As directed by the fedsStates conduct their own elections. That is why you have state election officials dummy.
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.
As directed by the fedsStates conduct their own elections. That is why you have state election officials dummy.
Of course it isn'tIt is a state issue. The official who was pressured was a state official.
Repeat after me on jan.21 2025 president Donald J. TrumpWhen you pressure state officials, it is a crime. It doesn't matter what it was over,
Food for thought, which our liberals won’t be able to follow:
The NY County indictment charges that the alleged crimes were committed on dates in 2017, after the 2016 election was over and after President Trump was already in office. Therefore, the persecutor is not claiming that the payments for the NDA constituted any crime. Instead, Bragg is contending that the later “book” entries (which he claims were false) were intended to conceal some other (but unidentified) supposed crime or crimes.
Since Bragg was scrupulous in not specifying what those other hypothetical crimes were, he is going to have to get pretty fucking specific in his pending Bill of Particulars.
The press conference he gave — just after President Trump’s arraignment — was a hodge podge of vague allegations (but don’t serve as a Bill of Particulars).
But the timing issue is gonna eventually screw Bragg’s legal theory to shit.
In short, Trump tried to get an NDA with a Ho and a playmate. As was legal, he arranged to pay for those NDA’s. Nothing illegal in that. But the eventual payment by Trump (repayment for Cohen’s fronting of the money) could not have been for the purpose of hiding it from the public, since the election was already over. Similarly, the supposedly “false” book entries couldn’t be to conceal anything from the voters, either. The voters had long since voted.
Bragg actually doesn’t have any case at all.
(This reserves for another day how ethically improper the persecutor’s press conference was as it was given that day. Most professional prosecutors couch their informative press releases or statements in a more professional manner. They say things like “by this indictment, it is alleged that the defendant did these things and it is alleged that he did them in order to accomplish particular goals.”
But not our lad Bragg. Oh no. He flat out declares that Trump “did” the acts and that Trump did them with particular purposes. The big oaf is trying his case in the press.)
Of course it isn't
Repeat after me on jan.21 2025 president Donald J. Trump
It's a federal crime dumbass Bragg is going after Trump .
Oh my goodness why didn't Bragg go after Cohen instead of the feds?It is a state crime to falsify information on documents filed with the state.
That Cohen is a crook - and particularly a crooked lawyer who turned on his client - means that intelligent people don't take his "evidence" as anything but self-serving, cherry picked or outright false disinformation.Doesn't negate the point.
You don't believe that yourself. At least I hope you don't.No, the crimes listed are provided by prosecutors, those crimes must apply facts of the case to applicable law. Given that Cohen is a lawyer, there is no way he would confess to crimes that weren't accurate in the charging document.
Yes, the statute of liminations has expred on the so-called "Hush Money Case." So why are we still talking about it?No, Flops, it was a metaphor. 1/6 preoccupied the DOJ, with the trying of over 1000 cases, etc., they decided to focus on 1/6 crimes with Trump the main target, since he is the top of that food chain, and at that juncture, the hush money probe is small potatoes, by comparison and note that long before all 1000 were prosecuted the statute of limitations expired on the Hush Money case.
Quote it, then.He did, it's in the SOF (Statement Of Facts) which accompanies the indictment which is an outline of the theory of the case.
Odd that they pursued over 1,000 cases against people not name "Trump," when this peach of a case was just waiting for them in Manhatten. With Bragg resisting all efforts to to pressure him to prosecute they could have swooped in and said,Answered above. Over 1000 cases, and it is still going on , being tried, indicted, prosecuted, and now the brass in the 1/6 crime chain are being handled by Special Counsel Jack Smith. The Hush Money, I mean, with 1/6, why bother with the hush money case? No matter, it's passed the statute of limitations, anyway.
I have a rather pesky habit of taking what people say at face value.I suspect you are metaphor challenged?
You mean his own trust?The trouble is that he used corporate money and in a corporate filing
If you get a bill from your attorney, you should pay it.with the state of NY that they were legal expenses.
No. It’s not.That in itself was a crime.
There is no timing issue.
If it wasn’t a crime to pay for the NDA (and it wasn’t) and if the expense got reported based on a lawyer’s invoice (and it was) then there is no crime. Even if the claim is that Trump was knowingly repaying for thE NDA, that’s still ok. And if it’s labeled by Bragg as a “campaign contribution” (which isn’t even true), there was no limit on how much Trump could contribute to his own campaign. No crime.Naturally it would be reported after the election. Bragg does have a case.
Criminal prosecutions rely on criminal's testimonies all the time. The prosecutor will squash that argument with ease.That Cohen is a crook - and particularly a crooked lawyer who turned on his client - means that intelligent people don't take his "evidence" as anything but self-serving, cherry picked or outright false disinformation.
I believe it. Why would Cohen, a lawyer, confess to bogus charges? Answer, they are not bogus.You don't believe that yourself. At least I hope you don't.
No, he'd fight it, that's what he would do.Given that Cohen is a lawyer, and a crooked one, he would confess to anything, say anything, sign anything, that would get him a lighter sentence or other preferential treatment.
