What Democrats are doing to Trump is some true banana republic crap. They should be ashamed but they aren’t.

[Eastmandawg]

U should post more…

On the other hand, maybe not. Thinks you may have just killed the thread - 😏

 

[-lowcountrydawg]

This & a lot more stated in this thread is simply incorrect or based on false assumptions.

Summary of Andy McCarthy:

1. Trump is facing a state criminal trial for violating federal election laws that Alvin Bragg has no jurisdiction to enforce.

2. NDAs are perfectly legal & Trump used his $ (not campaign $)

3. Cohen’s payment to Clifford did not transform into an “illegal” campaign expenditure just because Cohen said it did...the Justice Department itself (whose actual job it is to charge those things) opted not to prosecute Trump.

4. Both the Obama & Hillary campaigns were charged with illegal campaign expenditures...and simply paid fines (Obama's the largest ever...Hillary for her $ part in the paid-for fake Dossier). Both to "influence a PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION"

5. Even if the payment of hush money had been a campaign expenditure under federal law, Trump would have been required to disclose it , but Cohen paid Clifford in October 2016, the next reporting period would have been after the election: i.e. Trump would have had no legal obligation “during the 2016 presidential election” to reveal the payments to Clifford charged in Bragg’s indictment.

6. To be clear: the Department of Justice (under Trump and Biden) and the Federal Election Commission investigated the 2016 hush-money payments but took no enforcement action against Trump. Why? Because (a) the payment was not technically a campaign expenditure, (b) federal spending restrictions did not apply to Trump, and (c) even assuming that Trump had a disclosure obligation, the lack of regulatory disclosure cannot possibly have influenced the outcome of the 2016 election since no disclosure would have been required prior to the election.

7. The federal authorities that have jurisdiction to enforce federal election law more often than not treat violations far more egregious than Trump’s with civil fines, not criminal prosecution. President Obama’s 2008 campaign, for example, concealed millions of dollars in improper contributions and delayed in making refunds; the FEC imposed a $375,000 fine — note that even the fine (to say nothing of the violations) was larger than the violations for which Bragg is trying to prosecute Trump.

8. Although Bragg has previously prosecuted the Trump organization for tax violations, he does not allege that the state was deprived of tax revenue or otherwise cheated by the way the NDA payments were recorded. To the contrary, in reimbursing Cohen, Trump and other company executives doubled the $130,000 NDA payment to $260,000 precisely because it was expected that Cohen would pay income tax on it. That is, the manner in which the reimbursement was booked made it a taxable event for Cohen; the payment was thus inflated to ensure that Cohen would be fully reimbursed after paying taxes. (Payments in satisfaction of a debt are not income and not taxable as such; legal fees, by contrast, are taxable income.)

9. In terms of falsifying business records, yes, the expenditure was for one purpose, but Trump booked it as if it had been for a different purpose. However: That still may not be enough to establish the New York crime of falsifying business records. The relevant penal statute, §175.05, requires the state to prove beyond a reasonable doubt not just that the record entry was false, but that the defendant acted “with intent to defraud.” Generally speaking, fraud is a financial crime, involving schemes to acquire money or property by false pretenses. There is no indication that Trump intended to trick anyone into parting with assets.

10. Under New York law, deceptive schemes to cause other types of harm can also qualify as fraud. Nonetheless, there must be some concrete harm to establish fraud. It does not appear that New York state or anyone else was harmed by Trump’s misdescription of a loan repayment as the payment of legal fees. However, I assume Trump would argue that, because Cohen was his lawyer and the formal NDA with Clifford was a legal contract, describing the payments to Cohen as legal fees was not wholly fictional, much less actionably fraudulent. Again, the amount Trump paid Cohen significantly exceeded the $130,000 loan amount, and Trump would muddy the water by insisting he understood he was paying Cohen for legal services.

