May 30, 20241 yr 48 minutes ago, dawkins4prez said: And its nothing compared to his family's well documented slumlord shenanigans or his direct culpability in the tragedy of the Central Park 5 (which he STILL hasn't come around on). he's way more than a common off hand foul mouth, he is literally a cornerstone of New York City's institutionalized racism. The story about the Central Park 5 is absolutely tragic.
May 30, 20241 yr I don't think that's allowed even if it's in spoiler tags @mr_hunt I'd delete it so you don't get banned
May 30, 20241 yr 9 minutes ago, Mike030270 said: I don't think that's allowed even if it's in spoiler tags @mr_hunt I'd delete it so you don't get banned He post of pic of him pinching his little weenie?
May 30, 20241 yr 3 minutes ago, mikemack8 said: He post of pic of him pinching his little weenie? the pride of NEPA
May 30, 20241 yr 3 minutes ago, mikemack8 said: He post of pic of him pinching his little weenie? No. I don't want to spoil it if you missed it but your mom was in it.
May 30, 20241 yr 4 hours ago, vikas83 said: I finally got a chance to look at this last night. Basically, there are 3 steps -- they must find that he falsified business records (a NY state misdemeanor) in furtherance of another crime (impacting the election) by unlawful means. There are 3 potential ways to see unlawful means -- what the judge was saying is not all 12 have to see the same unlawful means. If 4 of them see option A, 4 see option B and 4 see option C, then all 12 still see unlawful means and therefore can convict. The disingenuous and ridiculous spin on this by Fox and others has been pathetic, but hardly surprising. It's not as bad as they are reporting, but I'm not sure it's as trivial, either. On the surface, it sounds like it has to be unanimous that he committed a crime, but it doesn't have to be unanimous about the same. The prosecutorial burden should be 12 for each means or they didn't prove their case. This sounds like they are just throwing crap against the wall and hoping something sticks while avoiding a hung jury. I wouldn't want to be convicted if 8 people think I'm innocent of option A, 8 others think I'm innocent of B, and 8 think I'm innocent of C because they were able to convince 4 that I used unlawful means in some capacity for A, B, and C. Our judicial system fails innocent people, but it's designed to let guilty people go if it's not beyond a reasonable doubt. I could be wrong, but if they all don't agree with every possible means, then that's not beyond a reasonable doubt. That's not how our system should work regardless of who is being charged.
May 30, 20241 yr 1 minute ago, VanHammersly said: No. I don't want to spoil it if you missed it but your mom was in it.
May 30, 20241 yr 8 minutes ago, Diehardfan said: It's not as bad as they are reporting, but I'm not sure it's as trivial, either. On the surface, it sounds like it has to be unanimous that he committed a crime, but it doesn't have to be unanimous about the same crime. The prosecutorial burden should be 12 for each or they didn't prove their case. This sounds like they are just throwing crap against the wall and hoping something sticks while avoiding a hung jury. No. They have to be unanimous on the crime, but not in the means in which it was carried out. If the charge were breaking and entering a home, and the evidence is a pile of broken glass, some scuff marks on the door, and footprints on the interior doormat, the jury needs to be unanimous that the suspect illegally entered the residence but need not be uninamous on whether he broke the side light glass first to unlock the door, or broke the door jamb, or if the door was just unlocked to begin with and he just walked right in. The three options aren't different crimes, they are different means in which the same crime was committed. Quote I wouldn't want to be convicted if 8 people think I'm innocent of option A, 8 others think I'm innocent of B, and 8 think I'm innocent of C because they were able to convince 4 that I used unlawful means in some capacity for A, B, and C. Jurors don't determine innocence, only guilt or absence of guilt. The criteria for guilt for this crime is that at least one of 3 means was satisfied, regardless of which one. Quote Our judicial system fails innocent people, but it's designed to let guilty people go if it's not beyond a reasonable doubt. I could be wrong, but if they all don't agree with every possible means, then that's not beyond a reasonable doubt. That's not how our system should work regardless of who is being charged. You are wrong. Stop listening to Fox News, dude.
May 30, 20241 yr 3 minutes ago, mr_hunt said: thirsty mikemack posted about my weiner twice today....... ....so far. Seems to be a running theme, even going back a few years...
