NolaAuTiger 3,295 Posted June 15, 2018 Share Posted June 15, 2018 20 minutes ago, homersapien said: Who you gonna believe, those guys or a 20-something law student? Is your goal to throw-off the thread? I’m making an argument that it’s premature to make conclusions based off of a petition alone. What’s so bad about waiting for a reply and letting the discovery phase and pre-trial motions run their course? It should go without having to be said. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AUDub 11,158 Posted June 15, 2018 Author Share Posted June 15, 2018 Just now, NolaAuTiger said: That’s ultimately what matters though dub In court, yeah. But what they did is plainly laid out in the complaint, extensively documented with their own words and actions. The paper trail is undeniable. The fact that the organization is not what it claims to be is just that, a fact. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AUDub 11,158 Posted June 15, 2018 Author Share Posted June 15, 2018 7 minutes ago, NolaAuTiger said: That’s doesnt mean Trump or Hillary are clean. Here’s where we’re talking past one another. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NolaAuTiger 3,295 Posted June 15, 2018 Share Posted June 15, 2018 1 minute ago, AUDub said: In court, yeah. But what they did is plainly laid out in the complaint, extensively documented with their own words and actions. The paper trail is undeniable. The fact that the organization is not what it claims to be is just that, a fact. This assumes that the documents and facts are uncontested and/or possess the proper foundation prerequisites. I'm not even taking sides. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NolaAuTiger 3,295 Posted June 15, 2018 Share Posted June 15, 2018 1 minute ago, AUDub said: Here’s where we’re talking past one another. Explain. That was in light of Homer's comment. I know he has to butt-in when the adults are chatting. I'm not trying to piss you off. I think its a good thread and a good story to follow, Dub. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AUDub 11,158 Posted June 15, 2018 Author Share Posted June 15, 2018 1 minute ago, NolaAuTiger said: This assumes that the documents and facts are uncontested and/or possess the proper foundation prerequisites. I'm not even taking sides. At this point, I’m just going to assume you haven’t given the petition a passing glance before diving into the conversation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NolaAuTiger 3,295 Posted June 15, 2018 Share Posted June 15, 2018 3 minutes ago, AUDub said: At this point, I’m just going to assume you haven’t given the petition a passing glance before diving into the conversation. Seemingly strong cases are made but there's an entire swath of procedure and conditions that have to be satisfied also, among other things. That's how litigation works. I've seen this numerous time. I don't mean to subjugate. I'm sure you will maintain your position. Thanks for hearing mine. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AUDub 11,158 Posted June 15, 2018 Author Share Posted June 15, 2018 55 minutes ago, NolaAuTiger said: Seemingly strong cases are made but there's an entire swath of procedure and conditions that have to be satisfied also, among other things. That's how litigation works. I've seen this numerous time. I don't mean to subjugate. I'm sure you will maintain your position. Thanks for hearing mine. Everything there was drawn from witness testimony, their own e-mail and the public record. The picture it paints of the charity’s illegalities is undeniable. That you choose to reject it because it hasn't been admitted into evidence is pretty laughable. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AUDub 11,158 Posted June 15, 2018 Author Share Posted June 15, 2018 1 hour ago, NolaAuTiger said: Seemingly strong cases are made but there's an entire swath of procedure and conditions that have to be satisfied also, among other things. That's how litigation works. I've seen this numerous time. I don't mean to subjugate. I'm sure you will maintain your position. Thanks for hearing mine. Bob Bauer https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2018/06/the-disastrous-legal-implications-of-the-trump-foundations-activities/562895/ Quote Whether such an intervention has occurred depends on the facts and circumstances, and sometimes there are close calls. None of those close calls are reflected in the New York attorney general's complaint against the Donald J. Trump Foundation, which tells the tale of a relationship between a charity and a political campaign that flouts in every conceivable way the legal prohibition on 501(c)(3) campaign activity. Enforcement action at the state level, including this action to dissolve the Foundation, is likely to be followed by repercussions from federal law enforcement. The charity is subject to inquiry, and to the payment of sizeable penalties, for failing by virtue of its political activity to comply with the terms of its exemption. The Federal Election Commission will have little choice but to initiate its own investigation into the illegal corporate contributions from the Trump Foundation to President Donald Trump’s campaign. The New York attorney general has specifically “referred” these matters to the FEC, the Department of Justice, and the IRS for their review. The complaint draws on the public record, witness testimony and email traffic to draw an unambiguous picture of the charity’s illegal involvement in the Trump campaign. Trump decided to withdraw from a debate in Iowa and substitute