by Peppermint » Mon Jun 08, 2020 1:13 pm
TallGuy19 wrote: ↑Mon Jun 08, 2020 1:07 pm
Peppermint wrote: ↑Mon Jun 08, 2020 12:32 pm
TallGuy19 wrote: ↑Mon Jun 08, 2020 12:02 pm
Peppermint wrote: ↑Sun Jun 07, 2020 7:53 pm
TallGuy19 wrote: ↑Fri Jun 05, 2020 9:06 pm
Peppermint wrote: ↑Fri Jun 05, 2020 7:55 pm
TallGuy19 wrote: ↑Fri Jun 05, 2020 12:43 pm
Peppermint wrote: ↑Fri Jun 05, 2020 12:31 pm
TallGuy19 wrote: ↑Fri Jun 05, 2020 12:29 pm
scagghiuni wrote: ↑Fri Jun 05, 2020 10:48 am
[quote=TallGuy19 post_id=154900 time=1591309870 user_id=5887]
Every real estate developer in New York paid the mob for labor peace in the seventies and eighties. I don't think his connections to Italian organized crime were anything beyond the usual relationship that existed between organized crime and businessmen during that time period.
His connection to Russian organized crime groups is far more concerning, given that these groups often operate under the authority and protection of the Kremlin, and it would be very easy for these individuals to exploit his many weaknesses and catch him in compromising position.
there is not any proof trump is connected with russian oc, but it's sure he knew some new york mobster, i think he even admitted it
He did business with Felix Sater, who is alleged to be a made member of Russian organized crime.
Keyword is alleged. Just like he allegedly colluded with Russia.
What difference does it make if he's actually made or not? He is a convicted felon with ties to Russian spy agencies who has undoubtedly done business with Trump.
It's also very strange that, even though there are many pictures of them together and it is a well-known fact that he and Trump did business together, Trump continues to deny that he knows him. If there's nothing to hide, then why deny that you know the man and have done business with him?
If you were a President that is as vindicated as Trump is. Would you openly admit to having done business with someone, who has some what of a criminal past, even if your dealings with them wasn’t criminal in nature?
I know I wouldn’t, because that’s just more fuel to the media fire frenzy. It would incriminating, even if no crime was committed. That’s why the 5th amendment exists, to protect the innocent from having their own words used against them in a false confession. Happens all the time to innocent people who decide to give a statement. Of course criminals like Epstein will naturally take advantage of this important amendment, Trump should have neither confirmed nor denied, because denial does make it suspicious, that much I agree. But as a President, you’re damned if you do and damned if you don’t.
But Trump has been exonerated from any form of Russian collusion, be it with the Russian government or their mobster patsies. The investigation itself was a sham, and now there is an investigation into the sham itself. Unless you have evidence proving otherwise that the federal government doesn’t, then it’s all hearsay.
If I were falsely accused of a crime, I would gladly admit that I knew him, and I would provide paperwork and witnesses to prove that everything was above board and no crime was committed.
He didn't plead the 5th while under oath, he was denying it in interviews where he had the perfect opportunity to explain his side of the story.
An innocent person who is accused of something they didn't do is usually determined to prove their innocence by any means possible. Maybe Trump is wired differently, maybe he is naturally inclined to act like a guilty person when he is confronted with false allegations. I'm not a psychologist, and I'm in no position to psychoanalyze him; I just know the righteous indignation and overwhelming need for vindication that I feel when I'm accused of something I didn't do.
Ok so he wasn’t under oath, and it wasn’t technically pleading the 5th, that’s just semantics you know what I was getting at lol.
Anyway, I too would just deny deny deny. Regardless if the accusations are false, it’s better to deny than to admit because that admission could be contorted into confession and then used against you. Unless I was under an oath, that’s the only time I would neither confirm nor deny. The burden of proof isn’t on me, it’s on my accuser.
“You have a photo together” - “Wow really? Must have been at a business convention and we ran into each other and did a quick photo op” you know what I mean? Just an example if even evidence was presented to try and show I’m lying lol.
Fuck it, unless they can prove anything they’re accusing me of I really don’t see the point of confirming affiliation. That’ll give them an opportunity to falsely incriminate me.
¯\_(ツ)_/¯
If he's unwilling or unable to provide definitive proof that he is innocent, he should stop claiming that he is being falsely accused or persecuted. The fact that he is in the White House is the only reason he hasn't been prosecuted. He has been named as an unindicted co-conspirator in at least one federal indictment and will be prosecuted the minute he leaves office.
He had a perfect opportunity to prove his innocence during the impeachment trial, but he forced the Senate not to call any witnesses. Again, he has had many opportunities to prove himself innocent, the fact that he has chosen not to speaks volumes—his tax returns alone could clear up most of the allegations against him. If he released them, we could see how much money he has, where his money is coming from, and who he is doing business with, so why doesn't he release them and prove us all wrong?
