Jump to content
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

***Official Donald J. Trump Impeachment (Whistleblower) Thread***


snitwitch

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, Dinsy Ejotuz said:

Didn't see that, but I did read that the NY AG brought a band of forensic accounting killers to  help "follow the money".

He’s for sure running again.  The only way he stays out of jail is to drag out the SDNY prosecution into appeals and hopefully win the White House.  

  • Sad 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, zoonation said:

He’s for sure running again.  The only way he stays out of jail is to drag out the SDNY prosecution into appeals and hopefully win the White House.  

This is what I've been saying. He's guilty and he's going to try and duck into the White House to avoid prosecution. If they just leave it alone, he might not run. That's a quid pro quo that'll benefit everybody. I couldn't care less if this guy spends his last years grifting and golfing and fancy free, just keep him away from the presidency.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, rockaction said:

This is what I've been saying. He's guilty and he's going to try and duck into the White House to avoid prosecution. If they just leave it alone, he might not run. That's a quid pro quo that'll benefit everybody. I couldn't care less if this guy spends his last years grifting and golfing and fancy free, just keep him away from the presidency.

One would think that enough dirt would be put out in open court that even if he did run again, he'd lose a GOP primary.  But who are we kidding... he'd just claim it's all fake and lies and they are all out to get him and he'd still get 50% of primary voters to pull the lever for him.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, rockaction said:

This is what I've been saying. He's guilty and he's going to try and duck into the White House to avoid prosecution. If they just leave it alone, he might not run. That's a quid pro quo that'll benefit everybody. I couldn't care less if this guy spends his last years grifting and golfing and fancy free, just keep him away from the presidency.

I hear what you’re saying, but I don’t think that can be the analysis that wins the day.  This guy almost certainly defrauded the state of NY to the tune of a hundred mil or more.  The rule of law still matters in a democratic society, no matter how hard Donald has tried to erode it. 

Besides, he won’t win in 2024 anyway.  He got crushed last year.  Although, given the GOP’s all-in voter suppression efforts, who knows?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, zoonation said:

Besides, he won’t win in 2024 anyway.  He got crushed last year.

You'd be surprised how much things can change in three months, never mind three years. If something catastrophic happens between now and then, he might just win. Right now, they're just printing money at the Fed. What happens if that goes awry and we see markets and the economy hit the skids? What if COVID mutates and takes off in a more virulent, passable strain, etc.?

Lots of things can happen.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, zoonation said:

I hear what you’re saying, but I don’t think that can be the analysis that wins the day.  This guy almost certainly defrauded the state of NY to the tune of a hundred mil or more.  The rule of law still matters in a democratic society, no matter how hard Donald has tried to erode it.

The rule of law is pliable and prosecutors have discretion regarding which cases they choose to pursue. The one major flaw in my analysis is what sort of certainty could they have that he wouldn't run if they didn't prosecute him? Probably none, so my argument is really moot.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, rockaction said:

This is what I've been saying. He's guilty and he's going to try and duck into the White House to avoid prosecution. If they just leave it alone, he might not run. That's a quid pro quo that'll benefit everybody. I couldn't care less if this guy spends his last years grifting and golfing and fancy free, just keep him away from the presidency.

I dont understand how anyone can keep believing that everything is a “witch hunt” with everything that has happened in the last 4 years, let alone the Republican Party allowing him to run again. The allegations of sexual assault coupled with his p grabbing statements coupled with the extramarital affairs and hush money payments plus his friendship with a known child trafficker should be enough to disqualify. His campaign contacts with Russia coupled with the damning release of stolen info coupled with inaction on bounties and a major cyber breech we still haven’t contained should be enough to disqualify. His 2 time impeachment should disqualify. His halting of aid to Ukraine to get an announcement of an investigation of a political rival (and subsequent release of funds when caught) is enough. His courting of militias. The money he has directed to his businesses. Arms sales to the Middle East. In love with North Korean dictator (his words, not mine.) Covid inaction. Insurrection. 

All of this is just a witch hunt? 
 

How can it even be a consideration to allow him to run again? How is the Republican Party not running away from this guy?

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1
  • Love 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, rockaction said:

The rule of law is pliable and prosecutors have discretion regarding which cases they choose to pursue. The one major flaw in my analysis is what sort of certainty could they have that he wouldn't run if they didn't prosecute him? Probably none, so my argument is really moot.

