*** The Official MAGAposting thread ***

[OngBonga]

It's repeating a claim that the judge ruled was not a legal position before the trial even started.

So either the judge and proceedings are biased against him or he has terrible lawyers who haven't got the bollocks to advise Trump properly, which means telling him what he doesn't want to hear. If what he's saying is reasonable evidence, then it's not reasonable for the judge to dismiss it. On the other hand, if it's not reasonable evidence, then his lawyers really do need to get control of their client.

[MadMojoMonkey]

So either the judge and proceedings are biased against him or he has terrible lawyers who haven't got the bollocks to advise Trump properly, which means telling him what he doesn't want to hear. If what he's saying is reasonable evidence, then it's not reasonable for the judge to dismiss it. On the other hand, if it's not reasonable evidence, then his lawyers really do need to get control of their client.

His claim is that since [the forms he submitted to various financial institutions claiming the value of his properties] contained a phrase like, "these are all guesses / do your own research" means that he's not committed fraud by the false claims in those documents.

The judge ruled before the trial began that this is nonsense.

Note: this is not a criminal trial. The burden of evidence is "more than likely" not "beyond a reasonable doubt."

And of course Trump's lawyers are crap. No decent lawyer would take him as a client. Not only is he obviously guilty of what he's standing trial for... he has this nasty habit of not paying his lawyers over the past many years. Maybe not all his lawyers, but certainly there are some high profile cases where that's been public news.

[Poopadoop]

He also famously doesn't listen to his lawyers either. So for all we know, they did tell him 'nonononono, don't read that out,' and he did it anyways.

I'm also seriously disappointed this is not being televised.

[Poopadoop]

I do like how the first thing that springs to Ong's mind is that the judge is biased. The second is that Trump has bad lawyers. Absolutely nothing about the wisdom of ignoring the court's explicit instructions and doing whatever you want in court as if that's ever going to fly.

[OngBonga]

I do like how the first thing that springs to Ong's mind is that the judge is biased.

I do like how the first thing you do is challenge what I said when anyone with basic reading comprehension would more than likely conclude that I was offering one highly unlikely scenario followed by a highly likely one. I guess you had to work hard to find a reason to argue with that small comment of mine.

[OngBonga]

His claim is that since [the forms he submitted to various financial institutions claiming the value of his properties] contained a phrase like, "these are all guesses / do your own research" means that he's not committed fraud by the false claims in those documents.

If this is not a criminal court then idk what the fuck he's even doing engaging with this shitshow.

If he has committed fraud, that is a criminal act and he should face a criminal court with the standard of proof that comes with such courts.

And there *might* be a legal argument that adding disclaimers to finance reports is enough to avoid committing fraud. But it really is going to depend on the language used. Fraud is wilfully misleading another to gain a financial benefit. But that is what he should be paying his lawyers for, to prepare such reports in ways that he can legally defend.

And of course Trump's lawyers are crap. No decent lawyer would take him as a client. Not only is he obviously guilty of what he's standing trial for...

Well, "obviously guilty" is not something a lawyer should be considering. It's not his job to decide if his client is guilty or not. It's his job to decide if his client has a legal defence to the allegations.

But yeah, pay your fucking lawyers dude, especially if you're going to try to commit legal fraud.

[MadMojoMonkey]

If this is not a criminal court then idk what the fuck he's even doing engaging with this shitshow.

If a defendant in a civil suit chooses not to defend themselves at the trial, that is their right.
In so doing, the court precedent is to rule unfavorably against the defendant on all counts.

In this specific trial, the judge already ruled Trump guilty before the trial began. That is well established to be "normal" for civil cases. It doesn't always go like that, but Trump's lawyers waived the right to a jury. In so doing, it is up to the judge to determine innocence or guilt.

The trial is not to determine innocence or guilt, that's already been decided, it is to determine the severity of consequences for the fraud that was committed.

If he has committed fraud, that is a criminal act and he should face a criminal court with the standard of proof that comes with such courts.

IDK the particulars of the differences between civil fraud and criminal fraud, but these charges have been pressed by the New York Attorney General as civil charges, as I understand it.

And there *might* be a legal argument that adding disclaimers to finance reports is enough to avoid committing fraud. But it really is going to depend on the language used. Fraud is wilfully misleading another to gain a financial benefit. But that is what he should be paying his lawyers for, to prepare such reports in ways that he can legally defend.

