VakAttack

The penultimate polysyllabic word in that post is "staying."

We all look forward to the day you get your first one right.

Say it again, that will change the facts.

Sure. That's why it's changing ownership immediately before he leaves office and not staying with next president.

Well, I'm sorry Jimmy but sometimes there aren't single syllable words that fit, but I figure if I at least do my best to talk to you like I talk to a 5 year old, you'll mostly be able to get it.

Ahh word play lawyer speak. Classic. There's nothing in my posts with you that's lawyer speak. I try to keep it as monosyllabic as I can.

Cool story.

Oh no, the biggest combination of dumb/loud doesn't want me to represent him.

You can just say you don't understand what's going on. That's ok. Much like the money that went to the "Donald Trump Presidential Library Fund" doesn't belong to NARA, neither will this plane.

Oh no, not unwise transgressions!

Wrong again, as usual. It will be the property of the Trump Presidential Library Fund, incorporated in Florida.

Nothing had to be paid for at all. He is currently flying around the country just fine. But you are right HE (not the US, not the taxpayers, not the next president) got a free $400 million plane from a foreign government that I'm sure was out of the goodness of their heart.

Nope. He got a free plane, but did not save the taxpayers a single red cent. Now, that argument MIGHT hold water if the plane stayed in the possession of the US government once he leaves, which it won't. The next president will also need a plane.

Nope. You not liking something, or even agreeing with it, does not a falsehood make. Sorry bucko. But it's good that you're trying to steer this away from the actual legalities onto more simple ground.

LOL. I'll cop to arrogance, as will most lawyers, but you still simply have no idea what you're talking about. First of all, they don't prosecute you for libel, it's a civil claim. And any such suit in this situation would be thrown out immediately based purely on New York times Co. v. Sullivan (I'm sure you've heard of it). I'm sorry your feelings are hurt because you don't know what you're talking about. Legal words have legal meanings in legal contexts, and while it's arrogant to say you have no idea what you're talking about...it's also true, as evidenced by all your word salad.

A lot of it depends on what the court interpretations prior to this case (precedent) allow for. The statute uses very simple language, but it doesn't define what "compelling" means and if it requires a simple attempt to get someone to have sex for hire, or if the alleged victim has to be a real person. An Ohio attorney on their page here: https://www.columbuscriminalattorney.com/sex-offenses/internet-sex-sting-operations/ Says you can be charged for Compelling Prostitution out of these types of stings, but does specify that it all depends on the specific facts of the allegations.

Memory of an elephant? My understanding is it's more like the memory of a giraffe...

Hmmm, a quick read of some Ohio statutes is a BIT more concerning. Again, not an expert in Ohio law, but there is a "tiered" system for sex offender registration there and a "Tier 2 " sex offender includes someone convicted of "compelling prostitution." Gonna have to see the formal charges (when law enforcement arrests you, the charges on the police report aren't necessarily the charges you will face once the prosecutors look at the case).

Way (see: 11 seconds) ahead of you. This appears to be state level, and I don't know Ohio's law on the subject, but in Florida it's a misdemeanor and does nto require registration.

Unless the officer was also posing as a child, this seems unlikely to me. At least in Florida.

He did not, but I too would avoid the actual subject if I were you.

Oh, look, someone heard someone else say a legal word and regurgitated it without actually knowing anything other than the most surface level thing! Good luck to anyone bringing a libel suit under this situation against me or any of the dozens of much more public figures who said the same thing! Do they? He owns the hotel. He could literally just give it to them for free. You know, to save the government money. Or he could charge them the same, lesser rate he charges the Qatari royal family. "I have no argument on the actual merits of what's being discussed, so I default to ad hominem and semantics debates!"

Oh no, this very clever, completely unforseeable rhetorical trap you've set has sprung. I'm not debating semantics with you. Believe what you want to believe about the subject. I'm sure the $400 million luxury plane will just go sit outside of Mar A Lago, collecting dust. I'm going to watch the Last of Us. Have fun.