11. Did Trump have fraudulent intent for purposes of §175.05? It would be an interesting question if Bragg had brought an actual falsification-of-business-records prosecution. But he didn’t, and couldn’t. That crime is a misdemeanor. New York’s categorization of it as such makes sense: It is a nonviolent, not particularly serious offense — one that prosecutors should not even think about charging in the absence of concrete harm (and, of course, in the absence of being able to demonstrate that they enforce the law even-handedly against similarly situated business people). More to the point, because falsification of records is not a grievous crime, the statute of limitations for charging such an offense is just two years. Since Bragg alleges that Trump’s recordkeeping on the transaction concluded in December 2017, any charge should have been brought by late 2019 — two years before Bragg was elected DA (but around the time that federal prosecutors and Bragg’s predecessor concluded that there was nothing worth prosecuting).

Bragg, however, has not brought a falsification-of-business-records case, despite what his indictment says. He is attempting to prosecute a federal campaign-finance case.

12. Motive is not enough if the expenditures in question are not technically campaign expenditures — bills necessary to the conduct of the campaign, not non-campaign bills that the campaign has incentive to pay.

13. It will be very difficult for Bragg to show an intent to defraud — his theory that New York (indeed, the known universe) was harmed because Trump won in 2016 is not the concrete, particularized harm that is an essential ingredient of fraud crimes. But that aside, remember that the “other crime” Bragg maintains Trump was trying to conceal was a federal campaign crime — one that the feds themselves did not believe Trump committed, and that Bragg is politically engineering into a new election law that he is somehow allowed to prosecute.

 

[jlstone412]

I think we know why he is there. This happened years ago. When he was a Democrat. He faced no criminal charges on anything back in the day. I know it isn’t just for sleeping with a porn star. I get what the charges are.

He is there for one reason. A felony conviction gets him off the ballot. The da promised in his campaign to get Trump for something. Do you believe this is all on the up and up? Including a judge on the trial who gives heavily to Biden. Or him having a daughter who profits heavily off Biden’s success. Millions of dollars in fact. If the shoe was on the other foot, would you bend over and be ok with it. Please answer honestly

The alleged crimes occurred when he was the republican nominee for president/POTUS.

Felony conviction doesn't keep him off the ballot. Just means he gets one less vote for himself (his own vote).

Having read the statement of facts of the case presented alongside the grand jury indictment, I don't see anything that is not on the "up and up". 34 counts is a lot of alleged criming.

Spare me the judge stuff. Cannon in the Florida case is woefully incompetent and a trump appointed judge yet I don't see republicans screaming for her to recuse herself. If her appointment by trump is not cause for recusal nothing is.

The shoe is on the other foot with Biden being investigated for impeachment. And I'm happy to see what comer and company have on him. To date...they have nothing impeachable outside of "common sense tells us" or "evidence is coming soon just wait". I'm just as eager to read about what is presented in the NY case because we haven't seen all the evidence yet. Let it play out. It's not a witch-hunt.

 

[zingerdawg]

The alleged crimes occurred when he was the republican nominee for president/POTUS.

Felony conviction doesn't keep him off the ballot. Just means he gets one less vote for himself (his own vote).

Having read the statement of facts of the case presented alongside the grand jury indictment, I don't see anything that is not on the "up and up". 34 counts is a lot of alleged criming.

Spare me the judge stuff. Cannon in the Florida case is woefully incompetent and a trump appointed judge yet I don't see republicans screaming for her to recuse herself. If her appointment by trump is not cause for recusal nothing is.

The shoe is on the other foot with Biden being investigated for impeachment. And I'm happy to see what comer and company have on him. To date...they have nothing impeachable outside of "common sense tells us" or "evidence is coming soon just wait". I'm just as eager to read about what is presented in the NY case because we haven't seen all the evidence yet. Let it play out. It's not a witch-hunt.

I thought bobulinski was compelling. Seems like he knew he was involved. Is witness testimony not considered evidence or more than “common sense”. All the big talk by Joe and hunter sure went away when he testified. They ran from the hearing like they saw a ghost.

You are right and wrong. The felony thing is a slippery slope. By itself no. He would be on the ballot. But states could change voting laws required any presidential candidate have a clean record to be on their ballot. Depending on who you talk to, this could happen. Hell they were already trying to keep him off the ballot. You think this wouldn’t happen?

It happened when he slept with a porn star. The payoff happened before the election sure, but what he was paying off happened when he was a Democrat.

