Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Andrew McCarthy is sometimes right. And sometimes wrong.

The jury found all three, unanimously, so this is a moot point.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We shouldn't get too exited about this. The precedent is set now and this kind of thing could be used against progressive candidates like Bernie or those who defend Israel. You may not like the new "rules".

This is not a precedent or a new rule. The precedent was the ridiculous assertion that this a$$hole was above the law and could commit any crimes he wanted.

Nobody has ever been convicted of [insert underlying federal crime] in our 248 year history, let alone leading presidential candidate.

The closest precedent was 2008 John Edwards case re: love child. Dropped of course.

I'd call it a new rule.

Is your position that running for president should provide immunity from prosecution for crimes?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We shouldn't get too exited about this. The precedent is set now and this kind of thing could be used against progressive candidates like Bernie or those who defend Israel. You may not like the new "rules".

This is not a precedent or a new rule. The precedent was the ridiculous assertion that this a$$hole was above the law and could commit any crimes he wanted.

Nobody has ever been convicted of [insert underlying federal crime] in our 248 year history, let alone leading presidential candidate.

The closest precedent was 2008 John Edwards case re: love child. Dropped of course.

I'd call it a new rule.

You are wrong.

Post is here for us, comrade!

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We shouldn't get too exited about this. The precedent is set now and this kind of thing could be used against progressive candidates like Bernie or those who defend Israel. You may not like the new "rules".

This is not a precedent or a new rule. The precedent was the ridiculous assertion that this a$$hole was above the law and could commit any crimes he wanted.

Nobody has ever been convicted of [insert underlying federal crime] in our 248 year history, let alone leading presidential candidate.

The closest precedent was 2008 John Edwards case re: love child. Dropped of course.

I'd call it a new rule.

You are wrong.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Please specifically name the federal crime he violated and the evidence produced in court to prove it beyond a reasonable doubt.

It can't be mythical "hush money" law. There is a widely reported $17M slush fund for congressional NDA's.

Also, misappropriation...Hillary plead that for the Steel dossier and paid a fine.

You are clueless.

Thanks for proving point by dodging.

The Judge explained it clearly in the jury instructions. It has been explained in this thread dozens of times. You are just too dense and delusional to accept the truth about your convicted hero.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We shouldn't get too exited about this. The precedent is set now and this kind of thing could be used against progressive candidates like Bernie or those who defend Israel. You may not like the new "rules".

This is not a precedent or a new rule. The precedent was the ridiculous assertion that this a$$hole was above the law and could commit any crimes he wanted.

Nobody has ever been convicted of [insert underlying federal crime] in our 248 year history, let alone leading presidential candidate.

The closest precedent was 2008 John Edwards case re: love child. Dropped of course.

I'd call it a new rule.

Anonymous wrote:Please specifically name the federal crime he violated and the evidence produced in court to prove it beyond a reasonable doubt.

It can't be mythical "hush money" law. There is a widely reported $17M slush fund for congressional NDA's.

Also, misappropriation...Hillary plead that for the Steel dossier and paid a fine.

It was a state not federal crime. They did a 5 week trial. All the transcripts are public. Feel free to read them yourself.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Please specifically name the federal crime he violated and the evidence produced in court to prove it beyond a reasonable doubt.

It can't be mythical "hush money" law. There is a widely reported $17M slush fund for congressional NDA's.

Also, misappropriation...Hillary plead that for the Steel dossier and paid a fine.

You are clueless.

Thanks for proving point by dodging.

No, hon. That PP spelled "disingenuous" wrong.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We shouldn't get too exited about this. The precedent is set now and this kind of thing could be used against progressive candidates like Bernie or those who defend Israel. You may not like the new "rules".

Legislators and other politicians have been prosecuted for hundreds of years in this country. 4 of the past 10 Illinois governors are convicted felons. This is nothing new.

Funny how the party of “law and order” is shocked when their orange 💩 is held accountable for blatant crimes.

If you can't do the time, don't do the crime.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Please specifically name the federal crime he violated and the evidence produced in court to prove it beyond a reasonable doubt.

It can't be mythical "hush money" law. There is a widely reported $17M slush fund for congressional NDA's.

Also, misappropriation...Hillary plead that for the Steel dossier and paid a fine.

You are clueless.

Thanks for proving point by dodging.

Anonymous wrote:Please specifically name the federal crime he violated and the evidence produced in court to prove it beyond a reasonable doubt.

It can't be mythical "hush money" law. There is a widely reported $17M slush fund for congressional NDA's.

Also, misappropriation...Hillary plead that for the Steel dossier and paid a fine.

You are clueless.

Anonymous wrote:We shouldn't get too exited about this. The precedent is set now and this kind of thing could be used against progressive candidates like Bernie or those who defend Israel. You may not like the new "rules".

This is not a precedent or a new rule. The precedent was the ridiculous assertion that this a$$hole was above the law and could commit any crimes he wanted.

Just copying and pasting my explanation from a few pages back of intent and degrees of a crime. Some people still seem confused about it. Just a reminder: Trump was convicted of falsifying business records in the first degree, a NY law.

If you break into a building to sleep, that’s a simple b&e, a misdemeanor in most jurisdictions. If you break into an occupied home with bolt cutters, zip ties, safe cracking tools and brass knuckles, that is felony b&e. Why? Because what you had in your possession shows the intent to commit another crime. No jury would believe you brought those things just for the hell of it. While the jury has to agree on all elements of b&e, and that you entered with the intent to commit another crime, they do not have to be unanimous on whether you were there to commit burglary, kidnapping, assault or whatever. The intent is clear, so the degree of the crime is raised to the felony level.

Anonymous wrote:One of my acquaintances is a Trump supporter. Takes a lot of nicotine pouches, buys supplements from podcast people like Joe Rogan, and of course donates to Trump’s campaign. He’s a bartender. This absolutely does not change his mind about Trump. If anything, he complains that this is a political persecution to sink in. He’s in a cult, basically

You mean he wasn't convinced by Pecker and Cohen?

Or he didn't actually pay attention to the trial and only read dumb takes on X?

Anonymous wrote:

Andrew McCarthy is sometimes right. And sometimes wrong.