Trump used $58 million from the donor to pay his legal fees

Discussion in 'Current Events' started by Arkanis, Sep 8, 2020.

  1. WillReadmore

    WillReadmore Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2013
    Messages:
    35,498
    Likes Received:
    8,151
    Trophy Points:
    113
    OK, maybe THAT's the problem.

    You thought this was about him wanting to close his charity.

    But, the issue is that he was misappropriating funds!
     
  2. PatriotNews

    PatriotNews Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 20, 2008
    Messages:
    27,625
    Likes Received:
    3,583
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Well, I already showed what it was about. It was about his fundraising for veterans
     
  3. PatriotNews

    PatriotNews Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 20, 2008
    Messages:
    27,625
    Likes Received:
    3,583
    Trophy Points:
    113
    He raised $5 million for veterans.
     
    Professor Peabody likes this.
  4. WillReadmore

    WillReadmore Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2013
    Messages:
    35,498
    Likes Received:
    8,151
    Trophy Points:
    113
    See, the thing about this one is that the charge isn't that every single thing Trump has done is criminal.

    So, yes. You CAN find individual cases of Trump doing something that isn't clearly criminal!

    But, that doesn't mean he isnt a criminal. For that, you would need to look at the charges that have been leveled against him, the court actions taken, etc.
     
  5. Professor Peabody

    Professor Peabody Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Apr 19, 2008
    Messages:
    92,427
    Likes Received:
    14,158
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Why? As I already said if Trump did anything against the law, the IRS would be all over him like a cheap suit. They are the Tax Police, not congress nor the courts. Just come clean and admit ya'all just want a fishing expedition.
     
    Last edited: Sep 17, 2020
  6. Professor Peabody

    Professor Peabody Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Apr 19, 2008
    Messages:
    92,427
    Likes Received:
    14,158
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Assumes "facts" not in evidence.
     
  7. PatriotNews

    PatriotNews Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 20, 2008
    Messages:
    27,625
    Likes Received:
    3,583
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Don't you mean nefarious baseless accusations without evidence?
     
  8. clennan

    clennan Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 1, 2017
    Messages:
    936
    Likes Received:
    550
    Trophy Points:
    93
    I've explained why you need to find and read the court case yourself - because it's way too long to sum up for you.

    Until you do, you're not qualified to claim to have debunked anything. You're debunking an imaginary case.
     
  9. PatriotNews

    PatriotNews Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 20, 2008
    Messages:
    27,625
    Likes Received:
    3,583
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I'll assume that you too are equally unqualified to speak on the subject since you cannot even sum up the accusations in a single paragraph. You can't because you don't know.

    The jist of the case has been debated and debunked. It's already in the thread. You have brought nothing new to the debate except a vague accusation of misappropriations of funds. How much? Where did the funds go? It's a false allegation which is why you refuse to elaborate.
     
    Last edited: Sep 17, 2020
  10. clennan

    clennan Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 1, 2017
    Messages:
    936
    Likes Received:
    550
    Trophy Points:
    93
    Yes, I do know, because I've actually read the court case - unlike you. Which makes me qualified - unlike you.

    It's 41 pages long - way too much to sum up in paragraph. That's why I've told you to go read it for yourself. For some reason you don't want to read it for yourself. Why not?
    No, it hasn't been debunked. You're debunking an imaginary case, because you haven't read the actual case.

    Again, why not?
     
  11. PatriotNews

    PatriotNews Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 20, 2008
    Messages:
    27,625
    Likes Received:
    3,583
    Trophy Points:
    113
    It's up to you to make your accusations clear. You just made vague accusations and act as if it my duty to find out what your accusations mean. I do not do my opponents homework. What you are asking me to do is prove myself wrong. You see how ridiculous that is?
     
    Last edited: Sep 17, 2020
  12. clennan

    clennan Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 1, 2017
    Messages:
    936
    Likes Received:
    550
    Trophy Points:
    93
    You have repeatedly asked me to list the offenses, by summing them up in a paragraph.

    I have repeatedly told you that they are way too long to sum up in a paragraph, hence you need to read the case yourself.

    Which part of "too long to sum up in a paragraph" didn't you understand?

    And, why haven't you read it?

    Is it because you are afraid that by doing so you will "prove yourself wrong"?
     
    Last edited: Sep 17, 2020
  13. Chrizton

    Chrizton Newly Registered

    Joined:
    Aug 4, 2020
    Messages:
    1,335
    Likes Received:
    566
    Trophy Points:
    113
    How is Biden paying all his top-notch lawyers to fight the election results if he isn't using donor funds to do so?
     