The real issue for Trump is A) he is a noted real estate mogul and the false claims (only some of which are subjective) are well within the expected expertise of someone with those credentials and B) He's on record (audio and visual) of stating that he uses these documents to secure financial loans and opportunities.

So his claims of ignorance on either count are just not holding any sway in a court of law. The notion that such egregious misstatements about the square-footage of his home might be accidental are not believed. Trump openly admits that the objectively false statements in his filings are "mistakes" but insists his valuation of his properties several times bigger than anyone else's valuations are because those people are wrong. Which, again, isn't convincing anyone in the courts.

The fact that he's already admitted to the undeniably false contents of his claims really hurts any argument that the other "mistakes" weren't intentional.

Well, "obviously guilty" is not something a lawyer should be considering. It's not his job to decide if his client is guilty or not. It's his job to decide if his client has a legal defence to the allegations.

But yeah, pay your fucking lawyers dude, especially if you're going to try to commit legal fraud.

I mean... the lawyers get to choose whether or not to take the job. They are not court appointed public defenders.

If they look at the case and they're like, "I can't win that case." that's enough for most lawyers to not take it. Why waste their time and resources on a lost cause? Well, for the money, obv. But then when the client has a reputation of not paying his lawyers... well....

[OngBonga]

There's clearly a USA/UK difference between the distinction of civil and criminal at play here. I mean, in the UK you don't get sued for criminal acts before getting criminally charged for it. If a British criminal court fails to successfully prosecute someone for an alleged crime, then as I understand it there is no hope of a civil case succeeding unless there is new evidence, and that new evidence would probably result in a criminal retrial before any civil proceedings took place.

There might be an element of a lower threshold of proof for civil courts that result in exceptions, and I might also just be flat out wrong, but morally speaking if someone is guilty of a crime they should face a criminal court before a civil court.

[OngBonga]

I don't know anything about the details of this case, but based on what you're telling me it seems he's basically admitted to criminal fraud.

I can understand why his lawyers would take him on, regardless of expected result or even the issues regarding being paid. It puts their name out there. Some might argue that being a Trump lawyer isn't good for your reputation, but that's for the lawyers to decide.

[MadMojoMonkey]

A quick google search for difference between civil and criminal fraud has explained some things.

A) you can't be tried for one then the other. The prosecutor has to pick one or the other. Often in these cases, the prosecutor can try to press both charges simultaneously, in the same trial, but the jury would only be able to convict on 1 of them.
This can vary widely state by state.

B) The civil charge doesn't even care about guilt. It only cares that harm was done. The defendant in a civil case cannot see personal punishment under the law, per se. The law is only there to determine if a fraud was committed and what appropriate compensation shall be awarded to the defrauded parties. (They may deem this a punishment, but legally, it's not classified that way.) Financial remuneration is the only expected outcome of a civil fraud case. The defendant cannot face prison time or any other legal punishment.

C) The lack of criminal punishment removes the state's requirement to prove "beyond a reasonable doubt" that the defendant committed fraud. Instead, the prosecution only needs to show that the defendant "more than likely" did the fraud.

D) Civil fraud can be levied against someone who doesn't themself commit fraud, but whom has others commit fraud for them.


That's the main differences I gleaned, anyway.

[MadMojoMonkey]

Happy Thanksgiving.

It's a US holiday based on ... uhh... let's not talk about it.
Just have a gratuitously obscene amount of food with your family or smth.

[OngBonga]

Personally I think that you guys shouldn't celebrate Thanksgiving. It's a British import and you decided all that time ago that you didn't want us to be your overlords.

[oskar]

Just dropping in to lock in my 2024 US presidential election predictions, which are as follows: Trump and Biden both die of dementia. It's Kamala Harris against Ron DeSantis. They somehow both lose, giving the title off POTUS to the Speaker of the House, Mike Johnson... Who is that even? Anyway, that's your new president. Mike Johnson. I'm pretty sure of it.

[MadMojoMonkey]

Trump voters prob. think it's fake news and vote him in, anyway.
Some rich asshole turn out their new AI Trumpbot that rules us all from here on out.

God Bless America!

