OFFICIAL: Donald Trump thread.

[Motorcity Cobra]

no its a 4 part documentary, not a movie.

So what about what he said.... whatever he said held no weight cuz all he was at the time was a real estate mogul.

and nope I dont believe that one either... how easy it is to make money off of jackson.... **** even some of the "new" people that came forward quick recanted etc.

It's a movie. I watched the first part last night. John Leguziamo is playing the part of a father. Blair Underwood is playing the part of a lawyer. Why would actors play roles in a documentary?

[bigjavi973]

It's a movie. I watched the first part last night. John Leguziamo is playing the part of a father. Blair Underwood is playing the part of a lawyer. Why would actors play roles in a documentary?

uuhhh......

cuz they get paid regardless

[1bad65]

Gentlemen, my apologies for such a lengthy deliberation. I have arrived at my decision. I find that the claim made by 1bad, quoted above, stands up under the scrutiny of travesty. While some legal scholars have proctored the idea that obstruction can happen without an underlying offense, I haven't seen any evidence of a conviction for obstruction without the existence of an underlying offense.

My first question was what are the parameters of "underlying crime". I asked 1bad, and his answer included the Stewart case, and the conviction of the broker on the insider trading crime. He made it clear that the underlying crime did not have to be committed by the person guilty of obstruction. One of the articles submitted by travesty illustrates this.

Courts ranging from Utah, to Michigan, to Florida have held that defendants can form the corrupt intent required for obstruction of justice, without committing an underlying crime, if they seek to protect their own reputations or shield family and friends from criminal liability

https://will.illinois.edu/legalissue...ewart-revisted

In the Stewart case, the underlying crime was the insider trading and securities fraud. The article submitted by travesty seems to acknowledge that there was an underlying crime right after saying there wasn't.

regardless of whether she was ever found guilty or even charged with committing the crimes that were the focus of the criminal investigation

the U.S. Attorney explained that he used his prosecutorial discretion in deciding not to bring insider trading charges against Ms. Stewart

https://will.illinois.edu/legalissue...ewart-revisted

The Libby case was more difficult to ponder. I did not agree with 1bad that the underlying crime was the lying to Congress (or whatever) Mr Libby was charged with. I saw that as the feds just ramping up charges, ie. If I shoot at a house, I can get charged with attempted murder, shooting an occupied dwelling, unlawful discharge, etc for one overt act. However, it is travesty job to refute the claim, and I don't believe the Libby case does that.

The underlying crime for Libby was the unlawful release of that CIA agents information. Unlike the Stewart case where there was a conviction for the underlying crime, no one was charged in the Platt affair. So I wondered whether or not a crime was committed.

Unlike the Trump case, which is a covert act and it can be argued never happened without sufficient evidence, the Platt affair was an overt act. It's like the Kennedy assassination. Even though no one was ever charged, it's quite obvious a crime was committed. Ms Platt information was obviously released in an unlawful way. It's that crime that Mr Libby was obstructing the justice of.

While I've read legal conjecture of the idea, I haven't seen any real evidence or case law that suggests a person can be convicted of obstruction without an underlying crime. I rule in favor of 1bad and will impose judgment.

Defense has 10 days to submit all appeal paperwork to the Court.

Respectfully submitted,



Honorable Judge
GGG Gloveking

Thank you for putting much thought and logic into your deliberations.

I'm happy you agreed with me, and thus he goes on your Ignore List and that's one less good poster he can play his attrition and Gotcha! games with.

[Motorcity Cobra]

uuhhh......

cuz they get paid regardless

Serious question. Do you understand the difference between a documentary and a movie based on a true story?

[1bad65]

uuhhh......

cuz they get paid regardless

Lmfao!!!!


Sometimes its simply amazing the things you have to explain to grown human beings.

[1bad65]

Rep. Omar filed joint tax returns before she married husband

MINNEAPOLIS (AP) — Minnesota campaign finance officials said last week that U.S. Rep. Ilhan Omar misused campaign funds in violation of state rules. They also revealed that she had filed joint tax returns with her husband years before they were legally married and at a time when she was married to another man.

The revelation put the freshman representative under more scrutiny from critics who have taken issue with her marital past. One tax expert says if the issue has been corrected she's unlikely to face any criminal consequences.

Some questions and answers about the tax issue:

Q: What did Omar do wrong?

