white guy.  

And Trump as a Christian.

[Jiggy-Z 3509]

53 minutes ago, HenryJames said:

Well that bouffant didn't fall far from the bouffant tree 

[smuggs 9399]

1 hour ago, Radical Larry said:

 

 

Rough night?

 

[Gatorubet 30789]

3 minutes ago, Js1 said:

....why?

And I am sure that doesn't apply to Cannon needing to recuse.

justice Alito wants to know why you aren’t watching the news

[C-Man 27831]

JD: "Why didn't they charge with something more than a paper violation?"

News flash, JD, there's more to come -- shit a lot worse than a 'paper violation.'

Prepare thy anus.

[Jiggy-Z 3509]

52 minutes ago, tx 3 putt said:

 

That suit was simply unprecedented in oval office history.  Oh wait....

[Surly Bevo 25778]

He had his flaws but good god I wish Mike Wallace was still around to face off with some of these dipshits.

[C-Man 27831]

Gotta give Wolf some credit here. I wouldn't have been able to restrain myself from slapping JD across the face in the first minute of that interview.

[faps 818]

5 minutes ago, Jiggy-Z said:

That suit was simply unprecedented in oval office history.  Oh wait....

 

[Jiggy-Z 3509]

2 minutes ago, Jiggy-Z said:

That suit was simply unprecedented in oval office history.  Oh wait....

Although, I suppose they might a point in that others have worn the look better...

 

[C-Man 27831]

6 minutes ago, Jiggy-Z said:

That suit was simply unprecedented in oval office history.  Oh wait....

Clinton looks like he's auditioning for an early Monday Night Football gig

[Jiggy-Z 3509]

Just now, C-Man said:

Clinton looks like he's auditioning for an early Monday Night Football gig

One post up.

[smuggs 9399]

[Sbbruin 22147]

1 minute ago, smuggs said:

First thing I thought of.  And of course smuggs got to it first.  Well played.

[Jiggy-Z 3509]

New nickname.

Tefelon Don.

I think this one will stick.

[UpperWestside 6285]

17 hours ago, PenelopeWitherspoon said:

We were toasting at a rooftop bar on W 35th.

I didn’t go out yesterday so I am sure I probably missed some celebrating, especially further down in Manhattan.

[C-Man 27831]

9 minutes ago, Jiggy-Z said:

One post up.

Posted almost simultaneously.

[elfenix 34780]

7 minutes ago, Jiggy-Z said:

Although, I suppose they might a point in that others have worn the look better...

 

i have to wonder if they developed that color for suit jackets because they looked good on black and white sets? color tv sales didn't surpass black and white in the US until 1972. 

[Bookman 4769]

1 hour ago, Hank Kingsley said:

Pretty much all my frustration is with the Republican party and their voters. When did they lose their pride?

I think it was the moment they were fooled into believing that reality television was actually real. 

[Neonmoon 38130]

Wolf tried to push back on Vance, but American journalists are not well equipped intellectually to counter the firehose of bullshit from the current cult conmen. We need British or Australian journos to teach ours how to handle this bullshit. 

[Francisco 2.0 32612]

58 minutes ago, YGIFS said:

“Languages Unknown”?

Someone should tell him one of the languages was Klingon.

[Askew 371]

1 hour ago, immamac said:

Yeah that's what makes this illegal. Not actually paying her to stfu and go away that's totally fine and what they are leaning on. They are conveniently omitting the fact that he did this with intent to influence the election. 

His lawyer may not have understood the charges based on his interviews. It's not that complicated but it is not straightforward either which leaves tons of room for the spin that's happening. 

This is slightly off-point. There is an intermediate step between 'legal' and 'felony' that can make this a misdemeanor. 

If the same exact conduct had been proved (ie., Cohen paid Stormy, then Trump reimburses Cohen but accounts the payments as a business expense and not a personal expense), but the jury decided that Trump did so to save his marriage, that is a misdemeanor. 

You are correct that the intent to further another crime (eg., influence the election or to commit tax fraud) makes this a felony, but what Trump world is getting wrong is that there is almost no world where Trump gets off without a misdemeanor charge. 

 

https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/research-reports/how-could-trumps-new-york-hush-money-trial-end

[TexArcher 39077]

34 minutes ago, Surly Bevo said:

Mechan needs to send him to jail.  Yes it will be a pain in the ass, but so fucking what.  He deserves it and at some point gonna have to rip the bandaid off.  The people who are pissed are not going to all of a sudden be not pissed so might as well do the right thing instead of trying to thread some needle.

100% agree, but everything I'm reading is that he's very unlikely to go to jail due to his age and lack of prior criminal record.

Is that about right, Surly legal minds?

