Verdict reached in Trump hush money trial

[Phil C. McNasty]

Not really.
All I did was link to the pages you linked to and show you were wrong on the face of it

Right, but you still missed the dates

So it matters if you think it supports you and it doesn't matter if you think it doesn't?
Well, at least you are honestly dishonest, I guess.

No idea what you're trying to say here with your jibberish

Which isn't what you argued.
You argued it was improving his position.

The fact is these aren't particularly useful and are basically statistical noise.

If you really wanted to make a statement about whether or not there has been an effect, you would take a clue from your comment on the PA polls and look at the dates.

The verdict came down on the 30th. So if you ignore the poll that straddles that (I&I/TIPP) that was conducted 5/29-5/31 and hilariously comes out as a Tie so is easy to find, you can take the 7 polls before the verdict and the 7 polls after.

View attachment 332518

Before the verdict: Average is Trump up by 1.8
After the verdict: Average is a tie.

Now, that probably has to do with me calculating by just using the win margins.

If we do it using the numbers they list...

Before the verdict: Trump 47.1 / Biden 45.3 (Trump +1.8)
After the verdict: Trump 45.5 / Biden 45.5 (Tie)

Nope, it comes out exactly the same

Okay, but that still doesnt change the fact that according to all polls Trump's criminal conviction hasnt dented his popularity.
So its another FAIL for the Dummycrats who were hoping Trump numbers would come down if he was convicted

 

[Valcazar]

No idea what you're trying to say here with your jibberish

Unsurprising.

Okay, but that still doesnt change the fact that according to all polls Trump's criminal conviction hasnt dented his popularity.
So its another FAIL for the Dummycrats who were hoping Trump numbers would come down if he was convicted

Two problems.

One - it does appear to have dented his popularity given the numbers RCP has.
(I just don't have a lot of faith in the polls.)

Two - your belief that the only reason he was prosecuted was as an election ploy is delusional.

 

[dirtydaveiii]

Trumps campaign song : https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&sou...wqsBegQIPBAG&usg=AOvVaw3TnRZFrhRwoaD8wpNagC-u

 

[Phil C. McNasty]

Two - your belief that the only reason he was prosecuted was as an election ploy is delusional

Its only delusional to people who lack common sense.

There's a reason why this meme rings true (note the common sense particle)

 

[WyattEarp]

Did any of those congressman get arrested or convicted for doing the same thing??

They didn't do the same thing, so no.
Are you saying charges should be invented about them?

Actually, paying off a mistress so she keeps her piehole shut is not against the law

Which is why it wasn't listed as a crime that he did.

I think you and others are being disingenuous with your responses and how much you portray here about the case.

There's nothing there unless one believes the hush money payment was a campaign finance violation. Having Congress pay-off MILLIONS to those who were sexually harassed is essentially institutionalized hush money. It certainly was a gentlemen's agreement to protect members and their re-election campaigns. It's kind of remarkable that our two parties worked together to execute this over many years and keep quiet about it. Bravo Congress!

But yeah in order to keep up your argument, you have to dismiss it with another flippant "it's not the same thing". Many people disagree.

It's been said over and over the misclassification itself is a big nothing without first a felony being demonstrated and proven with the payment. So this mess that came out of this NY court will need to be sorted out by an appeals court. Was Trump and his defense team adequately instructed by the prosecutor what felony initially occurred in advance of the trial? Were they allowed to make their case to the jury that a felony did not occur with the actual payment?

My favorite comment comes from the Wall Street Journal Editorial Board:
"On the law, though, the case was a bizarre turducken, with alleged crimes stuffed inside other crimes."

 

[WyattEarp]

......it does appear to have dented his popularity given the numbers RCP has.
(I just don't have a lot of faith in the polls.)

Even if we all have faith in polls, I'm not sure the numbers have moved enough to change the course of the election now or later.

However from my perspective, the Democrats are now in a really bad place. They (NY Dems) have caught the mouse. Now what?

1) Sentence Trump to jail? Will that change voters minds to Biden or make Trump sympathetic?