Comparing the Biden impeachment and this is literally the complete opposite. The laptop fell into the fbi’s hands. By sheer idiocy and luck. They buried it before the last election. Then refused to let anyone look at it forever. After begging and finally the laptop became an issue after years, we have hearings. In 2024! At least 5 years after the laptop was discovered. How is this even remotely the same? It lead to shell companies and money being laundered into James and hunters accounts. It is head in the sand territory if you want to believe this.

I appreciate the civility. I am anxious to see it play out, but it is bad. When a da runs on charging trump. Then creates a felony charge never done before. Going before a judge who gives to your opponent, with a daughter who makes money and her livelihood off of Joe Biden’s success. It is like a bad political movie.

 

[DKDawg1985]

Can you imagine if the parties were reversed on this? Omg the outcry.

A Democrat and his administration have worked with their top donor to get his Presidential opponent stuck in a court every single day during the campaign season full of Democrat jurors and a far far left tds suffering judge. Led by a DA whose a whole campaign was about getting Trump by any means possible. The same DA who repeatedly downgrades felonies to misdemeanors and releases everyone with zero bail is charging Trump with a felony when it has NEVER been a felony before is doing this. The chat Democrats who were so damn worried about our threat to Democracy should be ashamed of themselves for not speaking up now.

View embedded media

100%!

The shame of all this is that you will only hear this information on social media and not the main stream media / npr!

 

[DKDawg1985]

Did you watch the video? This has never been a felony charge ever. Until Trump. I am sure he paid her off. Wouldn’t surprise me a bit. You don’t have to whine for him. Two cases, this one and the property value case have both been firsts. (Ever, never happened before)It doesn’t make you pause and wonder what the response may be when this insanity is over.

Payoffs happen all the time…think about all the beltway politicians that have payed off their accusers!

 

[WyoDawg307]

for the sake of argument, if a felony was committed, he should be tried for that.

Trump is no stranger to litigation pre-2016. He’s been tied up in litigation his entire career. Why would this be any different?

For the law and order crowd, it really is fun watching the pretzel, twistinfor the law and order crowd, it really is fun watching the pretzel twisting.

it also sounds like some of the jurors already selected are Fox News watchers, so the “liberal jury“ is in accurate.

I honestly don’t care if he’s found guilty or not. It’s just been really fun to watch him squirm for the last 48 hours. He’s so uncomfortable.

1. Show me some Democrats that are in court. Oh wait, thats right, there are none. The DOJ will not pursue them. Pretzel that for us.
2. Fox isn't conservative. Dems have long been watching Fox. Even many Dems know PMSNBC/CNN are trash.
3. Your TDS still shows.

 

[cherrydawg]

The alleged crimes occurred when he was the republican nominee for president/POTUS.

Felony conviction doesn't keep him off the ballot. Just means he gets one less vote for himself (his own vote).

Having read the statement of facts of the case presented alongside the grand jury indictment, I don't see anything that is not on the "up and up". 34 counts is a lot of alleged criming.

Spare me the judge stuff. Cannon in the Florida case is woefully incompetent and a trump appointed judge yet I don't see republicans screaming for her to recuse herself. If her appointment by trump is not cause for recusal nothing is.

The shoe is on the other foot with Biden being investigated for impeachment. And I'm happy to see what comer and company have on him. To date...they have nothing impeachable outside of "common sense tells us" or "evidence is coming soon just wait". I'm just as eager to read about what is presented in the NY case because we haven't seen all the evidence yet. Let it play out. It's not a witch-hunt.

Former AG Barr rips 'political' Trump hush money case, says 'real threat' to democracy is progressive left

Former Attorney General Bill Barr warned the left is "perverting the system of justice" with their "abomination" of a case against former President Donald Trump.

www.foxnews.com

 

[jlstone412]

1. Show me some Democrats that are in court. Oh wait, thats right, there are none. The DOJ will not pursue them. Pretzel that for us.
2. Fox isn't conservative. Dems have long been watching Fox. Even many Dems know PMSNBC/CNN are trash.
3. Your TDS still shows.

1: DOJ isn't involved in state court

2: Fox is most certainly conservative.

3: I can look at this objectively and not have TDS.

 

[WyoDawg307]

1: DOJ isn't involved in state court

2: Fox is most certainly conservative.

3: I can look at this objectively and not have TDS.