Yes. The idea that if we just let Trump get away with whatever he wants, he'll stop doing crimes and instead quietly retreat from public life ... doesn't have a great track record.

An explicit plea bargain where he admits to his crimes, pleads guilty, and avoids prison in return for an agreement not to run again could be on the table.

But unilateral disarmament without an explicit bargain should not be.

  • Like 5
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Maurile Tremblay said:

Yes. The idea that if we just let Trump get away with whatever he wants, he'll stop doing crimes and instead quietly retreat from public life ... doesn't have a great track record.

An explicit plea bargain where he admits to his crimes, pleads guilty, and avoids prison in return for an agreement not to run again could be on the table.

But unilateral disarmament without an explicit bargain should not be.

Agreed. It wasn't a very good solution. Wishful thinking on my part, and I realized it soon after I typed it. We had a kid on campus get accused of rape but the University had bungled the investigation. In a gentleman's agreement, they agreed not to have it follow his record and he was to leave the University. Case officially closed.

He resumed taking classes next semester to almost everybody's astonishment. You can't rely on unwritten agreements like that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

53 minutes ago, Maurile Tremblay said:

An explicit plea bargain where he admits to his crimes, pleads guilty, and avoids prison in return for an agreement not to run again could be on the table.

Is that legal in a plea bargain?  What rights are you allowed to sign away in such a deal?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

25 minutes ago, The Z Machine said:

Is that legal in a plea bargain?  What rights are you allowed to sign away in such a deal?

They could put that in a plea agreement only to have Trump ignore it and keep it tied up in court while he runs again. Does anyone think the GOP would do anything to stop him? He’s a private citizen, treat him like one and go aggressively down whatever path the evidence takes you. Probably won’t matter anyway as I’m sure he’s made sealed pardons that we will find out about once him and his family are charged.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 hours ago, rockaction said:
16 hours ago, zoonation said:

He’s for sure running again.  The only way he stays out of jail is to drag out the SDNY prosecution into appeals and hopefully win the White House.  

This is what I've been saying. He's guilty and he's going to try and duck into the White House to avoid prosecution. If they just leave it alone, he might not run. That's a quid pro quo that'll benefit everybody. I couldn't care less if this guy spends his last years grifting and golfing and fancy free, just keep him away from the presidency.

He's going to run again, or at least announce that he is and start fundraising.   Donors both large and small have shown him how easily they can be fleeced, and that superpac money that can be spent for just about anything without reporting requirements is a dream come true.    I doubt he wants to win, but free money is just too much to pass up.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, the rover said:

He's going to run again, or at least announce that he is and start fundraising.   Donors both large and small have shown him how easily they can be fleeced, and that superpac money that can be spent for just about anything without reporting requirements is a dream come true.    I doubt he wants to win, but free money is just too much to pass up.

This too.

"Did you say I could get this for free?"

"Yup! Free ninety-nine!"

"Free ninety-nine?! Awww, girl!"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, the rover said:

He's going to run again, or at least announce that he is and start fundraising.   Donors both large and small have shown him how easily they can be fleeced, and that superpac money that can be spent for just about anything without reporting requirements is a dream come true.    I doubt he wants to win, but free money is just too much to pass up.

I think this is the family business now.  

The hospitality thing is done, just done.  The Trump Organization hasn't been buying hotels, and running them, where the real money is.  They have been leasing out their brand, they pick the silver and beds, put their name on it, and take an upfront payoff, and maybe some management fees in future years.  BUT we're only talking about a few million here and there.  They SOLD a bunch of hotel rooms in hotels they actually own, so they got some money decades ago, and now they have to give the owner his cut of every night sold, and the owner comes and uses it for free when they like.  So even in the hotels they OWN, they don't see the same return that they would normally get.  

They overpaid for the DC property, and even when they spent 4 years steering business there, the US govt is the landlord now, they are trying to sell.  They may come out ahead on that sale, but it's just as likely they take a bath on it.  Either way, it's not long term revenue.  Crazy Article

It's pretty likely to me that it's full time Trump Telethon SuperPAC Why The Heck Didn't We Think if This Before??  The Trumps must have figured out by now that campaign finance policing is a joke.  