2) Probation? Certainly some independent voters will ask "all that time and money for that?"

Think about it. The felony conviction was the best they could have hoped for and it has passed.

 

[Leimonis]

There's nothing there unless one believes the hush money payment was a campaign finance violation.

if only Trump testified and told us why right before the election he paid a porn star a ton of money and then doubled it to offset cohen taxes, then maybe one would not believe that it was a campaign finance violation

 

[WyattEarp]

if only Trump testified and told us why right before the election he paid a porn star a ton of money and then doubled it to offset cohen taxes, then maybe one would not believe that it was a campaign finance violation
View attachment 333351

In our system of law here in the United States, crimes aren't assessed based on speculation. It's quite an amazing concept if you break it down.

Anyway, we have precedence in campaign finance law that basically says that candidates and their friends/supporters can preserve the appearance and reputation of candidates. There is no delineation between whether it is purely for personal reasons or for campaign purposes.

That's just the way Federal campaign finance law has worked. It was probably for the best as it would lead (and had led in the past i.e. John Edwards) to elected prosecutors trying to take down politicians for political benefit. Unfortunately, "getting Trump" seems to have made people lose their sense of direction with the law.

As far as why it happened before the election is irrelevant. I hear people say that it was too close to the election. It doesn't matter if it was one year before, six months before or whatever because we don't have to codify legal personal expenses. Besides, the amazing thing is that if this payment was classified as the prosecutor argues it would have been 2017 when is was reported.

By the way, you are bringing up some type of extraneous tax matter. The IRS is not pursuing charges as grossing up payments to cover a tax liability is not illegal as long as the IRS gets their cut.

 

[Phil C. McNasty]

@WyattEarp just curious, but who are you voting for in November??

 

[Leimonis]

By the way, you are bringing up some type of extraneous tax matter. The IRS is not pursuing charges as grossing up payments to cover a tax liability is not illegal as long as the IRS gets their cut.

grossing up is not illegal per se but such an extravagant expense creates an irresistible inference that trump knew this payment to be illegal...and surprise surprise! 12 people accepted it beyond a reasonable doubt

 

[WyattEarp]

grossing up is not illegal per se but such an extravagant expense creates an irresistible inference that trump knew this payment to be illegal...and surprise surprise! 12 people accepted it beyond a reasonable doubt

It's actually quite common in business to achieve a desired financial renumeration especially with employees or someone working on their behalf. There's a lot of overly-distilled information being reported from various media outlet. Perhaps this is your self-distillation.

I'd love to entertain this concept of the grossed-up payments to Cohen inferring guilt, but as said I and various Federal entities didn't see a campaign finance violation. The whole Trump himself thought he was violating campaign finance laws doesn't make it a crime in the eyes of the law. It's an interesting idea, but more than likely Trump and Cohen didn't know enough about campaign finance laws to really give the payments much thought.

 

[Valcazar]

I think you and others are being disingenuous with your responses and how much you portray here about the case.

There's nothing there unless one believes the hush money payment was a campaign finance violation.

No, though?
That's not correct.

It's been said over and over the misclassification itself is a big nothing without first a felony being demonstrated and proven with the payment.

"The payment to the mistress was a crime" wasn't a thing that had to be proved.

 

[Valcazar]

Even if we all have faith in polls, I'm not sure the numbers have moved enough to change the course of the election now or later.

They have moved very little and I don't expect them to move much.
It has been close, it will be close.

However from my perspective, the Democrats are now in a really bad place. They (NY Dems) have caught the mouse. Now what?

1) Sentence Trump to jail? Will that change voters minds to Biden or make Trump sympathetic?

2) Probation? Certainly some independent voters will ask "all that time and money for that?"

Think about it. The felony conviction was the best they could have hoped for and it has passed.

If you view everything from the point of view of the horse race, then anything other than "It stops Trump" would be a failure.

 

[WyattEarp]

No, though?
That's not correct.

"The payment to the mistress was a crime" wasn't a thing that had to be proved.