Sidebar: I'm not sure why his age matters, when he wouldn't be going to Gen Pop anyway.  Besides, the motherfucker is a 34-time felon, and he should be shanked to death in a shower like the rest of us.

[BearSchlong 8252]

[immamac 44418]

7 minutes ago, Askew said:

This is slightly off-point. There is an intermediate step between 'legal' and 'felony' that can make this a misdemeanor. 

If the same exact conduct had been proved (ie., Cohen paid Stormy, then Trump reimburses Cohen but accounts the payments as a business expense and not a personal expense), but the jury decided that Trump did so to save his marriage, that is a misdemeanor. 

You are correct that the intent to further another crime (eg., influence the election or to commit tax fraud) makes this a felony, but what Trump world is getting wrong is that there is almost no world where Trump gets off without a misdemeanor charge. 

 

https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/research-reports/how-could-trumps-new-york-hush-money-trial-end

I don't think he did it for the writeoff. That's the point, he would have just paid himself to pay cohen in the situation you are explaining. 

[Francisco 2.0 32612]

https://defector.com/the-doubts-were-not-reasonable

 

Quote

Donald Trump committed crimes and a jury found him guilty. He was convicted on all counts Thursday, without much hesitation. 

"The only voice that matters is the voice of the jury," Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg said afterward, "and the jury has spoken." 

 

Quote

For the past eight years, a lot of essentially simple truths were treated as matters of paralyzing complexity. A man who ran his entire business empire on fraud, systematically cheated on his taxes, committed sexual assault, and conspired with his henchmen to obstruct justice had made himself into a presidential candidate, and then a president, and then an ex-president, and that second set of facts was somehow supposed to change the original, underlying facts. Presidents didn't do those sorts of things. Or, if a president did do those things, it certainly couldn't count—that would mean the president of the United States was a criminal, and that would mean ... well, it just couldn't. 

 

Quote

A little over a year ago, as Bragg prepared and delivered his indictment of Trump, there was a swift, broad agreement among people who comment on politics, Democratic- and Republican-aligned alike, that something terrible, foolhardy—distasteful—was happening. Even the people who professed to believe Trump was a criminal and wanted him held accountable for something were put out. 

 

Spoiler

Bragg had, as the truculent liberal New York magazine pundit Jonathan Chait wrote, wandered into the danger of "the criminalization of politics." Piously shifty New York Times conservative columnist Ross Douthat wrote that Bragg was filing "doubtful charges" that could "establish a pattern of legal revenge seeking against the out-of-power party." 

The Washington Post editorial board fretted that the charges might be "shaky" and that the New York indictment was  "perhaps the least compelling" of the cases against Trump. With other prosecutors pursuing more "straightforward" charges against Trump, the board warned, a "failed prosecution over the hush-money payment could put them all in jeopardy." 

"I hate the fact that this particular case is the one they’re throwing against him," Douthat's conservative teammate Bret Stephens wrote in one of his light-lifting Odd Couple chat-columns with Gail Collins. "The case in Georgia is so much stronger."

The first prong of that style of complaint depended on a nonexistent "they"—some unified anti-Trump law-enforcement conspiracy that chose to have the Manhattan district attorney file charges for the New York state crimes Trump had committed, out of all the available crimes in all the available jurisdictions. But if Bragg's indictment did have any relation to other prosecutors' decision-making, the effect seemed to be that it shook loose their indictments, not that it preempted them. 

It was the second part of the complaint, though, where the pundit chorus truly found its voice. Because the politics of the indictment were so uncomfortable, emotional logic demanded that there must also have been something wrong with it legally. Instantly, everyone was an expert on the details of how the New York criminal code applied to business activity. 

"To imagine this particular combination of campaign-finance charges and business-records enforcement as simply 'the law' is wildly naïve," Chait wrote. "Prosecutors have some cases that clearly constitute crimes (say, tax fraud), others that clearly do not constitute crimes, and a nebulous middle ground in which judgment is required."

In a situation that demanded "clear evidence, all-but-obvious guilt and loads of legal precedent behind your case," Douthat wrote, the New York case "does not have the look of a slam dunk."

"The way I read it, Trump is goading Bragg to indict," Stephens wrote in another of his Collins chats. "It would be an exceptionally weak case, resting on what is ordinarily a misdemeanor offense."

None of these people knew what they were talking about. They were holding forth with assurance, in tones of authority, about matters on which they were completely, professionally ignorant. Nor was the ignorance restricted to full-time journalists. Law professor Jed Handelsman Shugarman declared in a Times opinion piece that the indictment "was a setback for the rule of law and established a dangerous precedent for prosecutors" and predicted that the case was "so weak on its legal and jurisdictional basis that a state judge might dismiss the case and mitigate that damage," or that Trump could mount federal challenges so that a trial "would most likely not start until at least mid-2024, possibly even after the 2024 election."

