What is the Crime???

[Oddball]

Wrong... Show the legal code that says they need to be prosecuted. You can't

Even if he's not convicted, where is your evidence?

Oh, that's right....You just said nobody needs any evidence, just the charge.

You're not only stupid, you're a fucking Stalinist to boot.

 

[Slade3200]

He'll say no I didn't and probably add some insulting remarks about "Stormy," Avanatti and Cohen.

Why not?

The beauty of such an allegation for the people making it, is that so long afterward, there is no way to prove it is true or false. It doesn't just work for the accusers, it also works for the accused.

What do you think would be the consequence of Trump denying it happened?

No? he didn't sleep with her? Then why did he pay $320K for a NDA?

 

[MisterBeale]

Do you know why this isn't working?.... because Hillary was discovered using campaign money to buy the dossier she gave to the corrupt FBI to effect an election and her campaign received a fine... people aren't stupid.... that is why this has helped Trump....

That has always been par for the course with them. . .

An Arkansas Bank's Loans to the Clintons Are the Crux of the Latest Whitewater Case​

An Arkansas Bank's Loans to the Clintons Are the Crux of the LatestWhitewater Case

In the annals of state politics, it was hardly an unusual meeting. A small-town banker visits the governor a few weeks after his re-election, hands him some sizable checks to help repay campaign debts and suggests his business partner be given a powerful patronage job. But the meeting in...

web.archive.org

Published: June 30, 1996

FEC Fines 1992 Clinton Campaign And RNC​

AllPolitics - FEC Fines 1992 Clinton Campaign, RNC - May 30, 1997

". . . In the '92 Clinton campaign case, the FEC charged that $64,799 in delayed reimbursements to staffers and volunteers amounted to illegal loans to the campaign.

Regulators also sent admonishment letters to five campaign workers who later took Clinton Adminstration posts, including current White House Chief of Staff Erskine Bowles and former Deputy Chief of Staff Harold Ickes."

1996 United States campaign finance controversy - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[Slade3200]

Even if he's not convicted, where is your evidence?

Oh, that's right....You just said nobody needs any evidence, just the charge.

You're not only stupid, you're a fucking Stalinist to boot.

You make the case in court and judge/Jury decides.

 

[Slade3200]

That's great! That part in red should be the motto of the Trump deranged lawfare warriors.


Ok, what evidence was given by what witness of Trump's intent?

The evidence is being presented in court. They are making the case that his actions of hiding the money were aimed to help him win the election. It’s at the heart of the case

 

[Oddball]

You make the case in court and judge/Jury decides.

Just like they did in Moscow!

Fucking despot.

 

[Seymour Flops]

No? he didn't sleep with her? Then why did he pay $320K for a NDA?

To stop her from telling the National Enquirer that he did sleep with her. You think the Nat Enq verifies the lies they run?

Whether he did or did not sleep with her, would not affect a National Enquirer story, nor change the decision of the mainstream media on whether to run with the story.

Of course we have the word of "Stormy Daniels" that he did not sleep with her. So, there's that.

 

[MisterBeale]

A lawyer

Very good, now we are getting somewhere.

So now. . . tell me how is it. . .

To record payments to a lawyer for making a non-disclosure agreement?

 

[rightwinger]

Do you know why this isn't working?.... because Hillary was discovered using campaign money to buy the dossier she gave to the corrupt FBI to effect an election and her campaign received a fine... people aren't stupid.... that is why this has helped Trump....

But…but …What about Hillary is not a defense

 

[BackAgain]

So what?

Well, dopey. If the arguments don’t bind them, then they can alter their pretend “theory” at will.

This is fundamentally unfair. It is, in fact, why the law requires them to spell their shit out in a Bill of Particulars in the first place.

 

[dudmuck]

They can believe Cohen, he didn't present any evidence of a crime

In legal proceedings, witnesses can serve as sources of evidence, offering firsthand accounts that can corroborate or refute claims made by parties involved. Their testimony can influence the outcome of a case by providing insights that might otherwise remain concealed

 

[Seymour Flops]

The evidence is being presented in court.

What do you mean "being presented?" Their case is over, if you believe the media. Cohen is their last witness. What evidence was given by whom that Trump had an intent to commit a crime?

They are making the case that his actions of hiding the money were aimed to help him win the election. It’s at the heart of the case

With what evidence that this was his aim? Not that it's illegal to aim to win an election.

Or is this just going to be another "everyone knew what Trump wanted," like with the Ukraine phone call? Is that seriously the argument the prosecutors will make?

Please admit that the case is that lame, so I can get a laugh.

 

[Slade3200]

Just like they did in Moscow!

Fucking despot.

No, not like moscow

 

[struth]

In legal proceedings, witnesses can serve as sources of evidence, offering firsthand accounts that can corroborate or refute claims made by parties involved. Their testimony can influence the outcome of a case by providing insights that might otherwise remain concealed

Yes testimony is evidence

 

[BackAgain]

Theres an actually trial going on, carefully reviewed and scrutinized by several judges...

An actually trial.

And no. It is being considered not and exclusively by the trial judge. A partisan hack at that

Yet I'm crazy for being able to define the crimes

Except, of course, you never have.

and you're sane for not understanding the legality of whats being charged... OK!!!!!

No. I understand. You don’t. I’m sorry you’re so stupid.

 

[Oddball]

No, not like moscow

Yup, just like in Moscow.

No evidence presented, no proof of an actual crime committed....Just the charges as your "proof of intent".

You are one fucking sick sonofabitch.

 

[Slade3200]

To stop her from telling the National Enquirer that he did sleep with her. You think the Nat Enq verifies the lies they run?

Haha, you're not following this very closely are you. The owner of the National Enquirer is a close friend of the Don. They were part of the "Catch and Kill" plan to silence Trump accusers. They paid McDougal $150K to kill her story about having an affair with Trump.

Plus Trump had dozens of accusers and he didn't try and pay them all off.

Sorry man you just showed that you don't really know whats going on here

 

[Slade3200]

Very good, now we are getting somewhere.

So now. . . tell me how is it. . .

To record payments to a lawyer for making a non-disclosure agreement?

The lawyer didn't charge $320K to make a non disclosure agreement. Trump paid $320K to Cohen as reimbursement for the $130K payment he fronted to Stormy so they could hide the paper trail. You see how that works right?

 

[BackAgain]

Haha, you're not following this very closely are you. The owner of the National Enquirer is a close friend of the Don. They were part of the "Catch and Kill" plan to silence Trump accusers. They paid McDougal $150K to kill her story about having an affair with Trump.

Plus Trump had dozens of accusers and he didn't try and pay them all off.

Sorry man you just showed that you don't really know whats going on here

Zzz.

Notice how the libturd lemmings all follow heinous media propaganda

 

[Slade3200]

Well, dopey. If the arguments don’t bind them, then they can alter their pretend “theory” at will.

This is fundamentally unfair. It is, in fact, why the law requires them to spell their shit out in a Bill of Particulars in the first place.

The prosecutor wasn't pursuing charges for those particular crimes so why would they need to be in the Bill of Particulars?