Reply With Quote
That Lanny Davis speech though.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/danalex.../#122b63bcad85It is less clear whether Trump broke laws during his years-long crusade to skirt taxes. In an investigation published last year, the New York Times accused Trump of fraud, saying he and his siblings inherited the majority of their father’s real estate business in 1997 and claimed on tax filings that the holdings were worth only $41 million. According to the newspaper, the properties ended up selling for more than 16 times that amount. By undervaluing them, the Trump family reportedly avoided hundreds of millions in taxes.
That Lanny Davis speech though.
Talking to your audience again?DMC lacks the critical thinking skills to understand the implications of exculpatory evidence.
Trump wasn't on trial. Who is the beneficiary of this exculpatory evidence and what does it have to do with presumption of innocence or Blake thinking somehow a hearing has ever been called to prove innocence?
Trump wasn't on trial.
Plausible deniability doesn't imply anything. It simply frees Trump of the legal action that could ensue had he not had plausible deniability. Why is that so difficult to understand? You muddy the waters so much with your autism.
As CC says, everybody cheats at property taxes, so what's the big deal?
A couple years ago, Lindsay Graham said it's everybody's patriotic duty to screw the IRS.
IIRC, Trash paid off a NY appraiser to get a lower valuation. The appraiser was caught and went to jail. Reverse Midas Trash?
I never thought, said or implied that.
But nice dunk on your straw man. Make a poster tbh
Gym Jordan
You need to edit and move around to try to get a small w here, as if what I said isn't clearly visible to anyone who cares to read it.
wtf is wrong with you?
What does "a conclusion of implication" mean? Are you drunk?
Yes you did, actually.
You need to edit and move around to try to get a small w here, as if what I said isn't clearly visible to anyone who cares to read it.
wtf is wrong with you?
What does "a conclusion of implication" mean? Are you drunk?"I pwned myself and you are a meanie for having pointed it out"
Need a hankie?
I would be happy if you made sense at all.
I understand what plausible deniability is, and how criminals use it to attempt to shield themselves from charges, just as more than one person in Trumps orbit have said he does.
Honestly, I am not sure you understand the distinction between guilty in fact, and guilty in a court. You seem to lack the critical thinking skills to be able to do so.
When I said "implications" I was referring to the 2nd definition of the word. You are using the 1st.
1.
the conclusion that can be drawn from something although it is not explicitly stated.
"the implication is that no one person at the bank is responsible"
synonyms: suggestion, inference, insinuation, innuendo, hint, intimation, imputation, indication; More
antonyms: explicit statement You
a likely consequence of something.
"a victory that had important political implications"
synonyms: consequence, result, ramification, repercussion, reverberation, effect me
"there was a meeting to discuss the implications of the ban"
There's presumption of guilt and then there's being found guilty by a court of law. Presumption of guilt by the opposition isn't nearly as weighty as being found guilty, just ask Cohen who's going to jail, and ask Trump who isn't.
Need a hankie?
I would be happy if you made sense at all.
I understand what plausible deniability is, and how criminals use it to attempt to shield themselves from charges, just as more than one person in Trumps orbit have said he does.
Honestly, I am not sure you understand the distinction between guilty in fact, and guilty in a court. You seem to lack the critical thinking skills to be able to do so.
There's nothing wrong with them except that they probably voted her in.
“OH MY GOD”:
THE INSIDE STORY BEHIND COHEN’S DEPOSITION,
THE STORMY CHECKS, AND
HIS FINAL MONTHS OF FREEDOM
Cathartic musings on a legal pad, a trip to the basement, and a eureka moment all led Cohen, Trump’s disgraced former lawyer, to a moment of public triumph.
About nine boxes were there waiting for him. The first contained a bunch of junk. The second did, too. “Oh my god,” he said when he opened the third. He’d hit the mother lode.
In the third box were
three years of Trump’s financial statements, from 2011 through 2013,
which Cohen pointed to on Wednesday as
evidence that the president had purposefully inflated and deflated his personal assets when it suited him
—
to secure bank loans or
land a higher spot on the Forbes 400 list, for instance, or
to lower his tax liability.
Other do ents were potentially more damaging.
The box also contained an e-mail with Trump Organization C.F.O. Allen Weisselberg, whose name came up almost as often as Trump’s in the House hearing on Wednesday.
as he made clear on Wednesday, he is still actively participating with investigators in ongoing inquiries out of the Southern District,
which many in Trump’s inner circle agree
poses the most dangerous, long-lasting threat to Trump, his business, and his family—
a point Cohen underscored in front of the committee.
“Is there any other wrongdoing or illegal act that you are aware of regarding Donald Trump that we haven’t yet discussed today?”
Rep. Raja Krishnamoorthi asked him. “
Yes,” Cohen responded.
“Those are part of the investigation that’s currently being looked at by the Southern District of New York.
https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2019...U4MjIwNjUzMgS2
Jooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo ooooooooos!
(sigh)
Trump has plausible deniability about ordering someone to perjure themselves, as a consequence, ________________?
Trump has plausible deniability about ordering someone to perjure themselves, as a result, ________________?
Trump has plausible deniability about ordering someone to perjure themselves, the ramification of which is ________________?
Trump has plausible deniability about ordering someone to perjure themselves, the repercussion of which is ________________?,
As I have noted, the "blank" is that is sometimes enough, but not always, one can avoid being convicted.
It is a rubber band that can be stretched, but also broken.
Feel free to fill in the blank with whatever you think I don't understand, if it makes you feel better.
Amazing how people jump to conclusions - I'm just responding to hater's post - maybe people in Texas don't know that a lot of Jews live in that area.
Lol no, idiot, that post was phrased in the form of a question directed at you because I have no idea what the point of your word salads here are.
Right over your head. You don't understand it. OK.Honestly, I am not sure you understand the distinction between guilty in fact, and guilty in a court. You seem to lack the critical thinking skills to be able to do so.
It is possible to be guilty in fact, but found "not guilty" at a trial? Simple yes or no here, no tricks.
So many Joooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooos !
Ah. Maybe... she is a good representative?
Being a ty DNC chair is not mutually exclusive to being a good representative, even granting the former for the sake of aruegment.
I already answered this twice.
unactionable legally
You're confusing your feelings for the truths behind this soap opera with the implications of the testimony. Your feelings are obviously that the court of public opinion should find Trump guilty, but you felt that way before the hearing as well (as you've already stated). So the hearing changed nothing in that regards, at least where you're concerned. Implications are basically that Trump insulated himself from prosecution by not telling people to commit crimes. The guy with the thing, you know..the guy... did you talk to the guy about the thing? This is the actual court, the only one that Trump cares about. The hearing did not sway Trump supporters. They saw a desperate man trying to take down someone he thinks betrayed him.It is a rubber band that can be stretched, but also broken.
Feel free to fill in the blank with whatever you think I don't understand, if it makes you feel better.
Again, why do I have to keep leading you to the truth only to watch to walk away chasing butterflies?
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
