Reply With Quote
Pay up for what?
Pay up for what?
What happened on 3/22/2019 that made you abandon your own thread and avoid the political forum for almost a year?
https://www.spurstalk.com/forums/sho...36#post9744636
Stop playing the fool and just pay up, as you are not convincing anyone, you lost, period, pay up or taken on the honorific of "welsher," end of story.
do you have a link to the actual bet terms?What happened on 3/22/2019 that made you abandon your own thread and avoid the political forum for almost a year?
https://www.spurstalk.com/forums/sho...36#post9744636
https://asharangappa.substack.com/p/...t-watch-part-3Last week I posted my flowchart of possible legal theories which Bragg might pursue, if he chooses to “bump up” the misdemeanor to a felony. Bragg can basically charge Trump with a felony, rather than a misdemeanor, if he can demonstrate that Trump falsified his business records with the intent to commit or conceal another offense. The question if Bragg goes this route is, what will the other offense be?
Basically it looks like there are two main avenues: The campaign finance avenue and the tax fraud avenue. Further, on the campaign finance side, there is the question of whether the violation would be of state law, or of federal law. Each of these presents some significant legal questions which Renato and I have highlighted on our podcast. And unlike the base charge for falsifying business records, linking that to a campaign finance violation would be a relatively novel legal theory, which opens the door for opponents to claim that Bragg is singling out Trump and also makes it a riskier prosecution, since legal issues could be resolved against him. David French makes that argument here.
The tax fraud avenue is laid by Andrew Weismann and Ryan Goodman in this New York Times piece. This is less novel, but the specific theory that Weismann and Goodman present — that the “fraud” was that Trump helped Cohen inflate his income on his tax returns — suggests that New York received more, not less, tax revenue. Not being able to show that New York suffered a loss may undercut a key element required to demonstrate an intent to defraud, as explained below.
If I lost, as you claim, why did the other party to the bet abandon his own thread and go into hiding for almost a year?
https://www.spurstalk.com/forums/sho...36#post9744636
Strange way for the winner of a bet to behave wouldn't you agree?
what was the original bet?
They are in that thread. djohn just bumped it and started posting snippets about the bet until he realized it was exposing his welsh on the bet and he hid from the thread again
But bbbbut- HER EMAILS!!!
is her gloss not legally sound?
Mueller would put Trump, Trump Jr, Ivanka, and Kushner in prison. $500 for each on put in prison. Mueller closed the investigation and none went prison over the Mueller investigation.
Here is the day djohn lost the bet and then went into hiding from the political forum for almost a year.
https://www.spurstalk.com/forums/sho...36#post9744636
34 counts = FELONIES
But but- PROCESS CRIMES!
A notch above Louise Mensch
stop lying and pay the man you piece of !Mueller would put Trump, Trump Jr, Ivanka, and Kushner in prison. $500 for each on put in prison. Mueller closed the investigation and none went prison over the Mueller investigation.
Here is the day djohn lost the bet and then went into hiding from the political forum for almost a year.
https://www.spurstalk.com/forums/sho...36#post9744636
i mean you went as far back to find the post that declares your win, shouldnt be too hard to find the post that actually set forth the terms of the betThey are in that thread. djohn just bumped it and started posting snippets about the bet until he realized it was exposing his welsh on the bet and he hid from the thread again
was it that mueller specifically would bring charges that lead to imprisonment? was there a specific time frame? would be good to actually see the terms laid out in a post or series of posts
that may actually be a defense against conspiracy to defraud charges, if I understand the foregoing. If NY suffered no loss, but actually collected more money, it may not be able to prove it was defrauded.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