A: The Minnesota Campaign Finance and Public Disclosure Board said Thursday that Omar and her husband, Ahmed Abdisalan Hirsi, filed joint tax returns for 2014 and 2015 — before they were actually married and while Omar was legally wed to another man. While some states allow for joint filing for "common law" marriages, Minnesota does not, and filing joint tax returns with someone who is not your legal spouse is against both federal and state law.

Q: How did this become public?

A: Last year, a Republican state representative accused Omar of misusing campaign funds, alleging among other things that she used $2,250 in campaign money to pay a lawyer for her divorce proceedings. The campaign finance board investigated and found she didn't use the funds to pay for a divorce lawyer as alleged, but other irregularities were found. The board's final report said "there was an issue with her tax returns that needed to be corrected" and that some campaign funds went to an accounting firm.

State officials ruled last week that Omar must repay her campaign committee nearly $3,500, including $1,500 for payments made to the accounting firm for services related to joint tax returns for 2014 and 2015. Omar must also pay a $500 penalty to the state.

Q: What has Omar said about this?

A: Very little. In response to questions from The Associated Press, her campaign sent an emailed statement saying, "All of Rep. Omar's tax filings are fully compliant with all applicable tax law." The campaign did not make Omar available for an interview or answer specific questions from the AP. In response to the overall campaign finance investigation, she said in a statement last week that she will comply with the state board findings calling for her to repay money and pay a penalty.

Source, full article:
https://www.yahoo.com/news/rep-omar-...175510010.html

[man down]

Rep. Omar filed joint tax returns before she married husband

MINNEAPOLIS (AP) — Minnesota campaign finance officials said last week that U.S. Rep. Ilhan Omar misused campaign funds in violation of state rules. They also revealed that she had filed joint tax returns with her husband years before they were legally married and at a time when she was married to another man.

The revelation put the freshman representative under more scrutiny from critics who have taken issue with her marital past. One tax expert says if the issue has been corrected she's unlikely to face any criminal consequences.

Some questions and answers about the tax issue:

Q: What did Omar do wrong?

A: The Minnesota Campaign Finance and Public Disclosure Board said Thursday that Omar and her husband, Ahmed Abdisalan Hirsi, filed joint tax returns for 2014 and 2015 — before they were actually married and while Omar was legally wed to another man. While some states allow for joint filing for "common law" marriages, Minnesota does not, and filing joint tax returns with someone who is not your legal spouse is against both federal and state law.

Q: How did this become public?

A: Last year, a Republican state representative accused Omar of misusing campaign funds, alleging among other things that she used $2,250 in campaign money to pay a lawyer for her divorce proceedings. The campaign finance board investigated and found she didn't use the funds to pay for a divorce lawyer as alleged, but other irregularities were found. The board's final report said "there was an issue with her tax returns that needed to be corrected" and that some campaign funds went to an accounting firm.

State officials ruled last week that Omar must repay her campaign committee nearly $3,500, including $1,500 for payments made to the accounting firm for services related to joint tax returns for 2014 and 2015. Omar must also pay a $500 penalty to the state.

Q: What has Omar said about this?

A: Very little. In response to questions from The Associated Press, her campaign sent an emailed statement saying, "All of Rep. Omar's tax filings are fully compliant with all applicable tax law." The campaign did not make Omar available for an interview or answer specific questions from the AP. In response to the overall campaign finance investigation, she said in a statement last week that she will comply with the state board findings calling for her to repay money and pay a penalty.

Source, full article:
https://www.yahoo.com/news/rep-omar-...175510010.html

They want to see Trumps taxes then let's see all theirs.

[1bad65]

They want to see Trumps taxes then let's see all theirs.

I saw that point raised recently.

Someone said to the effect; can you imagine the meltdowns if Trump demanded all members of Congress release all their tax returns.

I felt that person made an excellent point.

[man down]

I saw that point raised recently.

Someone said to the effect; can you imagine the meltdowns if Trump demanded all members of Congress release all their tax returns.

I felt that person made an excellent point.

He needs to push the issue as a counter. I bet we would find some major dirt.

[1bad65]

He needs to push the issue as a counter. I bet we would find some major dirt.

I think alot of good arguments, Trump is saving to use on the campaign trail.

He's hit them back, and hard, in ways I've never seen lifer type Rs hit them back.

That's why I love Trump. He fights back. He doesnt just take the lies and false charges like most of those people who Team D attacks do.

And it's a GREAT change of pace.