Can anyone give a Lucid Explanation of Bragg's alleged "another crime?"

[para bellum]

Lying through omission again?

okay

WTF are you talking about. I am not obligated to address every single word you spew.

I addressed your false characterization of Pecker's testimony. He didn't say what you claimed he said. It's in the transcripts. I gave you the pages.

What omission? Did I miss the post where you retracted your characterization of Pecker's testimony? I don't think so- I have never seen you retract anything when you are proved wrong.

You want to deflect by talking about what Hope Hicks said, or what someone else said, but that other testimony has no bearing on YOUR post #134 about what PECKER said.

 

[Dante]

WTF are you talking about. I am not obligated to address every single word you spew.

No one claimed you were.

next

 

[Dante]

I addressed your false characterization of Pecker's testimony. He didn't say what you claimed he said. It's in the transcripts. I gave you the pages.

You mischaracterized what are in the transcripts. You spouted a false narrative.

 

[para bellum]

You mischaracterized what are in the transcripts. You spouted a false narrative.

Horse shit. Don't accuse me of doing what you did.

You said: "Pecker testified that Trump was not worried about the embarrassment to his family, but was worried about the upcoming election."

I read all of Pecker's testimony, and he never said that Trump was not worried about the embarrassment to his family. He said the exact opposite, several times. That is proved by the transcript.

I offered no false narratives. Pecker was on the stand. He was being questioned about a meeting with Trump after the election. In that meeting, Trump thanked him for his help.

Steinglass wanted to know what Pecker thought Trump meant by that. Pecker said what he thought it meant to him.

Steinglass didn't like the answer. He brought out the FBI 302 to "refresh Pecker's memory". The defense objected. There was a sidebar. The question was asked in a slightly different way.

That's when Pecker said the family was not mentioned in that meeting.

The pages are the pages.

You tried to spin that into Trump telling Pecker that he wasn't worried about embarrassment to his family, and that is simply not true.

 

[Dante]

You said: "Pecker testified that Trump was not worried about the embarrassment to his family, but was worried about the upcoming election."

In relation to the case here in court -- the Hush Money

you keep conflating the Doorman shit with the Daniel's stuff

now go deflect, and lie, and do whatever other shit you usually do -- elsewhere.

 

[para bellum]

In relation to the case here in court -- the Hush Money

you keep conflating the Doorman shit with the Daniel's stuff

now go deflect, and lie, and do whatever other shit you usually do -- elsewhere.

No, we were talking specifically about Pecker's testimony and your mischaracterization of it.

Your deflection doesn't work. I said nothing about the doorman or Daniels. The conflation is all yours. The testimony was about a meeting.

 

[Dante]

No, we were talking specifically about Pecker's testimony and your mischaracterization of it.

Your deflection doesn't work. I said nothing about the doorman or Daniels. The conflation is all yours. The testimony was about a meeting.

anyone interested (I can't see why anyone would be here), can link back through posts and find the beginning of it all.

You're too damn stupid.

 

[para bellum]

anyone interested (I can't see why anyone would be here), can link back through posts and find the beginning of it all.

No need. Your post #134 is where you told the lie.

I corrected it in my post #152, and that's when your butthurt began.

 

[Dante]

No need. Your post #134 is where you told the lie.

I corrected it in my post #152, and that's when your butthurt began.

Sorry, you again lie through omission.

Pecker testified that Trump was not worried about the embarrassment to his family, but was worried about the upcoming election.

It all references post #128

Prosecutors have framed the falsified documents as concealing a broader conspiracy to protect Mr. Trump’s campaign. They allege that Mr. Trump and Mr. Cohen coordinated with the former publisher of The National Enquirer, David Pecker, to bury stories that could damage Mr. Trump’s campaign and promote others that would harm his political rivals. (context)

You jumped in on a comment I made to that troll, after he said that Pecker shot a big hole in that.

My reply back to the troll was --
Not sure wtf you have been paying attention to, but Pecker as he did in the civil case, is helping to dig Trump into the ground on this one. Pecker testified that Trump was not worried about the embarrassment to his family, but was worried about the upcoming election.

 

[para bellum]

Sorry, you again lie through omission.

Pecker testified that Trump was not worried about the embarrassment to his family, but was worried about the upcoming election.