  14. Bluesguy

    Bluesguy Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2010
    Messages:
    115,987
    Likes Received:
    22,842
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    He was found guilty in a civil court.
     
  15. MJ Davies

    MJ Davies Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 4, 2020
    Messages:
    2,689
    Likes Received:
    2,047
    Trophy Points:
    113
    True, but I specifically wrote "OJ Simpson was found "not guilty" in criminal court."
     
  16. WillReadmore

    WillReadmore Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2013
    Messages:
    35,498
    Likes Received:
    8,151
    Trophy Points:
    113
    That's a cheap attempt to dodge the issue.
     
  17. Bluesguy

    Bluesguy Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2010
    Messages:
    115,987
    Likes Received:
    22,842
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    He was found guilty in a court of law PERIOD.
     
  18. Bluesguy

    Bluesguy Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2010
    Messages:
    115,987
    Likes Received:
    22,842
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Which is why I specifically wrote he was "found guilty in a civil court" so he has been found guilty in a court of law.
     
    Last edited: Sep 17, 2020
  19. MJ Davies

    MJ Davies Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 4, 2020
    Messages:
    2,689
    Likes Received:
    2,047
    Trophy Points:
    113
    You are taking my comment out of context. The post I was responding to involved someone objecting to the use of the word "criminal" if the person had not been convicted of any crime in a court of law. I mentioned the OJ Simpson trial as an example of someone that was labeled a "criminal" BEFORE his trial ever took place and before the verdict was read. Yes, he was found guilty in a civil case on the same matter, but he was NOT convicted in criminal court, and, thereby, according to that line of thinking, shouldn't be labeled a "criminal".
     
    Bowerbird likes this.
  20. WillReadmore

    WillReadmore Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2013
    Messages:
    35,498
    Likes Received:
    8,151
    Trophy Points:
    113
    A civil court jury found him liable in a wrongful death suit.

    That is NOT the same as finding him guilty of some level of murder. Had he been found guilty of the charges of murder against him he would have received punishment and permanent limitations related to that.

    And, that did not happen. He walked away from those legal charges a free man.
     
    Bowerbird likes this.
  21. Bluesguy

    Bluesguy Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2010
    Messages:
    115,987
    Likes Received:
    22,842
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Yes in a court of law he was found guilty of her and Ron's death. As much as you want to try and couch you can't say he was not found guilty in court so therefore you cannot presume him guilty of her death and Ron's death. It WAS proven in a court of law.
     
  22. Bluesguy

    Bluesguy Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2010
    Messages:
    115,987
    Likes Received:
    22,842
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    I'm doing nothing to what you said. We both can stipulate he was found not guilty in the criminal trial. Will you also concede he was found guilty of her and Ron's death in the civil trial? You can label him the criminal because a court of law said he is guilty of the two deaths. You are not on the jury so you do not have to rid yourself of your opinion in the matter and view it with an open mind. You believe he committed the crimes, well is someone says that was never proven in court you can solidly state that yes it was and you agree with that verdict that he committed the crimes.
     
  23. MJ Davies

    MJ Davies Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 4, 2020
    Messages:
    2,689
    Likes Received:
    2,047
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I did NOT comment with my opinion on either verdict. Again, I used that case as an example to show that someone was labeled a criminal (murderer) without being convicted of the crimes for which he was charged. The civil case or the subsequent case that got him arrested and imprisoned are irrelevant. I am speaking of the PERIOD in which he was labeled before any court of law heard his case.
     
  24. WillReadmore

    WillReadmore Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2013
    Messages:
    35,498
    Likes Received:
    8,151
    Trophy Points:
    113
    The standards for civil liability are not the same and the ramifications for the side that loses are not even CLOSE to being the same.

    You can not claim that OJ was fond guilty of murder. He was found NOT guilty the only time he was so charged.
     
  25. Bluesguy

    Bluesguy Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2010
    Messages:
    115,987
    Likes Received:
    22,842
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    And the fact remains he WAS found guilty in a COURT, the verdict in the criminal case notwithstanding. I'm actually trying to buoy your argument about him having committed the crimes so you can call him a criminal. The civil case didn't get him arrested, he just lost everything he had because he killed them as found in court. He went to jail for an armed robbery.
    The bottom line is the Simpson case was so convoluted and presented as entertainment and the criminal trial so badly run and the prosecution being so totally unprepared to face a dream team defense it shouldn't be used in ANY discussion of crimes and their prosecution and the legal system and precedents and end results. It should be filed away and never brought to light again except to discuss how the legal system and the adjudication of such crimes can go so badly when the judge loses control of the trial as Ito did.
     

Share This Page