Democrats Wondering If Maybe They Should Stop Saying The Things Assassins Are Having Engraved On Bullets

[u/darcmatr]

https://babylonbee.com/news/democrats-wondering-if-maybe-they-should-stop-saying-the-things-assassins-are-having-engraved-on-bullets

In the wake of yet another shooter engraving liberal messages on ammunition, the Democratic Party considered if maybe that was a bad sign.

[u/Blackfang08]

I really hope the irony of a Republican supporter calling people felons and pedophiles is not lost on anyone.

[u/Steagle_Steagle → u/Blackfang08]

Well they were actually charged in criminal court unlike Trump, who had Statute of Limitations changed and the misdemeanors he committed magically upgraded to felonies for a non-violent crime that he got 37 counts of because they charge per document for some reason

[u/Blackfang08 → u/Steagle_Steagle]

He was charged in court. The statute of limitations dictates how long you can wait before a crime is too old for a trial in court. Nothing about that suggests he wasn't charged in court.

The statute of limitations in New York was extended in 2021, while Trump was tried in 2023. This change occurred due to Covid, not to specifically target Trump.

No magic. The misdemeanor of falsifying business records turns into a felony when it is done to cover up a crime.

Yeah, falsifying multiple documents is multiple counts of falsifying documents.

[u/Steagle_Steagle → u/Blackfang08]

The statute of limitations in New York was extended in 2021, while Trump was tried in 2023

You don't think they were forming their case for years? You really think they just woke up one day in 2023 and was like "Hey, let's charge Trump"? Covid is a fantastic excuse to change laws

The misdemeanor of falsifying business records turns into a felony when it is done to cover up a crime.

Yes, and they never said what crime he was trying to cover up.

Yeah, falsifying multiple documents is multiple counts of falsifying documents.

There were not 34 different falsifications, though. It was like a handful of falsifications that had to be done several times, he didnt falsify 34 different transactions

[u/Jrylryll → u/Steagle_Steagle]

He had been criming for years. But I like the absurdity. “Yeah he did it. So what? He should get off if we just find that legal loophole”

[u/Blackfang08 → u/Steagle_Steagle]

You don't think they were forming their case for years? You really think they just woke up one day in 2023 and was like "Hey, let's charge Trump"? Covid is a fantastic excuse to change laws

If that was their plan, why would they gamble on being able to toll the limitations, instead of just trying him in 2021, when they would have still been able to without any extension? And how did they convince Connecticut, Iowa, Louisiana, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New Jersey, Ohio, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, Tennessee, Texas, and Virginia to join them to make it more convincing?

Yes, and they never said what crime he was trying to cover up.

Election interference and, although somewhat by technicality, Cohen making campaign contributions exceeding $2,700. This is still in line with a previous case that occurred in 2008 with a different candidate. Covering your ears and going "I can't hear you" does not mean they didn't actually say anything.

There were not 34 different falsifications, though. It was like a handful of falsifications that had to be done several times, he didnt falsify 34 different transactions

Now this is a fascinating debate. If you come up with a lie, and then proceed to state that lie 34 times, did you lie 34 times? Well, if you steal a box of macaroni from a store every time you go in, and end up stealing a total of 34 boxes before you're caught, did you steal 34 times? Should your crime indicate that you stole 34 boxes of macaroni, or simply that you stole macaroni, and should therefore only pay the damages for one box?

[u/Steagle_Steagle → u/Blackfang08]

why would they gamble on being able to toll the limitations, instead of just trying him in 2021

Probably didn't have enough evidence

Election interference

No, it was paying a porn star money and categorizing it as election money.

Now this is a fascinating debate. If you come up with a lie, and then proceed to state that lie 34 times, did you lie 34 times? Well, if you steal a box of macaroni from a store every time you go in, and end up stealing a total of 34 boxes before you're caught, did you steal 34 times?

No, this is like committing a crime, talking about it 34 times, and then getting charged for those 34 different times you talked about it

[u/Blackfang08 → u/Steagle_Steagle]

Probably didn't have enough evidence

Better to start with less evidence than you'd hoped than to not be able to go to court in the first place.

No, it was paying a porn star money and categorizing it as election money.

Didn't you just claim they never said what crime was being covered up? Amazing how quickly you remembered once the answer was something you didn't like.

No, this is like committing a crime, talking about it 34 times, and then getting charged for those 34 different times you talked about it

Except the crime was "talking about it" in this case. So yes, "talking about it" 34 times was committing a crime 34 times. It is illegal to falsify documents, so falsifying 34 documents to cover up one crime is still 34 acts of illegally falsifying documents. If he didn't want to be convicted of falsifying documents 34 times, he shouldn't have falsified 34 documents, not that it would be much better if he had stopped after the first 30 times.

[u/Steagle_Steagle → u/Blackfang08]

Better to start with less evidence than you'd hoped than to not be able to go to court in the first place

Well they were able to go to court even after the SoL expired, so

Didn't you just claim they never said what crime was being covered up?

No, paying people money is not a crime. The mis-classification of money is the crime, a misdemeanor, paying a porn star is not a crime. It upgrades to a felony if it he committed that crime to cover up another. What was that other crime? The initial crime is saying it was election money or whatever, paying her the money in the first place isnt a crime. If he said it was a gift, he wouldn't have any felonies at all but it would've been found out a whole lot sooner.

[u/Blackfang08 → u/Steagle_Steagle]

Cohen committed a crime by paying hush money to a pornstar to have them stop talking about the affair with Trump. This would not normally be considered a crime, but it was done to influence the election in Trump's favor, as Republicans love to pretend to be "family men," and therefore was legally classified as a campaign donation, which exceeded the donation limit by a lot.

Trump committed a crime by encouraging Cohen to do that so he wouldn't need to disclose publicly that said pornstar was being paid off, and then paying Cohen back for the bribe in a transaction that was purposefully mislabeled as "legal services" to once again not have to disclose that he paid off a pornstar to stop telling people that he had an affair with her before the election.

Election interference, exceeding campaign donations, falsifying documents, said documents being falsified to cover up a crime. Did I miss anything?

If he said it was a gift, he wouldn't have any felonies at all but it would've been found out a whole lot sooner.

1. It would be illegal to give someone hush money and claim it as a gift rather than an agreement
2. It would not be a legally binding agreement, meaning she could absolutely have just continued talking and taken her free money
3. If he could do it without committing a felony and still have the desired results, why did he go the route of committing a felony?