aggiehawg said:

---

Ooops! Maxine says the quiet part?

PANIC IN DC NCSWIC.
🍿 pic.twitter.com/NttW7EqPEO

— YEHI 'OHR (@Saulito46107740) February 12, 2025

---

Dam, this lady ain't to bright, she's about as smart as a rodent…. Jeeez just leave already you dumb low IQ lady

nhamp07 said:

---

No one. Because the contracts they are cancelling aren't fraud they are just policies the new administration doesn't agree with.

---

lol. I know where you get your limited news "insights".

Start another thread. Trump did not receive a sentence since their lawfare didn't work.

Only chimps are still clanging their cymbals about it.

I bet the delete button on Congress's keyboards are getting worn out. They set the budget. They are responsible - and don't tell me they didn't know this was happening. They look the other way bc everyone's pet project is getting funded. On both sides of the aisle. Nothing will change until term limits are mandated in Congress, which won't happen. So enjoy this short blip, bc it will just go back to the way it was.

Absolutely no fraud, just policy decisions Trump doesn't agree with folks.

So Madoff, on a much, much, much smaller scale must not have been fraud either...I mean come on, he just felt other people's money would be better spent on yachts, homes, and nice things for himself.

Policy differences people, policy differences...

gabehcoud said:

---

I bet the delete button on Congress's keyboards are getting worn out. They set the budget. They are responsible - and don't tell me they didn't know this was happening.

---

Yes, and the leftist bureaucracy that never goes away has done everything possible to help Congress look the other way. The reckoning has come.

Science Denier said:

---

Quote:

---

The jury found him guilty of falsifying business records to conceal another crime

---

Wrong. The judge's instruction specifically was that no crime had to be proven either to have taken place or to have been planned to have taken place.

I know what the law is, but the judge's order was that it didn't need to be proven.

So, all that needs to be proven is someone accuse these people to cover up a crime. And, why would you not document payments properly? Pretty easy to "assume" since that's all that needs to be presented to a jury.

---

that is not quite accurate on what the instruction were.

the jury had to find unanimously that there was an intent to commit another crime or to aid or conceal the commission of another crime, but did not have to agree on the unlawful means.

it was clear as mud, and to make matters worse the jury wasn't even given a copy which in my experience (does not include a trial in new york state or federal court) is unheard of.

I remember hearing that and thinking....

"Your instructions are: if you don't like the guy, think he has done something wrong, or have heard on the news he is a bad guy, you can find him guilty. You don't need any of these charges to be factually proven."

Quote:

---

the jury had to find unanimously that there was an intent to commit another crime or to aid or conceal the commission of another crime, but did not have to agree on the unlawful means.

---

That's the same thing. Nothing had to be PROVEN. Just throw out a bunch of "assumptions" and "innuendos" and that's it.

Same as if a lawyer would say: Well, you knew you had to describe what the government check was for, but you left that blank, so obviously you were trying to cover SOMETHING up.

Lots of "felonies" could be brought against these government employees using THAT standard.

Science Denier said:

---

Quote:

---

The jury found him guilty of falsifying business records to conceal another crime

---

Wrong. The judge's instruction specifically was that no crime had to be proven either to have taken place or to have been planned to have taken place.

I know what the law is, but the judge's order was that it didn't need to be proven.

So, all that needs to be proven is someone accuse these people to cover up a crime. And, why would you not document payments properly? Pretty easy to "assume" since that's all that needs to be presented to a jury.

---

I'm saying what he was found guilty of was 1st degree falsifying of records (aka a deliberate attempt to conceal). It wasn't an accident or an error.

You can accuse anyone of anything. If they have evidence that would convince a DA to indict and a jury to convict, then power to 'em.

Science Denier said:

---

Quote:

---

the jury had to find unanimously that there was an intent to commit another crime or to aid or conceal the commission of another crime, but did not have to agree on the unlawful means.

---

That's the same thing. Nothing had to be PROVEN. Just throw out a bunch of "assumptions" and "innuendos" and that's it.

Same as if a lawyer would say: Well, you knew you had to describe what the government check was for, but you left that blank, so obviously you were trying to cover SOMETHING up.

Lots of "felonies" could be brought against these government employees using THAT standard.

---

again, this is not accurate. the instructions state what had to be proven.

now, if you want to talk about whether those things were actually proven, or whether this was a political witch hunt show trial, then we are on the same page.

but if you want to discuss what the instructions actually said (as convulated as they were), then you are wrong as they set out what had to be proven unanimously and what did not have to be unanimous.


https://www.nycourts.gov/LegacyPDFS/press/PDFs/People%20v.%20DJT%20Jury%20Instructions%20and%20Charges%20FINAL%205-23-24.pdf

Prison? No prison…

I want them hung from gallows…

Literally executed for treason…

Hullabaloonatic said:

---

Science Denier said:

---

Quote:

---

The jury found him guilty of falsifying business records to conceal another crime

---

Wrong. The judge's instruction specifically was that no crime had to be proven either to have taken place or to have been planned to have taken place.

I know what the law is, but the judge's order was that it didn't need to be proven.

So, all that needs to be proven is someone accuse these people to cover up a crime. And, why would you not document payments properly? Pretty easy to "assume" since that's all that needs to be presented to a jury.

---

I'm saying what he was found guilty of was 1st degree falsifying of records

---

That is not a felony. And there is no evidence Trump had a thing to do with it.

But you know that.

I see the low IQ useful idiots, NPCs, and bots are still getting their rocks off about a kraken. They love their their stolen elections, corruption, censorship, weaponized justice system, and bloated wasteful enormous bureaucracy (you know, the things they call their "democracy"), so much they laugh about it and think it's funny.

FireAg said:

---

Prison? No prison…

I want them hung from gallows…

Literally executed for treason…

---

On the steps of the Capitol Building.