[oskar]

good point

[OngBonga]

Whenever I feel sad about living in a political shithole, I think to myself "at least I'm not American".

[Poopadoop]

Trump and Biden both die of dementia.

I lol'd.

[Poopadoop]

Whenever I feel sad about living in a political shithole, I think to myself "at least I'm not American".

Our PM just made a transphobic joke while the mother of a murdered trans teenager was a guest in the House of Commons. I'd say we're catching up. Still a ways to go though, Trump-level douchiness is a pretty high bar.

[MadMojoMonkey]

Whenever I feel sad about living in a political shithole, I think to myself "at least I'm not American".

It's a shitshow, for sure.

The good news is that most Americans that aren't on TV / the news / whatever big money platform are pretty sensible and nice people.

I mean, don't bring up politics or they'll maybe transform into a total nutjob, but even then... most aren't that terrible. Just the typical hypocrisy I've seen around the world.

Everyone wants the gov't to give them more stuff and fuck off less, but also, they mostly just want to be in charge so they can choose who gets fucked over. Which is fucked up, but altogether normal around the world, AFAICT.

Seems totally madness to be all, "Ermagherd, I can't believe they treat me like this! They should actually be treating *those people* like this. SMH. So unfair." But there it is. Humans gonna human.

[oskar]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6H8I-YGElbA&t=377s


Legally changing my name to Fifteen Nine Elevens right now.
This is like the girl math memes from a month ago, but with presidents.

[MadMojoMonkey]

Biden bending his back to justify an unjustified invasion and land grab by Israel while still condemning the same by Russia.

The fact that the US wont put any teeth behind calling out Israel's response as "problematic if true" is fucked up, and being protested across many college campuses in the US, including my own.

Funny how all the police in the surrounding regions show up to end a peaceful protest, but you can't get one to set foot on campus when there's an active shooter. By funny I mean problematic if true.

[oskar]

The funniest thing is that even after completely embarrassing himself for Netanyahu, Biden lost his homeys by one performative action that was likely just intended to appease anti-genocide voters before fall.

[Poopadoop]

The funniest thing is that even after completely embarrassing himself for Netanyahu, Biden lost his homeys by one performative action that was likely just intended to appease anti-genocide voters before fall.

They can always vote for the other guy.

https://news.sky.com/story/donald-tr...ppies-13129050

[oskar]

They can always vote for the other guy.

https://news.sky.com/story/donald-tr...ppies-13129050

These guys are putting up a fight, but they're facing stiff competition at the world clown awards:

[OngBonga]

Biden bending his back to justify an unjustified invasion and land grab by Israel while still condemning the same by Russia.

Is it the same though? I don't remember Ukraine's elected leaders entering Russia and murdering, torturing and kidnapping random Russians.

Not that I support Israeli "land grabs", because I absolutely do not. It's just that Israel are responding to a Genghis Khan style assault on their territory, while Russia are responding to their NATO paranoia. One is a very clear and obvious threat, the other is not. Israel's goal of destroying Hamas is morally reasonable, given the risk that Hamas poses to Israeli security.

After what Hamas did, Palestinians should have immediately taken to the streets to overthrow them. That would have given the population the moral high ground, and possibly might have resulted in Israel taking a less aggressive posture, and play a longer game. Instead the Palestinians celebrated, spat at naked hostages, then appealed to the world to stop the big bully from beating them up.

Don't elect terrorists.

Israel's response is of course problematic. And it's shocking that American police are cracking down on peaceful protest in Freedomland. I appreciate that violent and anti-Semitic protests do need to be dealt with, but that doesn't appear to be what the police are cracking down on. They appear to be cracking down on the freedom of assembly and protest.

[MadMojoMonkey]

Ong bending over backwards to differentiate the killing of innocent, non-combatant, non-military people into "good" and "bad."

Ong forgetting that the stated reason Russia invaded Ukraine was because the Azov Nazis were doing terrorisms to Russians.

Ong pretending he doesn't know the last election in Palestine was over 18 years ago / claiming the people being killed for their place of birth is justified because a leadership they never had the chance to vote for is their "chosen" leadership.

Ong suddenly believes the PR from aggressive militant governments at face value without stark incredulousness.