in its place a fundraising event for veterans’ organizations. For this purpose, he put the Trump Foundation at the service of his campaign organization, which “planned, organized, financed and directed” the event held January 28, 2016. The complaint relates how: At the televised fundraising event, the podium was decorated with a sign that borrowed the Trump campaign’s themes and slogans. The [event] website address was displayed with a blue placard with a red border and star pattern that was identical to the design of campaign signs and billboards, with Mr. Trump's name in capital letters and the campaign's trademark slogan, Make America Great Again. Following the event, the campaign officials continued to run the show. They provided the list of charities to be supported, directed Trump Organization personnel to draw the checks as needed, and announced charitable grants at campaign rallies in Iowa immediately before the February 1 caucuses. The rallies typically featured an enlarged presentation check that displayed the committed contribution but also carried the distinctive colors and, again, the campaign slogan: Make America Great Again! There was nothing subtle about any of this. The campaign took full credit for the veterans fundraising program even after the Iowa caucuses. The candidate understood, as did the press, that this entire Iowa fundraising enterprise, which Trump launched in place of his participation at a campaign debate, was a campaign project. And Trump accounted for it in just those terms. The campaign at one point posted on its website a chart identifying the recipient of the charitable grants and “uploaded a news report under the headline, Lewandowski: Trump Campaign Gave between $5.5–$6 Million to Veterans Groups.” Campaign-finance laws prohibit corporate contributions and expenditures, other than truly independent expenditures made without candidate involvement, to influence a federal election. The facts of the Iowa veterans fundraising program leave no doubt about this purpose. It's hard to imagine more of a slam-dunk violation. Just an excerpt. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NolaAuTiger 3,295 Posted June 15, 2018 Share Posted June 15, 2018 48 minutes ago, AUDub said: Everything there was drawn from witness testimony, their own e-mail and the public record. The picture it paints of the charity’s illegalities is undeniable. That you choose to reject it because it hasn't been admitted into evidence is pretty laughable. I haven’t rejected anything. I just comprehend the magnitude of litigation, that’s all. Judgement based on first petition, and nothing more, is laughable. Thank goodness that’s not how our legal system works. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NolaAuTiger 3,295 Posted June 15, 2018 Share Posted June 15, 2018 15 minutes ago, AUDub said: Bob Bauer https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2018/06/the-disastrous-legal-implications-of-the-trump-foundations-activities/562895/ Just an excerpt. Great. Again, litigation needs to run its course. That’s how these things work. Why that lights a fire under you, I don’t know. I don’t care about opinions, I care about what the law says - including procedure and conditions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
homersapien 11,393 Posted June 15, 2018 Share Posted June 15, 2018 2 hours ago, NolaAuTiger said: Is your goal to throw-off the thread? I’m making an argument that it’s premature to make conclusions based off of a petition alone. What’s so bad about waiting for a reply and letting the discovery phase and pre-trial motions run their course? It should go without having to be said. Nothing, if your intent is to simply ignore what has been revealed and wait for the trial verdict. Does this mean you believe Hillary is totally innocent of all the BS charges thrown at her by Republicans? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
homersapien 11,393 Posted June 15, 2018 Share Posted June 15, 2018 2 hours ago, NolaAuTiger said: Determining the legal outcome. That’s what this is about. No I disagree. This is about openly discussing what happened regarding this issue. There's no rational reason to limit a political forum to discussions of trial verdicts (although they are fair game also). That would be a completely different forum, but not this one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
homersapien 11,393 Posted June 15, 2018 Share Posted June 15, 2018 2 hours ago, NolaAuTiger said: Is your goal to throw-off the thread? I’m making an argument that it’s premature to make conclusions based off of a petition alone. What’s so bad about waiting for a reply and letting the discovery phase and pre-trial motions run their course? It should go without having to be said. More irony. We shouldn't even discuss this because it hasn't yet passed an evidentiary ruling in a court of law. Yeah right, that's how politics - and political forums - work. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NolaAuTiger 3,295 Posted June 15, 2018 Share Posted June 15, 2018 24 minutes ago, homersapien said: Nothing, if your intent is to simply ignore what has been revealed and wait for the trial verdict. Does this mean you believe Hillary is totally innocent of all the BS charges thrown at her by Republicans? You’re missing the point. I’m not arguing that Trump is innocent. My gosh. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NolaAuTiger 3,295 Posted June 15, 2018 Share Posted June 15, 2018 21 minutes ago, homersapien said: No I disagree. This is about openly discussing what happened regarding this issue. There's no rational reason to limit a political forum to discussions of trial verdicts (although they are fair game also). That would be a completely different forum, but not this one. This is about a legal petition. A reply hasn’t been filed. I’m making no argument re liability Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