It all references post #128

Prosecutors have framed the falsified documents as concealing a broader conspiracy to protect Mr. Trump’s campaign. They allege that Mr. Trump and Mr. Cohen coordinated with the former publisher of The National Enquirer, David Pecker, to bury stories that could damage Mr. Trump’s campaign and promote others that would harm his political rivals. (context)

You jumped in on a comment I made to that troll, after he said that Pecker shot a big hole in that.

My reply back to the troll was --
Not sure wtf you have been paying attention to, but Pecker as he did in the civil case, is helping to dig Trump into the ground on this one. Pecker testified that Trump was not worried about the embarrassment to his family, but was worried about the upcoming election.

That is a fail.

First of all, I do not care how the prosecutor frames something, and that is just a recitation of the language in the indictment

I am still waiting for the testimony from Pecker, where he said Trump was not worried about embarrassment to his family.

Come on, back up your statement...

 

[Dante]

That is a fail.

First of all, I do not care how the prosecutor frames something, and that is just a recitation of the language in the indictment

I am still waiting for the testimony from Pecker, where he said Trump was not worried about embarrassment to his family.

Come on, back up your statement...

Misrepresenting things with negative narratives like you do, is what imbeciles do.

Daniels testifies: Trump's Legal Team Calls for a Mistrial in Manhattan Courtroom

Go misrepresent, deflect, and lie through omission elsewhere, trollboi Loser. I will post wherever it's relevant. Register your grievance with the management. The judge runs the courtroom. It's up to him to hold both sides to the rules he lays out in advance. You can't blame the defense...

www.usmessageboard.com

 

[para bellum]

Misrepresenting things with negative narratives like you do, is what imbeciles do.

So you can't back up your statement.

Okay- not like we didn't know that already, lol.

 

[Dante]

So you can't back up your statement.

Okay- not like we didn't know that already, lol.

Back it up? I have.

You are a complete failure. Your intellect seems damaged beyond repair. I wish there were help for you. Now spin negative connotations and shitty narratives. The jury is seeing and hearing the evidence without your nonsensical bullshit arguments.

 

[para bellum]

Back it up? I have.

No you didn't.

You have not shown one single quote from Pecker that says what you claimed he said.

Your inferences are idiotic and tiresome.

 

[Dante]

"the matter at the heart of the case — whether there was a conspiracy to cover up a hush-money payment made to a porn star, Daniels, before an election, and whether business records were falsified in the process."

 

[Dante]

So Pecker lied is what you're saying.

Donald Trump's Team Makes 'Apparent Slip' in Court

 

[Delldude]

Donald Trump's Team Makes 'Apparent Slip' in Court

LOL..............dead link...........just your speed.

It's funny how the left, here, is all up in arms over this trial, yet most, if not all cable news are thoroughly confused as to why this is even in court, plus the Grey Lady wrote an article along the same line.

 

[Dante]

LOL..............dead link...........just your speed.

It's funny how the left, here, is all up in arms over this trial, yet most, if not all cable news are thoroughly confused as to why this is even in court, plus the Grey Lady wrote an article along the same line.

Not true. Even if so, the jury will figure it all out. They don't have imbeciles like you muddying up the waters.

 

[Dante]

LOL..............dead link...........just your speed.

It's funny how the left, here, is all up in arms over this trial, yet most, if not all cable news are thoroughly confused as to why this is even in court, plus the Grey Lady wrote an article along the same line.

"McConney testified that he kept two slips of paper that had hand-written math regarding Michael Cohen’s reimbursement in a locked drawer in his office. Defense attorney Emil Bove asked him if most of the drawers in his office were locked. McConney said yes. “I had a lot of sensitive information,” he explained."

Tarasoff and McConney also testified to the total control Trump had over payments, especially from his personal account, which was the account Cohen was reimbursed from.

 

[Rawley]

Lol. The entire case is about proving an uncharged violation of a never-used election law. It's a complete sham.

You think you know what Trump's state of mind is, but it's all inference. "We all know" doesn't mean squat.

I think I remember you saying something to the effect that if it wasn't presented to the Grand Jury, they can't bring it up now. To my knowledge the business records charge was the only thing considered by the Grand Jury. And in fact I think Merchan held that the prosecution didn't even have to disclose the other crime being alleged to the defense.

How does this work?