Because the SOL is a moot point for Bragg's case.Yes, the statute of liminations has expred on the so-called "Hush Money Case." So why are we still talking about it?
First, I didn't support the Bragg case, but I am curious to see what the outcome will be.It may seem from your perspective that the prosecutorial pursuit of Trump has a Keystone Kops aspect, in which the prosecutors keep following false trails, while the proof of Trump's true and prosecutable crimes go unpunished. In actual fact, there are no true and prosecutable crimes that they could ever "get Trump" on, or they would have long since gotten him.
Quote it, then.
You can figure all day long, but we are not privy to the granular details which the prosecutors base their 'prosecutorial discretion' upon.Odd that they pursued over 1,000 cases against people not name "Trump," when this peach of a case was just waiting for them in Manhatten. With Bragg resisting all efforts to to pressure him to prosecute they could have swooped in and said,
Yes, a quote from the fellow who said wealth would trickle down. Brilliant!We're from the federal government and we're here to help!
WhateverYou've neglected the ironclad evidence and testimony provided by an outstanding and honest former officer of the court (on visiting day), and this fine young entreprenurial woman (when her mouth wasn't full). We'll take this case and you'll be sorry when you see how good it makes us look!
You, nor I, know what Bragg knows.The reason that they never said that is because the case is a non-starter and they knew it.
I have a rather pesky habit of taking what people say at face value.
Time to offer a wager:
I bet that Trump is not convicted of any of these 34 counts before election day 2024. If he is, I leave this board for good. If he is not, you do the same.
Food for thought, which our liberals won’t be able to follow:
The NY County indictment charges that the alleged crimes were committed on dates in 2017, after the 2016 election was over and after President Trump was already in office. Therefore, the persecutor is not claiming that the payments for the NDA constituted any crime. Instead, Bragg is contending that the later “book” entries (which he claims were false) were intended to conceal some other (but unidentified) supposed crime or crimes.
Since Bragg was scrupulous in not specifying what those other hypothetical crimes were, he is going to have to get pretty fucking specific in his pending Bill of Particulars.
The press conference he gave — just after President Trump’s arraignment — was a hodge podge of vague allegations (but don’t serve as a Bill of Particulars).
But the timing issue is gonna eventually screw Bragg’s legal theory to shit.
In short, Trump tried to get an NDA with a Ho and a playmate. As was legal, he arranged to pay for those NDA’s. Nothing illegal in that. But the eventual payment by Trump (repayment for Cohen’s fronting of the money) could not have been for the purpose of hiding it from the public, since the election was already over. Similarly, the supposedly “false” book entries couldn’t be to conceal anything from the voters, either. The voters had long since voted.
Bragg actually doesn’t have any case at all.
(This reserves for another day how ethically improper the persecutor’s press conference was as it was given that day. Most professional prosecutors couch their informative press releases or statements in a more professional manner. They say things like “by this indictment, it is alleged that the defendant did these things and it is alleged that he did them in order to accomplish particular goals.”
But not our lad Bragg. Oh no. He flat out declares that Trump “did” the acts and that Trump did them with particular purposes. The big oaf is trying his case in the press.)
You mean his own trust?
If you get a bill from your attorney, you should pay it.
No. It’s not.
Yea. There is. I knew it would sail over your head.
If it wasn’t a crime to pay for the NDA (and it wasn’t) and if the expense got reported based on a lawyer’s invoice (and it was) then there is no crime. Even if the claim is that Trump was knowingly repaying for thE NDA, that’s still ok. And if it’s labeled by Bragg as a “campaign contribution” (which isn’t even true), there was no limit on how much Trump could contribute to his own campaign. No crime.
Bragg is a dolt.
Wow... it amaze me that people this stupid could graduate law school and get elected as DA's in Inbred County.Comer is leading a House Republican investigation into Joe Biden’s role in his family’s international business dealings in countries such as China and Ukraine. The lawmaker’s staff recently reviewed Suspicious Activity Reports filed by banks to the Treasury Department regarding possible criminal activity by the Biden family.
False. There is no crime involved in the NDA at all. And paying it out of his own trust fund is also not illegal, you moron.Grasping at straws here, but the crime is paying the hush money from the company's accounts, not personal accounts,
How he reported it is irrelevant. He got a bill from his lawyer and paid it. Perfectlyblegal.and then claiming the payments as legitimate business expenses and evading income taxes on the money.
Irrelevant as to when he paid it except for the fact that it necessarily means that he isn’t charged at all for paying for the NDA.The payments reimbursing Cohen were made AFTER the election, over a period of about a year.
He wasn’t charged with tax evasion, you dolt.As for the statute of limitations, there is no time limitation on charges of tax evasion,
Zzz. No. He’s not. One can’t be “fucked” for not committing a crime (especially one that isn’t even charged).which is where Trump is really fucked, and not on this case.
Nonsense. It’s not even a criminal case you ignorant twerp.Leticia James fraud case is much more dangerous to Trump than the Stormy Daniels case. The fraud case is going to trial in September.
