Billiejeens
Diamond Member
- Jun 27, 2019
- 45,259
- 31,851
- 3,545
They know that they can't defeat President Trump in an election -
They prove that they know this everyday.
Spoiler Alert: Prosecutors' Tortuous Trump Case Is 'Confusing' to Nearly Everyone
- Thread starter Doc7505
- Start date
They know that they can't defeat President Trump in an election -
They prove that they know this everyday.
"Every neutral legal observer", the judge presiding over the guilty plea wasn't neutral? That's kind of his job I think, to be neutral.
This was a federal case. Barr was in the tank for Democrats, since he didn't stop it?
When you say "neutral" to whom exactly are you referring?
leftwinger
Diamond Member
No real crime, no victims. Campaign violations mentioned above are always settled with only a fine.
elektra
Diamond Member
Cohen's crimes are Cohen's crimes. Not Trumps.
Yes exactly. Now what were those contributions and why were they unlawful?
Think it through, you'll get it.
Is a hitman the only person responsible when he kills someone or is the person on who's behest, and on who's orders he killed also responsible?
Because they were more then he was allowed to give
Billiejeens
Diamond Member
- Jun 27, 2019
- 45,259
- 31,851
- 3,545
We have already established that the contributions were not illegal in of themself.
Hellokitty
Diamond Member
- Oct 12, 2009
- 9,858
- 9,933
- 2,185
Beside that is the check for the money. Bearing Trump's signature. Something even his lawyer concedes.
except that he signed the checks
Key takeaways from the opening statements in Donald Trump's hush money trial
The opening statements in the first criminal trial of a former American president provided a clear roadmap of how prosecutors will try to make the case that Donald Trump broke the law, and how the defense plans to fight the charges on multiple fronts.apnews.com
So at the very minimum the prosecution has checks ( they are in the public realm) that Trump has signed. That Cohen claims and for which he went to jail were for the purpose of paying Stormy.
A signed check is not nothing as far as evidence goes I think.
You need to show what the checks were for. Cohen was TRUMP's lawyer so of course he would be paying him. Cohen admitted he recorded TRUMP, people do things like that to cover their ass, so it's not believable Cohen wouldn't have any form of documented evidence showing TRUMP knew what the charges were for.
BlindBoo
Diamond Member
- Sep 28, 2010
- 57,376
- 17,026
- 2,180
"....an illegal conspiracy to undermine the integrity of a presidential election, and then the steps that Donald Trump took to conceal that illegal election fraud,” prosecutor Matthew Colangelo told the jury during his opening statement.
-“No politician wants bad press, but the evidence at trial will show that this was not spin or communications strategy. This was a planned, coordinated, long-running conspiracy to influence the 2016 election, to help Donald Trump get elected through illegal expenditures to silence people who had something bad to say about his behavior,”
IMO, they conspired to deny the electorate's free speech rights.
-“No politician wants bad press, but the evidence at trial will show that this was not spin or communications strategy. This was a planned, coordinated, long-running conspiracy to influence the 2016 election, to help Donald Trump get elected through illegal expenditures to silence people who had something bad to say about his behavior,”
IMO, they conspired to deny the electorate's free speech rights.
Well we could have had this wrapped a long time ago. But you know... the paragon of virtue that is Trump has spend an immense amount of time trying to postpone it. So he doesn't really want to know the ending.
I wonder why that is? After all why would an innocent man NOT want to conclude the matter?
Last edited:
Man With A Plan
Diamond Member
- May 21, 2023
- 5,543
- 4,197
- 1,938
November is coming, Konradv! Wait until you see how many supporters Trump has!The only thing confusing about the Trump trial is that he has any supporters at all!
Moonglow
Diamond Member
Spoiler Alert: 23 Apr 2024 ~~ By Victoria Taft
Prosecutors' Tortuous Trump Case Is 'Confusing' to Nearly Everyone
The first witness in Donald Trump's trial for alleged "criminal" bookkeeping errors came with National Enquirer-worthy titillations about what a hot commodity the former president was back in the day. Prosecutors thought they'd burst out of the gate with a little razzle-dazzle and T&A, hoping that jurors would believe the witness had anything to do with the actual charges in the case. This is because — spoiler alert — the prosecutors' actual case is a "confusing" distraction. It's the "Seinfeld" of legal cases.
But since a Manhattan jury will likely convict the former president because Orange Man Bad, here's what happened in court with the opening witness on truncated court sessions Monday and Tuesday.
David Pecker, the former publisher of the National Enquirer, testified that he worked with Trump's lawyer to kill stories that hurt Trump's reputation or would be hurtful to his wife and family. This is the so-called catch-and-kill scheme, wherein sources would approach the Enquirer with an unflattering story about Trump (this applies to Hollywood stars and big shots), offer money to the people telling it, and then make the story disappear.
And it went something like this:
All of the above is legal.
