Bragg has still not specified the underlying crime that resurrected dead misdemeanors.

[Marener]

That's what I mean, possibilities, not certainty. I know they don't have to specifically identify a crime. I'm not arguing that. I'm saying that, if they don't, this will be perceived as a political persecution instead of justice.

The only certainty needed is the certainty that they falsified the documents to break the law, which seems pretty reasonable given there's really no other reason to be lying about this.

 

[hadit]

The only certainty needed is the certainty that they falsified the documents to break the law, which seems pretty reasonable given there's really no other reason to be lying about this.

I'm just saying that you cannot ignore the political component to this whole thing, and when the prosecution won't specify the underlying crime, they run a very real risk of being seen as setting up a political persecution, not justice. IOW, people will be asking, "What am I supposed to be outraged about? I know, Orange Man Bad, but what exactly has he done that warrants elevating an expired misdemeanor into a felony?" This is not a legal argument, but a political one, and the legal beagles should be very aware of what they are doing.

 

[Marener]

I'm just saying that you cannot ignore the political component to this whole thing, and when the prosecution won't specify the underlying crime, they run a very real risk of being seen as setting up a political persecution, not justice. IOW, people will be asking, "What am I supposed to be outraged about? I know, Orange Man Bad, but what exactly has he done that warrants elevating an expired misdemeanor into a felony?" This is not a legal argument, but a political one, and the legal beagles should be very aware of what they are doing.

Spare me. You guys didn't have a problem pushing for a political prosecution of Hillary Clinton or scores of other "deep state" people that Trump feels aggrieved by.

 

[hadit]

Spare me. You guys didn't have a problem pushing for a political prosecution of Hillary Clinton.

That sounds a lot like a waddaboudism. Is that what you were going for, or were you just hoping to deflect? What exactly were you looking to accomplish?

 

[Marener]

That sounds a lot like a waddaboudism. Is that what you were going for, or were you just hoping to deflect? What exactly were you looking to accomplish?

Your entire point is about perception and not the law. Forgive me for pointing out your perception may be skewed by your personal bias.

Trump supporters don't actually care about the law, and would view this as political prosecution no matter the facts or law.

 

[hadit]

Your entire point is about perception and not the law. Forgive me for pointing out your perception may be skewed by your personal bias.

Trump supporters don't actually care about the law, and would view this as political prosecution no matter the facts or law.

That's what I said, it's a political thing, not a legal thing. Politics is ALL about perception, and the prosecution is already viewed as being on a political witch hunt by almost half the American population. Doing things like refusing to specify what crime TRUMP! was supposedly covering up just furthers that perception and makes it look like they went searching for something they could turn into a prosecution, instead of finding a crime, THEN seeking justice for it.

 

[Marener]

That's what I said, it's a political thing, not a legal thing. Politics is ALL about perception, and the prosecution is already viewed as being on a political witch hunt by almost half the American population. Doing things like refusing to specify what crime TRUMP! was supposedly covering up just furthers that perception and makes it look like they went searching for something they could turn into a prosecution, instead of finding a crime, THEN seeking justice for it.

Trump supporters seeing this as a political prosecution is hardly surprising. They would say that regardless of the facts or law. The 5th avenue types.

 

[Lisa558]

The only certainty needed is the certainty that they falsified the documents to break the law, which seems pretty reasonable given there's really no other reason to be lying about this.

Putting the expenses for a non-disclosure agreement under Legal Expenses is not a crime. And as far as what other crime he committed, it was never specified, or proven.

You don’t send a case to the jury saying “we know we have no evidence of crime, so Instead think up some possibilities and just say he intended to do it.”

A fair judge would never even send this case to the jury. The prosecution failed to prove its case.

 

[hadit]

Trump supporters seeing this as a political prosecution is hardly surprising. They would say that regardless of the facts or law. The 5th avenue types.

I'm not talking about them. Of course they would think that. I'm talking about the average American who generally doesn't pay much attention to politics seeing this happening, wondering why they're supposed to hate TRUMP! so much and noting that the prosecution doesn't seem fair if they won't even be specific about what crime was supposedly covered up.

 

[Lisa558]

Trump supporters seeing this as a political prosecution is hardly surprising. They would say that regardless of the facts or law. The 5th avenue types.

Biden crazies seeing this as a valid case, with a trial properly handled, is not surprising either.

 

[Marener]

Putting the expenses for a non-disclosure agreement under Legal Expenses is not a crime. And as far as what other crime he committed, it was never specified, or proven.

You don’t send a case to the jury saying “we know we have no evidence of crime, so Instead think up some possibilities and just say he intended to do it.”