I jut laughed out loud so hard I almost sharted myself!!!!!!

Yes, that would be in true in a normal world, but it is 100% untrue in the current Obama White House. The DOJ sent a prosecutor to WORK IN THE NY DA's OFFICE!

Attorney General, Merrick Garland, sent Deputy AG Matthew Colangelo to work in DA Alvin Bragg’s office, to construct some kind of case out of the Stormy Daniels / Michael Cohen garbage.

Here's a link to a headline from a source you might believe: https://www.nytimes.com/2022/12/05/nyregion/alvin-bragg-trump-investigation.html

In Georgia, Fani and her boyfriend were at the White House and received guidance for their BS Georgia case. Of course you won't find the government controlled media telling you this, so you are unaware of the truth.

This lawfare is "Obama 101", just like he deployed Eric Holder against his foes in his first 2 terms.

I don't watch Fox, but I am guessing it is just slightly to the right of the other left-tard media. Not right wing imo and any narrative published by Fox is 100% the approved US government narrative.

Yes objectivity can be had with TDS, but having all the facts is paramount.

 

[litedawg1968]

This & a lot more stated in this thread is simply incorrect or based on false assumptions.

Summary of Andy McCarthy:

1. Trump is facing a state criminal trial for violating federal election laws that Alvin Bragg has no jurisdiction to enforce.

2. NDAs are perfectly legal & Trump used his $ (not campaign $)

3. Cohen’s payment to Clifford did not transform into an “illegal” campaign expenditure just because Cohen said it did...the Justice Department itself (whose actual job it is to charge those things) opted not to prosecute Trump.

4. Both the Obama & Hillary campaigns were charged with illegal campaign expenditures...and simply paid fines (Obama's the largest ever...Hillary for her $ part in the paid-for fake Dossier). Both to "influence a PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION"

5. Even if the payment of hush money had been a campaign expenditure under federal law, Trump would have been required to disclose it , but Cohen paid Clifford in October 2016, the next reporting period would have been after the election: i.e. Trump would have had no legal obligation “during the 2016 presidential election” to reveal the payments to Clifford charged in Bragg’s indictment.

6. To be clear: the Department of Justice (under Trump and Biden) and the Federal Election Commission investigated the 2016 hush-money payments but took no enforcement action against Trump. Why? Because (a) the payment was not technically a campaign expenditure, (b) federal spending restrictions did not apply to Trump, and (c) even assuming that Trump had a disclosure obligation, the lack of regulatory disclosure cannot possibly have influenced the outcome of the 2016 election since no disclosure would have been required prior to the election.

7. The federal authorities that have jurisdiction to enforce federal election law more often than not treat violations far more egregious than Trump’s with civil fines, not criminal prosecution. President Obama’s 2008 campaign, for example, concealed millions of dollars in improper contributions and delayed in making refunds; the FEC imposed a $375,000 fine — note that even the fine (to say nothing of the violations) was larger than the violations for which Bragg is trying to prosecute Trump.

8. Although Bragg has previously prosecuted the Trump organization for tax violations, he does not allege that the state was deprived of tax revenue or otherwise cheated by the way the NDA payments were recorded. To the contrary, in reimbursing Cohen, Trump and other company executives doubled the $130,000 NDA payment to $260,000 precisely because it was expected that Cohen would pay income tax on it. That is, the manner in which the reimbursement was booked made it a taxable event for Cohen; the payment was thus inflated to ensure that Cohen would be fully reimbursed after paying taxes. (Payments in satisfaction of a debt are not income and not taxable as such; legal fees, by contrast, are taxable income.)

9. In terms of falsifying business records, yes, the expenditure was for one purpose, but Trump booked it as if it had been for a different purpose. However: That still may not be enough to establish the New York crime of falsifying business records. The relevant penal statute, §175.05, requires the state to prove beyond a reasonable doubt not just that the record entry was false, but that the defendant acted “with intent to defraud.” Generally speaking, fraud is a financial crime, involving schemes to acquire money or property by false pretenses. There is no indication that Trump intended to trick anyone into parting with assets.

