They are busting Trump rght now in court

[Slade3200]

Then that is a federal issue, not a state issue

That was a fed issue and Barr swept it under the rug. It’s also not what Trump is being charged with in the NY case

 

[Slade3200]

I understand, but, the campaign finance violation is not a part of braggs case, it’s simply how Bragg was able to revive the statute of limitations. The fact that Trump may or may not have violated campaign finance laws are a federal issue and have no bearing on braggs case. He is not authorized to prosecute federal crimes. All he has is the falsification of business records in the second degree, with intent to defraud.

That’s all this case is about. There can be no conviction for campaign finance violations in this case.

Agreed, well said

 

[ThisIsMe]

Irrelevant. A federal law is not being charged.

Right, so the alleged federal campaign finance violation isn’t relevant here, only the state law

 

[ThisIsMe]

That was a fed issue and Barr swept it under the rug. It’s also not what Trump is being charged with in the NY case

Right.

 

[Man With A Plan]

It’s a case for the defense to make, sure. But it doesn’t blow the case out of the water. There’s plenty of other testimony that shows Trump‘s interest in protecting the campaign and wanting to win.

The truth is that he would probably would have paid that money for the NDA even if he wasn't running for President. That pay off to Stormy Daniels was a married man protecting his marriage. So what ELSE does Bragg have because even this totally biased jury can't be buying the bullshit they've seen so far!

 

[Man With A Plan]

Wrong. That is absolutely chargeable under the state statute being used.

The are having a trial and everything.

Bullshit! If this was anyone but Trump then the DOJ would be screaming to high heavens and papering Bragg right and left. State officials have no jurisdiction to try Federal election violations. NONE!

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Right, so the alleged federal campaign finance violation isn’t relevant here, only the state law

In a way, correct. In a way, false. . As in, Bragg only has to convince a jury that they were violating the state law. Arguing their violation of federal law will be part of the argument, however

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

The truth is that he would probably would have paid that money for the NDA even if he wasn't running for President.

Oops, wrong. Trump was recorded saying they could wait until after the election, in which case he wouldn't have any need to pay.

Have you made ONE post about this topic that was anywhere near accurate, yet?

 

[Lastamender]

Uhh, no I’m supporting law and order… our legal system.

You are tossing out hot air and unsubstantiated accusations that no attorney has the balls to take to court. That’s cause the case you think is there really isn’t. You’re a puppet for disinformation

Take it to court and I’ll take it seriously.

Think so Comrade? You have me confused with the government and the MSM.

 

[Man With A Plan]

Oops, wrong. Trump was recorded saying they could wait until after the election, in which case he wouldn't have any need to pay.

Have you made ONE post about this topic that was anywhere near accurate, yet?

You have that recording, Fort? Love to see a cite on that!

 

[Lastamender]

You have that recording, Fort? Love to see a cite on that!

It is most likely up his ass.

 

[LeroyDumonde]

The issue is trump is in court for falsifying business records, this case isn’t about the hush money, it’s about business records. The hush money is just how Bragg was able to revive the misdemeanor and turn it into a felony b

Paying hush money isn't a crime.

 

[ThisIsMe]

In a way, correct. In a way, false. . As in, Bragg only has to convince a jury that they were violating the state law. Arguing their violation of federal law will be part of the argument, however

See, therein lies a problem. How can Bragg argue that trump violated a federal law when Trump has not been indicted, tried and convicted of breaking a federal law? Bragg is trying to argue this case as if a crime HAS taken place…when there hasn’t been a formal federal allegation.

The indictment accuses Trump of falsifying business records to cover up another “crime”. No crime has been charged. Bragg can’t just assume a federal crime has taken place. This is why I said Trump would have needed to be charged, tried, and convicted of the crime before Bragg could bring this indictment.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

You have that recording, Fort? Love to see a cite on that!

I don't. I thought Bragg did, as he has several recordings from Cohen and mentioned the above in the statement of facts. But no, maybe it's not a recording, now that I think about it. Maybe it is.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

See, therein lies a problem. How can Bragg argue that trump violated a federal law when Trump has not been indicted, tried and convicted of breaking a federal law?

By convincing the jury the conduct was illegal. They don't have to charge every crime they argue, only the ones for which they seek convictions.

 

[ThisIsMe]

By convincing the jury the conduct was illegal. They don't have to charge every crime they argue, only the ones for which they seek convictions.

But the only way Bragg even has a case is because his indictment is based on a law that requires the furtherance of another crime. As of yet, trump has not been charged with campaign finance violation, so, if Bragg were to actually win this case, it would be the equivalent of also convicting Trump of a federal crime since in order for Bragg to win this case, the assumption that Trump committed campaign finance violation is also true.

As of right now, Trump has committed no crime to allow Bragg to base HIS indictment on. Short of that, Bragg has nothing but an out of limitations book keeping misdemeanor.

 

[Delldude]

Makes sense… ignorance does seem to be the name of your game

Oh dear..............seems you are indicating watching the trial. Good for you. Not wasting my time.

Again, for the reading impaired... Trump was not charged with that.

LOL.....................so where are the listed charges Trump is being charged with? Can you list them.................not talking indictments.

No, that was a defense witness.

Not the same guy who Trump defense wants to testify on the FEC election contribution rules that would exonerate Trump, is it?

Not the same witness Merchan wants to severely limit the areas in which the man can testify, is it.........and why?

 

[westwall]

You thought wrong… as usual

You didn't think at all.

As usual.

 

[Man With A Plan]

I don't. I thought Bragg did, as he has several recordings from Cohen and mentioned the above in the statement of facts. But no, maybe it's not a recording, now that I think about it. Maybe it is.

I searched for it for the better part of an hour, Fort and came to the conclusion that you made that up. Why would you lie like that?

 

[Slade3200]

The truth is that he would probably would have paid that money for the NDA even if he wasn't running for President. That pay off to Stormy Daniels was a married man protecting his marriage. So what ELSE does Bragg have because even this totally biased jury can't be buying the bullshit they've seen so far!

The man was protecting himself. If he was concerned about protecting his family he wouldn’t have dipped his stick in a pornstar