I believe your employing a bit of wordsmithing in quotations attempting to obfuscate what people have actually been saying. What has been said is that the New York DA would have and still might have to prove a federal election campaign finance violation. And even at that he would have to prove it was a felony violation.

None of these arguments are new and peculiar to threads here. There widely discussed in the public arena. In fact, it seems the general public is underwhelmed with the New York case.

 

[WyattEarp]

If you view everything from the point of view of the horse race, then anything other than "It stops Trump" would be a failure.

If you follow my posts, you should get the picture that I tend to lean on the practical reality whether people on the left and right like hearing them.

Having said that, what public purpose (after all that time and money) was served in this case if Trump is given probation? I don't know anyone who really believes that these NY codes were creatively applied to send a general message to all politicians who would attempt payments of this nature. "The State has sent a message" Really?

"It stops Trump" is not the standard I have established. It's clear that this is what many people on the Left are cheering and demanding from this prosecution.

 

[Valcazar]

I believe your employing a bit of wordsmithing in quotations attempting to obfuscate what people have actually been saying. What has been said is that the New York DA would have and still might have to prove a federal election campaign finance violation. And even at that he would have to prove it was a felony violation.

I know people have been saying that.
It just doesn't appear to be true, from what I can gather.

It's a political line being used as an argument on talk shows.

None of these arguments are new and peculiar to threads here. There widely discussed in the public arena. In fact, it seems the general public is underwhelmed with the New York case.

Which is, again, only of real importance if you think the point of the case is to affect the election.

If you follow my posts, you should get the picture that I tend to lean on the practical reality whether people on the left and right like hearing them.

Having said that, what public purpose (after all that time and money) was served in this case if Trump is given probation? I don't know anyone who really believes that these NY codes were creatively applied to send a general message to all politicians who would attempt payments of this nature. "The State has sent a message" Really?

So you just don't think the law should be applied?
Personally, I am happy to see white collar crime prosecuted more.

Do you think jail is the only useful outcome here?

"It stops Trump" is not the standard I have established. It's clear that this is what many people on the Left are cheering and demanding from this prosecution.

It does appear to be the standard you are using, though.
You keep saying that it isn't affecting the election and people don't mostly care, therefore it was useless and shouldn't have been done.
I don't disagree that there are many people who viewed it this way - I think they were wrong to do so.
How many times have I had to explain on this very board that Trump can absolutely run from prison and wouldn't even be the first to do so?

 

[Leimonis]

I know people have been saying that.
It just doesn't appear to be true, from what I can gather.

It's a political line being used as an argument on talk shows.



Which is, again, only of real importance if you think the point of the case is to affect the election.



So you just don't think the law should be applied?
Personally, I am happy to see white collar crime prosecuted more.

Do you think jail is the only useful outcome here?



It does appear to be the standard you are using, though.
You keep saying that it isn't affecting the election and people don't mostly care, therefore it was useless and shouldn't have been done.
I don't disagree that there are many people who viewed it this way - I think they were wrong to do so.
How many times have I had to explain on this very board that Trump can absolutely run from prison and wouldn't even be the first to do so?

Imagine that in 2016 Trump would be given some kind of a magical guarantee that when the affair becomes public knowledge no Joe Schmoe is going to change their vote .
In this scenario does anyone seriously believe that Trump would still pay stormy?

 

[Valcazar]

Imagine that in 2016 Trump would be given some kind of a magical guarantee that when the affair becomes public knowledge no Joe Schmoe is going to change their vote .
In this scenario does anyone seriously believe that Trump would still pay stormy?

You can't just talk about paying Stormy Daniels - you have to look at the whole deal with the National Enquirer.

 

[Phil C. McNasty]

Another win for Trump. Manhattan prosecutors agree to delay Trump's sentencing

Judge Delays Trump’s Sentencing Until Sept. 18 After Immunity Claim

Donald J. Trump’s lawyers want to argue that a Supreme Court decision giving presidents immunity for official acts should void his felony conviction for covering up hush money paid to a porn star.

www.nytimes.com

 

[Phil C. McNasty]