Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Not when it is electioneering and a contribution in kind to a campaign.1. Paying for NDAs are ALWAYS legal.
Wow. This just might be the most delusional statement I have ever heard on this forum! And that's really saying something!2. Cohen (and Weisselberg) managed the Stormy payments, they have no connection to Trump.
Trump signed the checks. Checks falsely noted as a retainer.3. The fact that Cohen stole $60,000 from Trump proves Trump had no connection to the bookkeeping misdemeanors.
Tapper and the rest saw nothing wrong with the riots in all of the cities. Never trust these people again. Maher and Stewart included.Tapper didn't write the indictment, son.
Try to do better.
He essentially disallowed Costello as well. Time after time he sustained objections by the prosecution to something Costello was about to say and then went ballistic because Costello looked at him!The judge disallowed 2-witnesses, and both sides refused to call Weisselberg. So the judge shhould advise the jury that there are 3 missing witnesses:
1. Weisselberg. Yet they use his notes as gospel
2. Federal Election Law expert. To show there is no super-secret "crime" being covered up.
3. Shiller. To prove that Cohen lied when he said Shiller handed the phone to Trump. The call was only about the 14-year old.
How is an NDA "electioneering"? What does that even mean?Not when it is electioneering and a contribution in kind to a campaign.
Wow. This just might be the most delusional statement I have ever heard on this forum! And that's really saying something!
You know Cohen recorded his conversation with Trump about a payoff, right?
RIGHT?!?
Trump signed the checks. Checks falsely noted as a retainer.
Trump has always claimed he keeps a close eye on the books.
You clearly have not read the indictment and this is a waste of my time.
Brilliant post, dipshit.We’ll see what the jury has to say… won’t we
It obvious that Trump DIDN'T keep a close eye on what Cohen was doing and that's proven by the fact that Cohen stole almost a hundred thousand dollars from the Trump group!Not when it is electioneering and a contribution in kind to a campaign.
Wow. This just might be the most delusional statement I have ever heard on this forum! And that's really saying something!
You know Cohen recorded his conversation with Trump about a payoff, right?
RIGHT?!?
Trump signed the checks. Checks falsely noted as a retainer.
Trump has always claimed he keeps a close eye on the books.
You clearly have not read the indictment and this is a waste of my time.
Electioneering?Not when it is electioneering and a contribution in kind to a campaign.
Wow. This just might be the most delusional statement I have ever heard on this forum! And that's really saying something!
You know Cohen recorded his conversation with Trump about a payoff, right?
RIGHT?!?
Trump signed the checks. Checks falsely noted as a retainer.
Trump has always claimed he keeps a close eye on the books.
You clearly have not read the indictment and this is a waste of my time.
Yeah...he actually said that! (Eye roll)Electioneering?
1. Lawfare. Paying Stormy is NOT a contribution to a campaign.Not when it is electioneering and a contribution in kind to a campaign.
Wow. This just might be the most delusional statement I have ever heard on this forum! And that's really saying something!
You know Cohen recorded his conversation with Trump about a payoff, right? RIGHT?!?
Trump signed the checks. Checks falsely noted as a retainer.
Trump has always claimed he keeps a close eye on the books.
You clearly have not read the indictment and this is a waste of my time.
I have read the entire indictment which was deliberately vague as to the underlying crime.Yes, there were business records. And it is totally false ALL the payments were from Trump's personal account.
For the gazillionth time, will you parroting rubes PLEASE read the fricking indictment!
I saw it live on TV. It was the first time I heard what the "super-secret crime" was.
Subsequent to that I now heard that there are 3 potential/possible crimes, and the lawyers are arguing if the jury has to all agree on only one to make the felony stick.
The "instructions to the jury" will be unbelievably complex since this "Frankenstein" misdemeanor reborn as a felony is total bullshit to start with.
Not when it is electioneering and a contribution in kind to a campaign.
Wow. This just might be the most delusional statement I have ever heard on this forum! And that's really saying something!
You know Cohen recorded his conversation with Trump about a payoff, right?
RIGHT?!?
Trump signed the checks. Checks falsely noted as a retainer.
Trump has always claimed he keeps a close eye on the books.
You clearly have not read the indictment and this is a waste of my time.
That is unimportant. The cover up of how the funds were handled is at issue.There are no restrictions on the amount of money a candidate can contribute to their own campaign. Trump reimbursed Cohn.
.
Been proven untrue.That is unimportant. The cover up of how the funds were handled is at issue.
That is unimportant. The cover up of how the funds were handled is at issue.
A case so bad the judge had to call the Fire Department after the prosecutions case burst into flame on cross and they now need at least a week to find the votes to convictMods: Just saw this on TV, so there may not be a link yet.
Jake was talking to two judges and said that the crime that turns the bookkeeping misdemeanor into a felony is "hiding information from voters".
That makes no sense to me. I thought that "Non-Disclosure Agreements" were always perfectly legal.
Is there an exception for Federal election candidates?
Can states enforce Federal election laws? Or, is NY misinterpreting Federal election law?
"So this is the case: A serial perjurer used to convert a dead state misdemeanor into a felony based on an alleged federal election crime that was rejected by the Justice Department.
The Trump Trial in Manhattan is an Indictment of the New York Legal System
Below is my column in the New York Post on the start of the Trump trial today in New York. I have long been critical of the case as a clear example of the weaponization of the criminal justice syst…jonathanturley.org
But Bragg then used the alleged federal crime to bootstrap a defunct misdemeanor charge into a felony in the current case. He is arguing that Trump intentionally lied when his former lawyer Michael Cohen listed the payments as retainer costs rather than a payment — to avoid reporting it as a campaign contribution to himself."
Is the $130,000 paid to Stormy a campaign contribution from Trump to Trump's campaign?
So Jake Tapper's interpretation may be wrong? Bragg should have specifically listed the "secret crime" that turned the misdemeanor into a felony on the Bill of Particulars, but he didn't.
Was the secret crime:
Hiding info from voters?
Or not reporting a $130,000 campaign contribution (to Stormy) from himself to himself?
What was the cover up?That is unimportant. The cover up of how the funds were handled is at issue.
What Cohen did was illegal (obviously… he did jail time for it). Trump helped to hide thatWhat was the cover up?