Conservatives would be completely within their rights to be terrified about where the donor dollars go over the next few years.  I do not underestimate Trump when I wonder about the various ways he could fleece a fundraiser with fees and salaries, and the complete lack of shame with which he would employ while doing so.

A lot of these smaller campaigns might have no chance if it wasn't for money coming from these Super PACs.  These PACs are run by people who want to see the GOP win everywhere.

What happens when the biggest fundraiser, by far, couldn't care less about a state senator from Ohio, or Wisconsin?  

Edited by massraider
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Maurile Tremblay said:

I don't know, maybe @Zow can comment, but I think there's generally a lot of leeway in what can be a condition of probation (as part of a voluntary plea agreement).

Generally, yes, there is a lot of leeway to the parties (state and defendant). Very commonly things like "no alcohol," "no contact with person X," "must obtain a high school diploma or GED," "must take medications as prescribed," "donation to charity X" etc. are found in plea agreements whereas they may be terms a sentencing judge likely wouldn't or can't impose after sentencing. 

The question really turns though on whether the term is actually enforceable. In thinking of some of the more out-of-the-box or unique terms I've seen in pleas I have encountered a few were found to be unenforceable by the judge (even though the judge ultimately accepted the plea and entered it of record)." One example was an actual "leave town by midnight" term that a prosecutor demanded be in there - my client accepted the plea for its other advantages and I distinctly recall the sentencing judge saying something along the lines that he (the judge) didn't plan on enforcing the term.  

Thinking of some more analogous examples to the Trump hypo that sparked this discussion, I can think of two situations that may provide some guidance on how it could work or not. The first example - where I didn't take issue and thought it was okay - was a plea agreement whereby my client would serve x amount of days in jail unless she provided proof that she had a new residence in another city. However, I did have a case where my client was accused of stealing a local candidate's political signs becausethe client found out that the candidate was not really a true Trump supporter even thought he had himself out to be. The matter was merely a misdemeanor theft matter but I do recall the prosecutor wanted to put in the plea agreement that she forfeited her right to vote in the next election (a right she wouldn't have otherwise lost with a mere misdemeanor conviction). I recall being uncomfortable with the proposed term, and IIRC we resolved it another way (because my client wouldn't agree to a plea with that term in it). 

Another county in my state had a somewhat similar issue go up on appeal. While I wasn't directly involved, as I understand it the prosecutor and the judges in the county were de facto (blanket inclusion in every plea and terms of probation) including no medical marijuana as a term of probation in a plea agreement. This was found to be an unconstitutional practice and those terms were, as I understand it, held to be unenforceable. 

 

In short, I think an enforceable plea agreement may be able to be reached where a term is that the defendant agrees not to run for president. However, I would think it would need to be fashioned as an either or proposition with some other term. 

Edited by Zow
  • Like 3
  • Thanks 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Zow said:

However, I did have a case where my client was accused of stealing a local candidate's political signs becausethe client found out that the candidate was not really a true Trump supporter even thought he had himself out to be. The matter was merely a misdemeanor theft matter

So those signs, once placed in the right of way or a neutral ground are still private property?  I always figured putting them in a public place like that was essentially abandoned property.

In HS my buddy had a 1977 Malibu station wagon.  That thing was a tank.  We had a great time mowing down, uhhh, a lot of signs.  I hope the statute of limitations has run on that.  We may have been the most prolific political sign murderers in history.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

33 minutes ago, Sand said:

So those signs, once placed in the right of way or a neutral ground are still private property?  I always figured putting them in a public place like that was essentially abandoned property.

In HS my buddy had a 1977 Malibu station wagon.  That thing was a tank.  We had a great time mowing down, uhhh, a lot of signs.  I hope the statute of limitations has run on that.  We may have been the most prolific political sign murderers in history.

Haha well in this particular instance the particular city where this occurred has an ordinance that permits candidates to put up campaign signs in certain places around the city (I believe the ordinance also required them to take them down by a certain point or be subject to a fine). So, here, there is a pretty clear expectation of privacy/that they won't be stolen. Further, there were some extranneous factors at play that I cannot get into here that probably made the state's case stronger. 

Suffice it to say I think you're in the clear. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...