You accuse Hillary Clinton of being crooked (which I don't necessarily disagree with), but even she released her taxes.
My guess is you never been accused of a crime you didn’t commit before. Am I right?
But you know what’s funny about your logic though? Obama released his birth certificate when he was being accused of being a foreigner born abroad, and what do you know those same people turned around and said it was forgeries.
Why should Trump release his tax returns? There isn’t a law that says he nor any other politician is required to. I don’t know why people automatically expect a politician is obligated to release their private financial records they wouldn’t be held to that if they were still a regular citizen. I too wouldn’t release a shred of my financial records even if there was nothing to hide. Unless it’s literally a court order, then fuck it why should I? To shut up a bunch of cackling geese? Even if I did, they’d find something unsatisfactory about it, because when it comes to people who just seem to want to demonize you over every little thing it’s never enough. My guess is you never been demonized before either, huh?
Any good defense attorney that’s worth your money would tell you even if you did nothing to deny everything. Because the burden of proof is on the one making the accusation. You don’t have to prove you did anything, my guess is you don’t understand law that well either.
I have been falsely accused and convicted of a crime. I fought the charges with everything I had, but I had very little evidence to prove my innocence and it was basically my word against the word of a cop.
As a real estate developer, Trump should have plenty of paperwork and witnesses to prove his innocence. I can tell you that if I would have had more evidence to prove my side of the story, I would have shown it to anyone who wanted to see it. This was eleven years ago, and I am still bitter over it. And again, maybe Trump is wired differently than me, but being falsely accused of a crime angered me and made me want to fight like hell to clear my name.
[/quote]
Maybe you should have tried denying everything, and let the prosecutor try and prove their allegations against you then. Probably would have went way different for you, that’s exactly why you never talk especially without sufficient evidence. Sometimes the best defense, is just playing defense.
Of course it’s history now, all you can really do is just move on from it. But next time, try the denial route and like the prosecution present their equally insufficient evidence against you. If you would have taken that to trial, and let them present their lack of evidence, it would have went no where and probably have been dismissed for insufficient evidence. Clearly if it was just their word against yours, you dug your own grave by just associating yourself with the crime further. Their argument would have never held water in a trial, because with your denial the burden of proof is theirs to bare, and they wouldn’t have had anything enough to charge you with, because word of mouth is just hearsay.
[quote=TallGuy19 post_id=155422 time=1591646864 user_id=5887]
[quote=Peppermint post_id=155414 time=1591644751 user_id=6524]
[quote=TallGuy19 post_id=155408 time=1591642963 user_id=5887]
[quote=Peppermint post_id=155347 time=1591584813 user_id=6524]
[quote=TallGuy19 post_id=155144 time=1591416394 user_id=5887]
[quote=Peppermint post_id=155131 time=1591412139 user_id=6524]
[quote=TallGuy19 post_id=155054 time=1591386208 user_id=5887]
[quote=Peppermint post_id=155051 time=1591385480 user_id=6524]
[quote=TallGuy19 post_id=155050 time=1591385369 user_id=5887]
[quote=scagghiuni post_id=155036 time=1591379307 user_id=138]
[quote=TallGuy19 post_id=154900 time=1591309870 user_id=5887]
Every real estate developer in New York paid the mob for labor peace in the seventies and eighties. I don't think his connections to Italian organized crime were anything beyond the usual relationship that existed between organized crime and businessmen during that time period.
His connection to Russian organized crime groups is far more concerning, given that these groups often operate under the authority and protection of the Kremlin, and it would be very easy for these individuals to exploit his many weaknesses and catch him in compromising position.
[/quote]
there is not any proof trump is connected with russian oc, but it's sure he knew some new york mobster, i think he even admitted it
[/quote]
He did business with Felix Sater, who is alleged to be a made member of Russian organized crime.
[/quote]
Keyword is alleged. Just like he allegedly colluded with Russia.
[/quote]
What difference does it make if he's actually made or not? He is a convicted felon with ties to Russian spy agencies who has undoubtedly done business with Trump.
It's also very strange that, even though there are many pictures of them together and it is a well-known fact that he and Trump did business together, Trump continues to deny that he knows him. If there's nothing to hide, then why deny that you know the man and have done business with him?
[/quote]
If you were a President that is as vindicated as Trump is. Would you openly admit to having done business with someone, who has some what of a criminal past, even if your dealings with them wasn’t criminal in nature?
I know I wouldn’t, because that’s just more fuel to the media fire frenzy. It would incriminating, even if no crime was committed. That’s why the 5th amendment exists, to protect the innocent from having their own words used against them in a false confession. Happens all the time to innocent people who decide to give a statement. Of course criminals like Epstein will naturally take advantage of this important amendment, Trump should have neither confirmed nor denied, because denial does make it suspicious, that much I agree. But as a President, you’re damned if you do and damned if you don’t.
