Stormy Daniels cleared Trump from crimes

[WorldWatcher]

Then the prosecution has failed.

We won't know that for a couple of weeks.

At this point they've presented a very evidence based solid case for their theory of the law. The only opinion that matters as to whether the "prosecution has failed" rests with the jury.

Cohen's cross should finish today or Monday, no court tomorrow so FPOTUS#45 can attend his son's graduation. Then the defense is likely to rest and it will be the defense's turn. Chatter is they will be presenting only one or two witnesses. Then summation/closing arguments which will probably take about 1/2 a day each.

Jury could possibly have the case by the end of next week or the week after.

Only then will be know which of the three possible outcomes will happen:

• Acquittal: All jurors have to agree
• Conviction: All jurors have to agree
• Mistrial: Jurors can't agree on either acquittal or conviction and the trial ended and a new retrial date set.

WW

 

[jc456]

At this point they've presented a very evidence based solid case for their theory of the law. The only opinion that matters as to whether the "prosecution has failed" rests with the jury.

there's absolutely zero evidence. Zippola dude. I laugh at TDSers like you who can't see through a clear window.

 

[Faun]

And?

What do you mean, "and?"

I showed you Cohen paying for porn stars' silence was a crime of illegal campaign contributions.

 

[Faun]

so you think the slickster never gave out hush money? hahahaahahahahahahaha you are definitely a clueless cuck sucking on the demofk dicks.

You talking about Trump when you say, "the slickster?"

 

[WorldWatcher]

there's absolutely zero evidence. Zippola dude. I laugh at TDSers like you who can't see through a clear window.

I don't know where you have been. But the prosecution has been presenting evidence for about 3 weeks now. That includes testimony, texts, emails, phone records, audio recordings, video recordings, and financial documents.

You may not like it, but the evidence is there.

Press Center - Home | NYCOURTS.GOV

Cases in the NewsPeople v Allen WeisselbergPeople v Donald J. Trump (Civil)People v Donald J. Trump (Criminal):

ww2.nycourts.gov

Here is the link, you can read transcripts and review the other evidence here.

WW

 

[Faun]

I don't know where you have been. But the prosecution has been presenting evidence for about 3 weeks now. That includes testimony, texts, emails, phone records, audio recordings, video recordings, and financial documents.

You may not like it, but the evidence is there.

Press Center - Home | NYCOURTS.GOV

Cases in the NewsPeople v Allen WeisselbergPeople v Donald J. Trump (Civil)People v Donald J. Trump (Criminal):

ww2.nycourts.gov

Here is the link, you can read transcripts and review the other evidence here.

WW

You'll have to excuse jc, he can't see from his vantage point.

 

[jc456]

What do you mean, "and?"

I showed you Cohen paying for porn stars' silence was a crime of illegal campaign contributions.

no you didn't. you seem confused like you literally have something you don't. You haven't shown shit cuck

 

[jc456]

I don't know where you have been. But the prosecution has been presenting evidence for about 3 weeks now. That includes testimony, texts, emails, phone records, audio recordings, video recordings, and financial documents.

You may not like it, but the evidence is there.

Press Center - Home | NYCOURTS.GOV

Cases in the NewsPeople v Allen WeisselbergPeople v Donald J. Trump (Civil)People v Donald J. Trump (Criminal):

ww2.nycourts.gov

Here is the link, you can read transcripts and review the other evidence here.

WW

Cuck, I believe it is you with a head up your ass.

Please summarize the evidence you think they brought in? This ought to be good.

 

[j-mac]

What do you mean, "and?"

I showed you Cohen paying for porn stars' silence was a crime of illegal campaign contributions.

And?

 

[jc456]

And?

Don’t porn stars earn money being a porn star? So if they are paid it’s a crime now? Hmmm

 

[Robert W]

None of which speaks to Cohen's audio recording with Trump on paying David Pecker.

Totally legal. Watch the jury say the same thing.

 

[Robert W]

Which of them initiated discussions with Trump's team?

I believe both women did. By team do you mean one attorney?

 

[Robert W]

I don't know where you have been. But the prosecution has been presenting evidence for about 3 weeks now. That includes testimony, texts, emails, phone records, audio recordings, video recordings, and financial documents.

You may not like it, but the evidence is there.

Press Center - Home | NYCOURTS.GOV

Cases in the NewsPeople v Allen WeisselbergPeople v Donald J. Trump (Civil)People v Donald J. Trump (Criminal):

ww2.nycourts.gov

Here is the link, you can read transcripts and review the other evidence here.

WW

Why did other AGs study this case and declare they won't prosecute and the only prosecutor promised in his campaign he would go get Trump? Braggs case is very weak don't you agree?
People all over keep asking what is the crime. And you tell us to read transcripts.

 

[WorldWatcher]

Why did other AGs study this case and declare they won't prosecute and the only prosecutor promised in his campaign he would go get Trump?

Because investigations continued and more information developed. Same with other criminal investigations.

Braggs case is very weak don't you agree?

Wouldn't say so. Do I think the Trump Organization falsified business records to hide illegal reimbursements to Cohen who was convicted of criminal campaign fraud? Yes.

People all over keep asking what is the crime.

People all over keep asking what is the crime because they are repeating the talking points of the defendant standing behind a bike rack as he heads into/out of his criminal trial.

It's a disingenuous question, they know the answer.

And you tell us to read transcripts.

If you had, you would understand the case and the evidence better than now.

But some of "us" prefer to remain ignorant.

WW

 

[para bellum]

Because investigations continued and more information developed. Same with other criminal investigations.

Then why hasn't the prosecution entered anything into evidence that dates from after 2019?

Bragg's "Statement of Facts" is just a re-hashing of Counts 7 and 8 in Cohen's DOJ "Statement of Information".

It's just the Cohen and Pecker evidence that they've had for years. Nothing new in the trial at all, every single bit was already presented in those other 2 cases, (not counting Stormy's irrelevant testimony).

 

[Faun]

no you didn't. you seem confused like you literally have something you don't. You haven't shown shit cuck

I showed you he committed that crime. What I can't do is make you understand it.

 

[Faun]

Totally legal. Watch the jury say the same thing.

The payments were not legal. Cohen went to jail for making them, among other crimes.

 

[Faun]

I believe both women did. By team do you mean one attorney?

You believe wrong.

 

[Robert W]

Do I think the Trump Organization falsified business records to hide illegal reimbursements to Cohen who was convicted of criminal campaign fraud? Yes.

You are not the Jury. A good thing for Trump is that two lawyers are on the Jury and they will not be valuable to Bragg.

You have several claims that must be proved.
Falsify business records. Comeon guy.

Do you mean if you own a business that errors can't be corrected by your lawyer or accountant?Cohen was his attorney. How can you conclude paying your lawyer is illegal?

So you take the word of a proven liar?

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Then why hasn't the prosecution entered anything into evidence that dates from after 2019?

Because it wasn't needed.