There was a justified and proportionate response Israel could have made. They (Netenyahu) have no interest in an appropriate or proportional response. They have no interest in remaining within their own national borders. They have repeatedly targeted civilians. They aren't even limiting their campaign against Hamas to only the 1 occupied territory. In Gaza, the West Bank, and the Golan Heights, Israel has amplified military operations targeting civilians who have no connection to Hamas.

Israel has the right to defend itself, but what is happening is not self-defense. It's an aggressive land grab.

[OngBonga]

Ong forgetting that the stated reason Russia invaded Ukraine was because the Azov Nazis were doing terrorisms to Russians.

I haven't forgotten. There's a big difference between this and Hamas though. Hamas actually committed a serious act of terrorism against Israel. These neo-Nazis did not do anything to Russia other than maybe exist in a neighbouring country.

Let's be clear about one thing. There is a serious problem with Nazis in Ukraine, and this is not a security threat to Russia.

Ong pretending he doesn't know the last election in Palestine was over 18 years ago

I haven't heard any noise demanding fresh elections or an attempt to overthrow Hamas. Their system of democracy might be far from our standards, but Hamas are still the popular choice, largely because they oppose the existence of Israel.

ng suddenly believes the PR from aggressive militant governments at face value without stark incredulousness.

Not at all. But I could say exactly the same about anyone who believes anything Hamas says. They too are an aggressive militant government engaging in PR.

There was a justified and proportionate response Israel could have made.

Well this is where we might find some common ground. It's just that I'm fortunate enough to be a distant observer and not someone tasked with deciding what response is appropriate. Nobody should be surprised that Israel have decided that Hamas needs to be destroyed, especially since Israel cannot rely on the Palestinian people to do the job. The question is, what is the minimum required force to achieve the goal of destroying Hamas? I'm glad I'm not the one that has to make that call.

They aren't even limiting their campaign against Hamas to only the 1 occupied territory. In Gaza, the West Bank, and the Golan Heights, Israel has amplified military operations targeting civilians who have no connection to Hamas.

Well Hamas isn't the only threat. There's a much more serious threat to the north... Hezbollah. And Israel need to be concerned about them too. These groups have a shared ideology, and it doesn't include the existence of Israel. I'll say it again - I most certainly do not support Israeli land grabs, they are hugely counterproductive, and yes this is happening right now under the guise of national security. But what do you think Hamas would be doing if they were the dominant military power? Grabbing land, that's what.

So it's a bit difficult to pick a side based on land grabs. Conventional warfare sucks, but it's largely avoidable. This war certainly was avoidable. All Hamas had to do was stay the fuck in the Gaza Strip. All Israel had to do to avoid the events of last October was to not exist. Do you see the difference?

[OngBonga]

Before October, I considered the Islamic threat against Israel to be largely exaggerated. By that, I mean I didn't think that Hamas would be so brazen to attack like they did. I thought maybe you might get acts of terrorism in Israeli cities, sponsored by the likes of al-Qaida or whatever they're called these days, but Hamas raiding border villages like Mongols, raping and pillaging? I didn't think that would happen. I didn't think they actually wanted to wipe Israel off the map. Now I do.

That kind of threat has to be dealt with.

[oskar]

In the very recent history leading up to October the 7th you had years of mostly peaceful protests in the March of Return in which countless atrocities by Israel were ignored by its allies. Mass arrests of Palestinians who were being held without charges, the release of which was a major reason for Hamas taking hostages back to Gaza for exchange. You had the Abraham Accords that left Palestine feeling left out once again. You had Trump moving the Embassy to Jerusalem. An unprecedented expansion in settlements and settler violence. The bombing of the AP building in Gaza that once again was ignored by Israel's allies. The defunding of UNRWA under Trump. The killing of Abu Akleh and the assault on her funeral by Israeli police.

If you make peaceful resistance impossible... and so on. Because I am an empath, I can say: October 7th: bad, actually. But what did they think was going to happen? -Well, I don't even think Hamas thought it was going to happen at the scale that it did. It looks like they severely underestimated the incompetence of the IDF. What is indicative of Hamas being the dog that caught the car here is that they almost immediately offered to give up the hostages in return for a ceasefire with no other conditions. Bad deal. But Netanyahu didn't take it, because it enabled them to do what they're doing now.