May 30, 20241 yr 3 minutes ago, mr_hunt said: thirsty mikemack posted about my weiner twice today....... ....so far.
May 30, 20241 yr 8 minutes ago, we_gotta_believe said: No. They have to be unanimous on the crime, but not in the means in which it was carried out. If the charge were breaking and entering a home, and the evidence is a pile of broken glass, some scuff marks on the door, and footprints on the interior doormat, the jury needs to be unanimous that the suspect illegally entered the residence but need not be uninamous on whether he broke the side light glass first to unlock the door, or broke the door jamb, or if the door was just unlocked to begin with and he just walked right in. The three options aren't different crimes, they are different means in which the same crime was committed. Jurors don't determine innocence, only guilt or absence of guilt. The criteria for guilt for this crime is that at least one of 3 means was satisfied, regardless of which one. You are wrong. Stop listening to Fox News, dude. I didn’t listen to anyone just read the post. To me it sounds like they are charging him with multiple crimes but from what you said it's only one crime and they tried to prove it multiple ways? It's not election fraud and tax fraud for example?
May 30, 20241 yr 13 minutes ago, Diehardfan said: It's not as bad as they are reporting, but I'm not sure it's as trivial, either. On the surface, it sounds like it has to be unanimous that he committed a crime, but it doesn't have to be unanimous about the same. The prosecutorial burden should be 12 for each means or they didn't prove their case. This sounds like they are just throwing crap against the wall and hoping something sticks while avoiding a hung jury. I wouldn't want to be convicted if 8 people think I'm innocent of option A, 8 others think I'm innocent of B, and 8 think I'm innocent of C because they were able to convince 4 that I used unlawful means in some capacity for A, B, and C. Our judicial system fails innocent people, but it's designed to let guilty people go if it's not beyond a reasonable doubt. I could be wrong, but if they all don't agree with every possible means, then that's not beyond a reasonable doubt. That's not how our system should work regardless of who is being charged. For him to be innocent you would have to believe that Cohen acted alone and that Trump just paid him 150k out of kindness (a big stretch for a guy who cheats on his taxes and never pays his debts). He isn't innocent. He's committed so many crimes out in the open, it's not really a question anymore.
May 30, 20241 yr 2 minutes ago, mr_hunt said: lloyd just did a search for my weiner. Crazy how he found it quicker than your wife normally does.
May 30, 20241 yr Just now, Paul852 said: Crazy how he found it quicker than your wife normally does. Cell phones allow one to zoom in.
May 30, 20241 yr 45 minutes ago, Tnt4philly said: The story about the Central Park 5 is absolutely tragic. F yeah it is, for that alone you gotta be right happy to hear this fat bish whine about his "unfairest trial ever in NYC" . As if he 's going to jail like those kids did. Those poser arse tattooed bronx f'ckers at the rally need a history lesson.
May 30, 20241 yr 4 minutes ago, Gannan said: For him to be innocent you would have to believe that Cohen acted alone and that Trump just paid him 150k out of kindness (a big stretch for a guy who cheats on his taxes and never pays his debts). He isn't innocent. He's committed so many crimes out in the open, it's not really a question anymore. I'm not saying I think he is I'm trying to understand the instructions because I'm not a fan of the burden of proof being lessened against any defendant. WGB did a good job of explaining it but I thought it was multiple crimes he was charged with like tax and political fraud, but it sounds like it was just one with a few ways he did just one.
May 30, 20241 yr 1 minute ago, Diehardfan said: I didn’t listen to anyone just read the post. To me it sounds like they are charging him with multiple crimes but from what you said it's only one crime and they teied to prove it multiple ways? It's not election fraud and tax fraud for example? Of the crime of conspiracy to influence the election, the means in which that is carreid out could be via falsification of business records, tax fraud, or violations of the Fair Elections Act. If jurors believe he conspired to influence the election through at least one of those three methods, they are unanimous on his guilt for the charge in question. Again, just like the example above, if they all believe he entered the residence, they don't need to all be in accordance on which specific method he used to break in, only that he did in fact enter.
May 30, 20241 yr 4 minutes ago, mr_hunt said: lloyd just did a search for my weiner. Did it at work too. Had to explain to IT that "Hunt's Weiner" is a reference to the baked beans brand.
Create an account or sign in to comment