While the opinion-havers were indulging themselves in mythology or fantasy—Trump as the embodiment of the will of the people, whose wrathful political power would only grow if challenged by law, or Trump as the highest of criminals, who must be punished by the highest of authorities—Bragg was putting together the documents and witnesses that would sustain 34 felony counts in a Manhattan courtroom. While the prosecutors with weightier, more historic-sounding charges were getting bogged down in their timelines and stymied by Trump's judiciary, the squalid little hush-money case kept moving. 

Donald Trump's political career has been one long demonstration that the legal structures that were supposed to be the bedrock of the rule of law are worthless. Impeachment was no match for a cynically disciplined political party. The Emoluments Clause and the Insurrection Clause are words on paper that the Supreme Court chose not to read. Even a well-tested prosecution machine like the Espionage Act is nothing that a determined judge can't rig her way around. 

What caught up with Donald Trump was not the majesty of the republic but a civil suit for sexually assaulting someone in a department-store changing room and lying about it, and another civil suit for cooking the books on his property assessments, and now the criminal charges for covering up his hush-money payments. He is, as a matter of legal record, a rapist, a fraud, and a felon, on the edge of financial ruin and at risk of imprisonment. He might yet return to the White House, but he'll go there as a convicted crook.

 

 

[jimmyjazz 47326]

26 minutes ago, elfenix said:

i have to wonder if they developed that color for suit jackets because they looked good on black and white sets? color tv sales didn't surpass black and white in the US until 1972. 

Probably.  Gibson created a guitar finish called "TV Yellow" that came across as white on TV.  A true white finish just blew out the camera feed.

[C-Man 27831]

3 minutes ago, immamac said:

I don't think he did it for the writeoff. That's the point, he would have just paid himself to pay cohen in the situation you are explaining. 

At the end of the day, Trump is a cheap motherfucker and doesn't want to pay anything to anybody. If he'd just written Stormy a $130K personal check and not tried to run it through the campaign, he would've been free-and-clear on this. If he'd just walked away in November 2020, none of this other shit would've ever come to light and would've simply been dismissed and he could've led the rest of his life in comfort and luxury but he's fucking demented and deranged. And cheap. Did I mention that he's cheap?

[honolulu horn 6241]

I realize that his base will excuse away the convictions and convince themselves that he’s the real victim. But when are they going to get tired of his constant insipid whining? Every time he opens his mouth he is complaining and crying about being wronged. It’s insufferable. Fucking whiny snowflake. 

[HenryJames 67466]

I was told there would be riots. 

Funny how weak Trump is when he’s actually held accountable.

[RomaVicta 30634]

1 hour ago, Mittens said:

Trump:  We will appeal!

Manhattan Appeals Court:

 

 

 

1 hour ago, HenryJames said:

[atomheartbevo 90676]

5 minutes ago, HenryJames said:

I was told there would be riots. 

Funny how weak Trump is when he’s actually held accountable.

Yep. I didn’t see anybody standing by to do jackshit. Instead, it was a bunch of crying snowflakes melting down.

[Askew 371]

10 minutes ago, immamac said:

I don't think he did it for the writeoff. That's the point, he would have just paid himself to pay cohen in the situation you are explaining. 

Let's say the motive is to save his marriage. Is it easier to hide an affair using your business as a slush fund, or your personal account that your wife probably has access to? 

Even if there was no tax motive or election motive, it is still plausible a businessman would use his business to conceal a personal hush money payment. But, to use the business + lawyer method that was used here, you have to account the payment as a legal expense, even though there is no business purpose. This is a misdemeanor in NY.  

[atomheartbevo 90676]

12 minutes ago, C-Man said:

At the end of the day, Trump is a cheap motherfucker and doesn't want to pay anything to anybody. If he'd just written Stormy a $130K personal check and not tried to run it through the campaign, he would've been free-and-clear on this. If he'd just walked away in November 2020, none of this other shit would've ever come to light and would've simply been dismissed and he could've led the rest of his life in comfort and luxury but he's fucking demented and deranged. And cheap. Did I mention that he's cheap?

All of this.  One simple personal check and it’s done.

Just now, Askew said:

Let's say the motive is to save his marriage. Is it easier to hide an affair using your business as a slush fund, or your personal account that your wife probably has access to? 

Fairly certain that Melania does not have access to his accounts, and has her own account he puts money into.

[DixonHur 11970]

1 hour ago, tx 3 putt said:

This is how a democracy fails ….

 

So now they're openly admitting that their SCOTUS judges are political partisans and not fact-based jurists?

[TwiceHorn 32107]

[atomheartbevo 90676]

Just now, TwiceHorn said:

I got this same message, about some guy asking me to gobble his crank.