Ignorant foreigners like you don’t grasp that legally no adverse inference can be drawn against any person for invoking our Constitutional right to remain silent.In terms of exposure, I would say that Leticia James fraud case is the one which will do the most damage. This is the case where Trump plead the 5th more than 400 times.
Glad you figured that out.This is not a criminal case, it's civil.
Is that why?Which is why Trump went back last week and actually sat for a deposition and answered questions, but he's really between a rock and a hard place here.
That’s not an accurate statement on the law, at least not as stated by you. While it may be true in certain circumstances that a civil trial jury is allowed to draw an inference in such a case, it depends on the context of the case. Here, it is probable that a fair judge following the law will not instruct the jury that it is permitted to draw any adverse inference.If Trump takes the 5th on questions asked, in a civil case, the jury can use that refusal as a negative inference.
Not true.If he takes the 5th in answering questions about James' questions which overlap into the criminal case, the jury can legally conclude he's guilty, and if he answers the questions truthfully, his answers can be used against him in the criminal trial.
When I first heard about this farm in upstate New York and Trump's tax dodge on it, years ago, I said "How does he get away with this shit?" because the whole think stunk to high heaven. I'm really happy that his Presidency has shone the spotlight on his shady business practices and scams. He's the worst, and now it's all catching up to him
Link?Not his "own trust". His own corporation.
Did he?And then he claimed a tax deduction for the money's paid.
Is it? Proof? Link? Charged?That's tax evasion.
While a few Republican DA's are hungry to get Biden, Hunter, et al., seems they are querying Comer for the dirt they can use to indict. Now we shall see if Comer's mouth is bigger than his plate. I suspect there's nothing on it to chew on, but it sure looks nice from a distance.
As my learned colleagues in academia are wont to say, the New York Post, founded by Alexander Hamilton, would not recognize what it has become. While it may not be a full-on tabloid, it bears all the hallmarks of one. Its appearance and style are reminiscent of the best of British tabloids, although it is not the kind of publication that garners awards for excellence in journalism. In fact, it has only managed to lay claim to one Pulitzer Prize, which is hardly an impressive record for any self-respecting journal of record. One might say that the NYPost exists somewhere between a serious news publication and a tabloid, but with its brazen and sensationalistic headlines, it sure looks like a tabloid to me. In the immortal words of that old adage, "if it looks like a duck, walks like a duck,....and you know the rest."
At least two Republican DAs want to prosecute Bidens: Rep. James Comer
House Oversight chairman says Republican prosecutors want to bring a case against the Bidens after Alvin Bragg charged Trump.nypost.com
WASHINGTON — At least two local GOP prosecutors are looking at ways to charge President Biden and his family amid Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg’s prosecution of former President Donald Trump, House Oversight Committee Chairman James Comer revealed Wednesday.
“I had two calls yesterday, one from a county attorney in Kentucky and one from a county attorney in Tennessee,” Comer (R-Ky.) told “Fox & Friends.” “They were Republican, obviously, both states are heavily Republican. They want to know if there are ways they can go after the Bidens now.”
Comer is leading a House Republican investigation into Joe Biden’s role in his family’s international business dealings in countries such as China and Ukraine. The lawmaker’s staff recently reviewed Suspicious Activity Reports filed by banks to the Treasury Department regarding possible criminal activity by the Biden family.
While a few Republican DA's are hungry to get Biden, Hunter, et al., seems they are querying Comer for the dirt they can use to indict. Now we shall see if Comer's mouth is bigger than his plate. I suspect there's nothing on it to chew on, but it sure looks nice from a distance.
As my learned colleagues in academia are wont to say, the New York Post, founded by Alexander Hamilton, would not recognize what it has become. While it may not be a full-on tabloid, it bears all the hallmarks of one. Its appearance and style are reminiscent of the best of British tabloids, although it is not the kind of publication that garners awards for excellence in journalism. In fact, it has only managed to lay claim to one Pulitzer Prize, which is hardly an impressive record for any self-respecting journal of record. One might say that the NYPost exists somewhere between a serious news publication and a tabloid, but with its brazen and sensationalistic headlines, it sure looks like a tabloid to me. In the immortal words of that old adage, "if it looks like a duck, walks like a duck,....and you know the rest."
At least two Republican DAs want to prosecute Bidens: Rep. James Comer
House Oversight chairman says Republican prosecutors want to bring a case against the Bidens after Alvin Bragg charged Trump.nypost.com
WASHINGTON — At least two local GOP prosecutors are looking at ways to charge President Biden and his family amid Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg’s prosecution of former President Donald Trump, House Oversight Committee Chairman James Comer revealed Wednesday.
“I had two calls yesterday, one from a county attorney in Kentucky and one from a county attorney in Tennessee,” Comer (R-Ky.) told “Fox & Friends.” “They were Republican, obviously, both states are heavily Republican. They want to know if there are ways they can go after the Bidens now.”
Comer is leading a House Republican investigation into Joe Biden’s role in his family’s international business dealings in countries such as China and Ukraine. The lawmaker’s staff recently reviewed Suspicious Activity Reports filed by banks to the Treasury Department regarding possible criminal activity by the Biden family.