homersapien 11,393 Posted June 15, 2018 Share Posted June 15, 2018 3 minutes ago, NolaAuTiger said: This is about a legal petition. A reply hasn’t been filed. I’m making no argument re liability Well, what is your point exactly, other than we should totally disregard the evidence made public on the basis it hasn't yet passed an evidentiary ruling? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
homersapien 11,393 Posted June 15, 2018 Share Posted June 15, 2018 8 minutes ago, NolaAuTiger said: You’re missing the point. I’m not arguing that Trump is innocent. My gosh. I didn't ask about Trump. I asked about Hillary, regarding all the accusations made of her regarding so many subjects such as email and the Clinton Foundation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NolaAuTiger 3,295 Posted June 15, 2018 Share Posted June 15, 2018 46 minutes ago, homersapien said: I didn't ask about Trump. I asked about Hillary, regarding all the accusations made of her regarding so many subjects such as email and the Clinton Foundation. "Does this mean you believe Hillary is totally innocent of all the BS charges thrown at her by Republicans?" How in the hell would I mean that? I haven't even said as much about Trump. I would maintain my position in regards to any defendant charged with an allegation in court. My goodness what is so bad about waiting for a reply brief/depos/discovery/etc? You're simply looking for a fight when there isn't one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NolaAuTiger 3,295 Posted June 15, 2018 Share Posted June 15, 2018 50 minutes ago, homersapien said: Well, what is your point exactly, other than we should totally disregard the evidence made public on the basis it hasn't yet passed an evidentiary ruling? This is why I didn't address you. Please re-trace my comments. My point is to highlight the prematurity of inferences drawn from one single petition, the response to which hasn't even been filed... and that's just the beginning of it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NolaAuTiger 3,295 Posted June 15, 2018 Share Posted June 15, 2018 1 hour ago, homersapien said: Nothing, if your intent is to simply ignore what has been revealed and wait for the trial verdict. I don't know if there will be a trial or not. Hell, there might not even be a judgement. I know Trump said he won't settle, but he could. The difference between you and me is that I am informed of the process. You, on the other hand, are not (with all due respect). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
homersapien 11,393 Posted June 15, 2018 Share Posted June 15, 2018 3 hours ago, NolaAuTiger said: "Does this mean you believe Hillary is totally innocent of all the BS charges thrown at her by Republicans?" How in the hell would I mean that? I haven't even said as much about Trump. I would maintain my position in regards to any defendant charged with an allegation in court. My goodness what is so bad about waiting for a reply brief/depos/discovery/etc? You're simply looking for a fight when there isn't one. Now that's ironic. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
homersapien 11,393 Posted June 15, 2018 Share Posted June 15, 2018 3 hours ago, NolaAuTiger said: This is why I didn't address you. Please re-trace my comments. My point is to highlight the prematurity of inferences drawn from one single petition, the response to which hasn't even been filed... and that's just the beginning of it. Man, you are a trip. "highlight the prematurity of inferences" ??? What "inferences"? It's ******* evidence. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
homersapien 11,393 Posted June 15, 2018 Share Posted June 15, 2018 3 hours ago, NolaAuTiger said: I don't know if there will be a trial or not. Hell, there might not even be a judgement. I know Trump said he won't settle, but he could. The difference between you and me is that I am informed of the process. You, on the other hand, are not (with all due respect). This discussion is not about process - or at least it wasn't until you tried to make it so. It's about hard facts that have been publicly revealed. If the facts aren't on your side, argue the law. That's exactly what you are doing. (And doing so in context of this forum discussion borders on a weaseling. Save this argument for the trial phase. Geeez ) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
homersapien 11,393 Posted June 15, 2018 Share Posted June 15, 2018 4 hours ago, NolaAuTiger said: "Does this mean you believe Hillary is totally innocent of all the BS charges thrown at her by Republicans?" How in the hell would I mean that? I haven't even said as much about Trump. I would maintain my position in regards to any defendant charged with an allegation in court. My goodness what is so bad about waiting for a reply brief/depos/discovery/etc? You're simply looking for a fight when there isn't one. Of course you didn't imply that literally. You said nothing about Hillary. (Duuuh) But you are implying that evidence of wrongdoing is meaningless until it's been admitted in a court of law, so one can assume you feel Hillary is absolutely innocent since she was never even indicted. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.