[shakahorn 1660]

31 minutes ago, TexArcher said:

100% agree, but everything I'm reading is that he's very unlikely to go to jail due to his age and lack of prior criminal record.

Is that about right, Surly legal minds?

Sidebar: I'm not sure why his age matters, when he wouldn't be going to Gen Pop anyway.  Besides, the motherfucker is a 34-time felon, and he should be shanked to death in a shower like the rest of us.

That's what his lawyer Blanche said on CNN yesterday.  Of course, a few seconds later, Blanche said it was up to the prosecution to call witnesses who would exonerate his client.

[Askew 371]

5 minutes ago, atomheartbevo said:

All of this.  One simple personal check and it’s done.

Fairly certain that Melania does not have access to his accounts, and has her own account he puts money into.

Fair enough and likely true. I am just stating my general assumption that a spouse usually has less access to business records than personal records. 

[C-Man 27831]

6 minutes ago, Askew said:

Let's say the motive is to save his marriage. Is it easier to hide an affair using your business as a slush fund, or your personal account that your wife probably has access to? 

Even if there was no tax motive or election motive, it is still plausible a businessman would use his business to conceal a personal hush money payment. But, to use the business + lawyer method that was used here, you have to account the payment as a legal expense, even though there is no business purpose. This is a misdemeanor in NY.  

He's cheated on every woman he's ever had a relationship with, right? Why pay this one of hundreds to keep quiet? Because he was running for POTUS. And then he didn't want to use his money. This + That = Big Fucking Problem

 

6 minutes ago, atomheartbevo said:

All of this.  One simple personal check and it’s done.

Fairly certain that Melania does not have access to his accounts, and has her own account he puts money into.

Not a chance she's on any of his accounts -- probably for this very reason.

[The Dog 44865]

One thing is becoming apparent - Trump and his gang did NOT expect a conviction. They really thought he was going to beat the rap.

[Red Five 41785]

It's amazing how backwards everything is for about half the country. Instead of crying "How could this happen in America???", the question should be "How on earth did a career criminal conman get elected president in the first place?". We need to have a serious dialogue in this country about how that did actually happen. Good luck with that though.

[C-Man 27831]

2 minutes ago, Askew said:

Fair enough and likely true. I am just stating my general assumption that a spouse usually has less access to business records than personal records. 

Pretty sure she has ZERO access to any of his accounts/records, business or personal, unless it's a divorce situation. But I'm assuming there's a pre-nup in place so there'd be little need to do any forensic accounting.

[immamac 44418]

Just now, Red Five said:

It's amazing how backwards everything is for about half the country. Instead of crying "How could this happen in America???", the question should be "How on earth did a career criminal conman get elected president in the first place?". We need to have a serious dialogue in this country about how that did actually happen. Good luck with that though.

I think this is an overreaction. I think a ton of people are using this as smelling salts. It was a jury trial not a bench trial. 

[C-Man 27831]

1 minute ago, Red Five said:

It's amazing how backwards everything is for about half the country. Instead of crying "How could this happen in America???", the question should be "How on earth did a career criminal conman get elected president in the first place?". We need to have a serious dialogue in this country about how that did actually happen. Good luck with that though.

That toothpaste is already out of the tube. They're lost. We must beat him in November and then we can *maybe* start the healing process with those lost MAGA souls.

[Jiggy-Z 3509]

32 minutes ago, BearSchlong said:

Hands are also ridiculously oversized-beware not authentic!!!

[MonkeyDoughnut 10811]

1 minute ago, C-Man said:

That toothpaste is already out of the tube. They're lost. We must beat him in November and then we can *maybe* start the healing process with those lost MAGA souls.

unfortunately... beat him in November likely just means another 4 years of a Trump/MAGA election cycle.

[TexArcher 39077]

2 minutes ago, C-Man said:

That toothpaste is already out of the tube. They're lost. We must beat him in November and then we can *maybe* start the healing process with those lost MAGA souls.

Right, but if Trump loses, it was a rigged election.

And if Trump dies in the meantime, he was assassinated.

Fox News has completely broken over 1/3 of this country, and there's no putting them back together again.

I'm afraid that either Trump wins in November, or that mob is gonna make us all forget about Jan 6th.

[immamac 44418]

1 minute ago, MonkeyDoughnut said:

unfortunately... beat him in November likely just means another 4 years of a Trump/MAGA election cycle.

No. It's over if they lose again and lose ground in the house or senate. Trump is a loser. The Republican party will self destruct if the lose. 

[Bama Llama 1510]

 Trump Nation was all prepared to celebrate like the Boogers in Auburn just before this happened.  They never conceived they might LOSE!

Yeah, yeah.  Now the Horns have Bond.   I’m sute he’ll excel on the 40 Acres.  More power to him.