A fair judge would never even send this case to the jury. The prosecution failed to prove its case.

It goes well beyond categorizing it as legal expenses, because they laundered the money through Michael Cohen who made false retainer agreements.

The falsehoods filter down to Trump’s absurd claim that Cohen did this all on his own without anyone else’s knowledge.

The evidence of the crime are the falsified documents which the prosecution spent several days demonstrating to the jury.

Yet again, you’re demonstrating that you are not well informed about the facts of the case.

 

[Marener]

Biden crazies seeing this as a valid case, with a trial properly handled, is not surprising either.

The media I follow has portrayed this as a marginal case that will be difficult to prove, which is reasonable.

Your media has kept you ignorant or relevant details which results in your opinions being extremely misinformed and irrelevant.

 

[Lisa558]

It goes well beyond categorizing it as legal expenses, because they laundered the money through Michael Cohen who made false retainer agreements.

The falsehoods filter down to Trump’s absurd claim that Cohen did this all on his own without anyone else’s knowledge.

The evidence of the crime are the falsified documents which the prosecution spent several days demonstrating to the jury.

Yet again, you’re demonstrating that you are not well informed about the facts of the case.

1) The prosecution failed to prove Trump knew about it.

2) Plus…. Cohen told his lawyer that Trump knew nothing about it when they were looking for something to hang Trump with.

Thus, the prosecution did not prove its case, and a jury of normal people - as opposed to biased leftists like you - would follow the law and acquit.

 

[Lisa558]

The media I follow has portrayed this as a marginal case that will be difficult to prove, which is reasonable.

Your media has kept you ignorant or relevant details which results in your opinions being extremely misinformed and irrelevant.

Your media is not telling the truth. It’s been anti-Trump for years. This is NOT a marginal case - this is a sham designed to keep Trump from the presidency.

Only about 30% of voters are hard-left delusional voters. That’s not enough to win a (fair) election.

 

[Marener]

1) The prosecution failed to prove Trump knew about it.

2) Plus…. Cohen told his lawyer that Trump knew nothing about it when they were looking for something to hang Trump with.

Thus, the prosecution did not prove its case, and a jury of normal people - as opposed to biased leftists like you - would follow the law and acquit.

1. That’s not your call. That’s the jury’s job. Given you have seen but a fraction (if any) of the case presented to them, your opinion is far inferior to theirs.

2. Cohen most certainly never testified to this claim.

The idea that Cohen “went rogue” is an absurdity that you’d have to be pretty detached from reality to believe. Even Hope Hicks testified she didn’t believe it.

 

[Marener]

Your media is not telling the truth. It’s been anti-Trump for years. This is NOT a marginal case - this is a sham designed to keep Trump from the presidency.

Only about 30% of voters are hard-left delusional voters. That’s not enough to win a (fair) election.

Their opinions are based on far more knowledge and experience than yours. As we’ve seen, your knowledge of this case has massive gaps.

 

[Lisa558]

1. That’s not your call. That’s the jury’s job. Given you have seen but a fraction (if any) of the case presented to them, your opinion is far inferior to theirs.

There was NO evidence. A fair judge would not send this to the jury.

2. Cohen most certainly never testified to this claim.

He told that to his own attorney, who testified to it.

The idea that Cohen “went rogue” is an absurdity that you’d have to be pretty detached from reality to believe. Even Hope Hicks testified she didn’t believe it.

Of course he could go rouge. He’s an embezzler. He obviously goes rogue to get away with that.

Trump should sue Cohen for the money he stole from him (when this is over and he has time).

 

[Lisa558]

Their opinions are based on far more knowledge and experience than yours. As we’ve seen, your knowledge of this case has massive gaps.

Their opinions are driven by TDS.

 

[Marener]

There was NO evidence. A fair judge would not send this to the jury.

That’s absurd. The trial consisted of weeks of testimony and evidence.

He told that to his own attorney, who testified to it.

So hearsay? I think you’re missing the details.

Of course he could go rouge. He’s an embezzler. He obviously goes rogue to get away with that.

Trump should sue Cohen for the money he stole from him (when this is over and he has time).

Absurd again. An embezzler doesn’t take out a loan to pay off his bosses affairs. Those are diametrically opposed. One is Cohen taking Trump’s money, the other is Cohen spending his own money to protect him.

You have to be pretty delusional to believe that.

 

[Marener]

Their opinions are driven by TDS.

Again, we have a lot of evidence that you have large gaps in your knowledge about this case. An uninformed opinion is not a particularly useful opinion.