If you listen to what Likut members say about Palestinians, there really is no ambiguity, and I hate people who dance around the word genocide when you have members of the Knesset constantly say things like they want "total annihilation" and "wipe out the seed of Amalek from under heaven" and "drop a nuclear bomb on Gaza" and "if you don't give up precise weapons, we will use our imprecise weapons" and "there are no innocents in Gaza" and "We are fighting Nazis, you expect us to give food and water to Nazis?" and so on. It's laid out very well by South Africa's case in front of the ICJ if you want to listen to the 3h deposition, they make a pretty concise case.

But what do you think Hamas would be doing if they were the dominant military power? Grabbing land, that's what.

Like a wise TV chef once said: If my aunty had wheels, she would be a bicycle. Hamas will never be the dominant military power. Most of what they can do is make fireworks out of unexploded 2000lb bombs Israel dropped on them and shoot them at the iron dome while celebrating the US tax money they burned.
https://www.statista.com/chart/16516...the-west-bank/

[MadMojoMonkey]

Well Hamas isn't the only threat. There's a much more serious threat to the north... Hezbollah. And Israel need to be concerned about them too. These groups have a shared ideology, and it doesn't include the existence of Israel. I'll say it again - I most certainly do not support Israeli land grabs, they are hugely counterproductive, and yes this is happening right now under the guise of national security. But what do you think Hamas would be doing if they were the dominant military power? Grabbing land, that's what.

All nations are threats to other nations. That doesn't justify violence against civilians / non-militants / non-combatants.
Nothing does.
It's brutal murder with no justification.
Fighting against people who want to kill you is one thing. Killing everyone in their general vicinity is totally a different thing.

Telling everyone who's not a combatant to go to a certain place to be out of harms way, then bombing that place when they get there is beyond any forgivable or defensible act. It's not an act of war or of justice against terrorists. It's brutal murder.

So it's a bit difficult to pick a side based on land grabs. Conventional warfare sucks, but it's largely avoidable. This war certainly was avoidable. All Hamas had to do was stay the fuck in the Gaza Strip. All Israel had to do to avoid the events of last October was to not exist. Do you see the difference?

This isn't a war, WTF? There was a terrorist act, and in response, Israel, (Fucking Israel of all nations!!) has turned to wiping out everyone who lives in a general region / under a specific gov't in response.

The word genocide isn't being thrown around lightly, here. Israeli leaders have repeatedly used language indicating the "total annihilation of Hamas" and when questioned about civilians and people who are not associated with Hamas, they answer, "There is only Hamas there." Like WTF?!? There absolutely is not "only Hamas" there. It's not even "only where Hamas is" that you're killing civilians, FFS.

This isn't a balanced fight. It's the 5th grade bully kicking ass in the entire 2nd grade class.
Oskar said it better than me.

[CoccoBill]

The US could stop the war tomorrow, if they ended their military support of Israel. Not saying they should, could or would, but I would say it's been clear since the 50s that the neighboring "hostile" nations can't pose an existential threat to Israel even combined.

Well put by Oskar.

[oskar]

The US could stop the war tomorrow, if they ended their military support of Israel. Not saying they should, could or would, but I would say it's been clear since the 50s that the neighboring "hostile" nations can't pose an existential threat to Israel even combined.

Well put by Oskar.

I think it has been firmly established that nobody in US politics will end support for Israel because of the genocide. They may however stop support if Israel stops being useful as a colonial outpost in the middle east. Israel has been very useful strategically, but it is very questionable of how much value it is if it keeps doing stuff like randomly blowing up Iranian generals in Syrian embassy's without even informing the US and completely ending any pretense that they are interested in a 2 state solution. If it turns out they shot down that helicopter, Iran is going to be big mad.

On the other hand you have Bin Salman who is desperate to be allowed in the cool kids club. Everything the UAE do is like: hey look, we're the good middle east. Look, Dubai is pretty cool, right? Don't come too close, but from over there... shiny, huh?

So if you have a viable diplomatic partner in the middle east, and your current diplomatic partner is doing genocide with no pretense, then maybe there will be a shift in diplomacy. Israel also seems historically unstable from the inside. The shit Haaretz writes about Likut right now is just about the harshest you will read in any international paper, and that is a paper run by other Zionists.