But Trump has been exonerated from any form of Russian collusion, be it with the Russian government or their mobster patsies. The investigation itself was a sham, and now there is an investigation into the sham itself. Unless you have evidence proving otherwise that the federal government doesn’t, then it’s all hearsay.
[/quote]
If I were falsely accused of a crime, I would gladly admit that I knew him, and I would provide paperwork and witnesses to prove that everything was above board and no crime was committed.
He didn't plead the 5th while under oath, he was denying it in interviews where he had the perfect opportunity to explain his side of the story.
An innocent person who is accused of something they didn't do is usually determined to prove their innocence by any means possible. Maybe Trump is wired differently, maybe he is naturally inclined to act like a guilty person when he is confronted with false allegations. I'm not a psychologist, and I'm in no position to psychoanalyze him; I just know the righteous indignation and overwhelming need for vindication that I feel when I'm accused of something I didn't do.
[/quote]
Ok so he wasn’t under oath, and it wasn’t technically pleading the 5th, that’s just semantics you know what I was getting at lol.
Anyway, I too would just deny deny deny. Regardless if the accusations are false, it’s better to deny than to admit because that admission could be contorted into confession and then used against you. Unless I was under an oath, that’s the only time I would neither confirm nor deny. The burden of proof isn’t on me, it’s on my accuser.
“You have a photo together” - “Wow really? Must have been at a business convention and we ran into each other and did a quick photo op” you know what I mean? Just an example if even evidence was presented to try and show I’m lying lol.
Fuck it, unless they can prove anything they’re accusing me of I really don’t see the point of confirming affiliation. That’ll give them an opportunity to falsely incriminate me.
¯\_(ツ)_/¯
[/quote]
If he's unwilling or unable to provide definitive proof that he is innocent, he should stop claiming that he is being falsely accused or persecuted. The fact that he is in the White House is the only reason he hasn't been prosecuted. He has been named as an unindicted co-conspirator in at least one federal indictment and will be prosecuted the minute he leaves office.
He had a perfect opportunity to prove his innocence during the impeachment trial, but he forced the Senate not to call any witnesses. Again, he has had many opportunities to prove himself innocent, the fact that he has chosen not to speaks volumes—his tax returns alone could clear up most of the allegations against him. If he released them, we could see how much money he has, where his money is coming from, and who he is doing business with, so why doesn't he release them and prove us all wrong?
You accuse Hillary Clinton of being crooked (which I don't necessarily disagree with), but even she released her taxes.
[/quote]
My guess is you never been accused of a crime you didn’t commit before. Am I right?
But you know what’s funny about your logic though? Obama released his birth certificate when he was being accused of being a foreigner born abroad, and what do you know those same people turned around and said it was forgeries.
Why should Trump release his tax returns? There isn’t a law that says he nor any other politician is required to. I don’t know why people automatically expect a politician is obligated to release their private financial records they wouldn’t be held to that if they were still a regular citizen. I too wouldn’t release a shred of my financial records even if there was nothing to hide. Unless it’s literally a court order, then fuck it why should I? To shut up a bunch of cackling geese? Even if I did, they’d find something unsatisfactory about it, because when it comes to people who just seem to want to demonize you over every little thing it’s never enough. My guess is you never been demonized before either, huh?
Any good defense attorney that’s worth your money would tell you even if you did nothing to deny everything. Because the burden of proof is on the one making the accusation. You don’t have to prove you did anything, my guess is you don’t understand law that well either.
[/quote]
I have been falsely accused and convicted of a crime. I fought the charges with everything I had, but I had very little evidence to prove my innocence and it was basically my word against the word of a cop.
As a real estate developer, Trump should have plenty of paperwork and witnesses to prove his innocence. I can tell you that if I would have had more evidence to prove my side of the story, I would have shown it to anyone who wanted to see it. This was eleven years ago, and I am still bitter over it. And again, maybe Trump is wired differently than me, but being falsely accused of a crime angered me and made me want to fight like hell to clear my name.
[/quote]
Maybe you should have tried denying everything, and let the prosecutor try and prove their allegations against you then. Probably would have went way different for you, that’s exactly why you never talk especially without sufficient evidence. Sometimes the best defense, is just playing defense.
Of course it’s history now, all you can really do is just move on from it. But next time, try the denial route and like the prosecution present their equally insufficient evidence against you. If you would have taken that to trial, and let them present their lack of evidence, it would have went no where and probably have been dismissed for insufficient evidence. Clearly if it was just their word against yours, you dug your own grave by just associating yourself with the crime further. Their argument would have never held water in a trial, because with your denial the burden of proof is theirs to bare, and they wouldn’t have had anything enough to charge you with, because word of mouth is just hearsay.