Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
Todd Blanche:
Blanche suggested that Trump “fought back” against Stormy Daniels’ allegations, which Blanche described as false, ”to protect his family, his reputation, and his brand — and that is not a crime.”
But the evidence shows that's false.Greta Thunberg on trial now??
Somewhere along the line, I believe, Pecker made a statement of Trump not knowing about the payment issue and Cohen took care of without Trumps knowledge at the time. Like maybe the first day of testimony.
Which includes twelve jurors.Sorry Todd, reasonable people won't be buying it.
Greta Thunberg on trial now??
Somewhere along the line, I believe, Pecker made a statement of Trump not knowing about the payment issue and Cohen took care of without Trumps knowledge at the time. Like maybe the first day of testimony.
So Pecker lied is what you're saying.But the evidence shows that's false.
So Pecker lied is what you're saying.
No, I'm not so quick to say that, since your very loose interpretations cannot be trusted.So Pecker lied is what you're saying.
Brings us back to square one.............hush money payments aren't illegal.
Nope, not us.. just you. Back to square one.Brings us back to square one.............hush money payments aren't illegal.
Not much question about whether the event was false, or actually happened at this point is there?Todd Blanche:
Blanche suggested that Trump “fought back” against Stormy Daniels’ allegations, which Blanche described as false, ”to protect his family, his reputation, and his brand — and that is not a crime.”
Is it as good as Ashley Biden's diary? Not many questions there either.Not much question about whether the event was false, or actually happened at this point is there?
After the election, Pecker and Trump had a short meeting. In that meeting, Trump thanked him for handling the McDougal and Doorman stories.Pecker testified that Trump was not worried about the embarrassment to his family, but was worried about the upcoming election.
transcript? no link.After the election, Pecker and Trump had a short meeting. In that meeting, Trump thanked him for handling the McDougal and Doorman stories.
Steinglass asked him what Trump meant by that.
Pecker said he thought Trump meant the stories would be "embarrassing to him his family, and the campaign"
Steinglass asked him Trump had said anything about his family, and Pecker said that his conversations with Cohen and Trump were about the campaign, they didn't mention his family, and he (Pecker) made the assumption that the concern was for the campaign.
Steinglass then handed Pecker a copy of his non-prosecution agreement with the DOJ and asked him if that "refreshed his memory".
Pecker then said that prior to the election, Trump was always concerned with how a negative story would affect Melania or Ivanka or his family, and after Trump's candidacy was announced his conversations with Cohen and Trump didn't mention the family.
All of that testimony was Pecker's own assumptions, not something Trump or Cohen actually said. (pages 1217 and 1218 of the transcript)
Pecker's dealings were with Cohen. He only spoke to Trump a few times, and very briefly.
Pecker pitched the idea to Cohen and Trump about killing negative stories- it wasn't Trump's idea. Trump told him "I never pay for stories, they always come out anyway". Pecker and Cohen talked Trump into going along with it.
Cohen didn't work for the campaign. Trump's involvement was basically just being informed after the fact about the stories.
Prosecution set up for when Cohen testifies.After the election, Pecker and Trump had a short meeting. In that meeting, Trump thanked him for handling the McDougal and Doorman stories.
Steinglass asked him what Trump meant by that.
Pecker said he thought Trump meant the stories would be "embarrassing to him his family, and the campaign"
Steinglass asked him Trump had said anything about his family, and Pecker said that his conversations with Cohen and Trump were about the campaign, they didn't mention his family, and he (Pecker) made the assumption that the concern was for the campaign.
Steinglass then handed Pecker a copy of his non-prosecution agreement with the DOJ and asked him if that "refreshed his memory".
Pecker then said that prior to the election, Trump was always concerned with how a negative story would affect Melania or Ivanka or his family, and after Trump's candidacy was announced his conversations with Cohen and Trump didn't mention the family.
All of that testimony was Pecker's own assumptions, not something Trump or Cohen actually said. (pages 1217 and 1218 of the transcript)
Pecker's dealings were with Cohen. He only spoke to Trump a few times, and very briefly.
Pecker pitched the idea to Cohen and Trump about killing negative stories- it wasn't Trump's idea. Trump told him "I never pay for stories, they always come out anyway". Pecker and Cohen talked Trump into going along with it.
Cohen didn't work for the campaign. Trump's involvement was basically just being informed after the fact about the stories.
Click on transcripts, open the one for 4/25/2024transcript? no link.
"We all know" is not evidence.and we all know now it was about the campaign.
I know. Just wanted you to know you should post links sometimes.Click on transcripts, open the one for 4/25/2024
Press Center - Home | NYCOURTS.GOV
Cases in the NewsPeople v Allen WeisselbergPeople v Donald J. Trump (Civil)People v Donald J. Trump (Criminal):ww2.nycourts.gov
"We all know" is not evidence.
Most people have forgot more than you will ever know.I know. Just wanted you to know you should post links sometimes.
Brings us back to square one.............hush money payments aren't illegal.
Whether or not He was protecting His family or campaign is illegal?
It doesn't have to be."We all know" is not evidence.
Who is claiming he is?Let's start at the correct square one.
FPOTUS#45 isn't charged with paying for an NDA.
WW