- Pecker reportedly would alert Trump's lawyer, Michael Cohen, about the titillating story.
- Cohen got three sources to sign a non-disclosure agreement for a sum of money.
- Trump paid his legal bills, which covered Cohen's incurred costs plus more.
~Snip~
~Snip~
The media have called this case a "hush money" case, but one of our crafty commenters called it the Hush Trump case. Touché. When a judge shuts up the defendant but not the other trial participants, you can't help but wonder if the fix is in. Where else will you read that in this censorious media world that we're living in?
Commentary:
Remembering when The Los Angeles Times “caught and killed” the story of Barack Obama’s banquet speech for Rashid Khalidi, which was on video. I bet that video is more damaging than sex with a stripper and had a bigger impact on the 2008 election than Daniels did in 2016. Nobody was prosecuted. Few even complained. The video is still in the vault.
THAT is not illegal. “Go away” settlements and NDAs are extremely common. The lying whorebag human toilet tried to milk a few dollars more out of him two weeks before the election.
130k to Trump is akin to me flipping a nickel to a bum who is annoying customers coming into my business. It’s a ridiculously small amount she accepted. That amount was offered because her lawyer knew it was so low no sane person would take it to court if they could make it go away for that trivial sum.
Nothing even slightly illegal about it.
The Secret Sources for ‘Bombshell’: Why Ex-Fox News Staffers Broke Their NDAs for Filmmakers
In order to paint a vivid picture of the network's culture, 'Bombshell's' makers spoke to about 20 people with a connection to Fox, including multiple women bound by confidentiality agreements, a task that sent the filmmakers into territory usually left to investigative journalists.www.hollywoodreporter.com
**********
4 things you should know about non-disclosure agreements
An NDA is a legal document that protects your business information and trade secrets from vendors, employees, and third parties.legal.thomsonreuters.com
Trump is a cheater and you guys think that is moral fiber, lmao-rotf
Sure. And yet this lawyer is explicitly saying what the purpose of the payments were.
As I stated. The admission has cost him jail time. Bit I guess Cohen did that for the lol's
leftwinger
Diamond Member
JONATHAN TURLEY: If you polled people and ask if Trump was responsible for the bubonic plague, we would end up with the same 35%. We have these hard numbers on either end of the poll when it comes to Trump. They don’t move no matter what the subject is.
What is clear is in this case, Trump is right. This is an embarrassment. The fact that we are actually talking about this case being presented in a New York courtroom leaves me in utter disbelief.
The arguments today did in fact capture all the problems here. You had this misdemeanor under state law that had run out, this is going back related to the 2016 election. They zapped it back into life by alleging that there was a campaign finance violation under the federal laws that doesn’t exist. The Department of Justice doesn’t view it this way.
On top of that, you got these tough factual issues that were laid out well by the Trump team. Saying someone else designated this as a legal expense. He was actually paid far in excess of this because this was a legal account.
The anti-Trump establishment doesn’t seem to care how ridiculous they look in this case. They’re just going after Trump in any way they can.
What is clear is in this case, Trump is right. This is an embarrassment. The fact that we are actually talking about this case being presented in a New York courtroom leaves me in utter disbelief.
The arguments today did in fact capture all the problems here. You had this misdemeanor under state law that had run out, this is going back related to the 2016 election. They zapped it back into life by alleging that there was a campaign finance violation under the federal laws that doesn’t exist. The Department of Justice doesn’t view it this way.
On top of that, you got these tough factual issues that were laid out well by the Trump team. Saying someone else designated this as a legal expense. He was actually paid far in excess of this because this was a legal account.
The anti-Trump establishment doesn’t seem to care how ridiculous they look in this case. They’re just going after Trump in any way they can.
Moonglow
Diamond Member
I guess about the same or less than last time which is still not enough.
Billiejeens
Diamond Member
- Jun 27, 2019
- 45,259
- 31,851
- 3,545
You typically do not have solid opinions.
Man With A Plan
Diamond Member
- May 21, 2023
- 5,543
- 4,197
- 1,938
Yeah, too bad that's not ILLEGAL, Prosecutor Matthew Colangelo! Paying people not to say bad things about you has been going on for as long as there have been political races! How did doing that deny the electorate's free speech rights? Goofy prosecution, Boo! Goofy post by you!
Man With A Plan
Diamond Member
- May 21, 2023
- 5,543
- 4,197
- 1,938
You actually think Biden is going to get as many votes as last time? With the dumpster fire that his entire administration has been? Dream on...
MagicMike
Platinum Member
Prove it.
Similar threads
New Topics
-
-
-
‘Why the Sudden Change of Heart?’: A Deportation History Lesson for Democrats
- Started by Doc7505
- Replies: 0
-
-
Trump administration backs down in dispute with Maine over trans athletes- Started by C_Clayton_Jones
- Replies: 0