10. Under New York law, deceptive schemes to cause other types of harm can also qualify as fraud. Nonetheless, there must be some concrete harm to establish fraud. It does not appear that New York state or anyone else was harmed by Trump’s misdescription of a loan repayment as the payment of legal fees. However, I assume Trump would argue that, because Cohen was his lawyer and the formal NDA with Clifford was a legal contract, describing the payments to Cohen as legal fees was not wholly fictional, much less actionably fraudulent. Again, the amount Trump paid Cohen significantly exceeded the $130,000 loan amount, and Trump would muddy the water by insisting he understood he was paying Cohen for legal services.

11. Did Trump have fraudulent intent for purposes of §175.05? It would be an interesting question if Bragg had brought an actual falsification-of-business-records prosecution. But he didn’t, and couldn’t. That crime is a misdemeanor. New York’s categorization of it as such makes sense: It is a nonviolent, not particularly serious offense — one that prosecutors should not even think about charging in the absence of concrete harm (and, of course, in the absence of being able to demonstrate that they enforce the law even-handedly against similarly situated business people). More to the point, because falsification of records is not a grievous crime, the statute of limitations for charging such an offense is just two years. Since Bragg alleges that Trump’s recordkeeping on the transaction concluded in December 2017, any charge should have been brought by late 2019 — two years before Bragg was elected DA (but around the time that federal prosecutors and Bragg’s predecessor concluded that there was nothing worth prosecuting).

Bragg, however, has not brought a falsification-of-business-records case, despite what his indictment says. He is attempting to prosecute a federal campaign-finance case.

12. Motive is not enough if the expenditures in question are not technically campaign expenditures — bills necessary to the conduct of the campaign, not non-campaign bills that the campaign has incentive to pay.

13. It will be very difficult for Bragg to show an intent to defraud — his theory that New York (indeed, the known universe) was harmed because Trump won in 2016 is not the concrete, particularized harm that is an essential ingredient of fraud crimes. But that aside, remember that the “other crime” Bragg maintains Trump was trying to conceal was a federal campaign crime — one that the feds themselves did not believe Trump committed, and that Bragg is politically engineering into a new election law that he is somehow allowed to prosecute.

Damn, Moose bringing receipts today.

 

[shonuff253]

I love how none of Trumps MAGA supports here have mentioned displeasure that Trump cheated on his pregnant wife with a p0r$tar and paid her off. I guess the character of their leaders doesn't matter to the GOP and conservatives anymore. The fact that the cheating doesn't cause them to back away from Trump says alot about the state of many Republicans in this country.

 

[ugafish]

The selective enforcement of crimes ranging from illegal immigrants who then murder college coeds all the way up to the strategic proesexition of political opponents has been eye opening and honestly a much bigger “threat to democracy” than an unarmed jackass with a Viking hat.

“But trump said means things!”

 

[ugafish]

I love how none of Trumps MAGA supports here have mentioned displeasure that Trump cheated on his pregnant wife with a p0r$tar and paid her off. I guess the character of their leaders doesn't matter to the GOP and conservatives anymore. The fact that the cheating doesn't cause them to back away from Trump says alot about the state of many Republicans in this country.

As a non-MAGA…….its The lesser of 2 evils:

A bad husband and tweeter like trump just isn’t a bigger deal than a bad president like Biden.

And It’s not even close.

 

[mikul1]

This country started out castrated. Look at the words of the constitution and compare them to what was actually done then and continues today.

What are you talking about?

 

[mikul1]

This & a lot more stated in this thread is simply incorrect or based on false assumptions.

Summary of Andy McCarthy:

1. Trump is facing a state criminal trial for violating federal election laws that Alvin Bragg has no jurisdiction to enforce.

2. NDAs are perfectly legal & Trump used his $ (not campaign $)

3. Cohen’s payment to Clifford did not transform into an “illegal” campaign expenditure just because Cohen said it did...the Justice Department itself (whose actual job it is to charge those things) opted not to prosecute Trump.

4. Both the Obama & Hillary campaigns were charged with illegal campaign expenditures...and simply paid fines (Obama's the largest ever...Hillary for her $ part in the paid-for fake Dossier). Both to "influence a PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION"

5. Even if the payment of hush money had been a campaign expenditure under federal law, Trump would have been required to disclose it , but Cohen paid Clifford in October 2016, the next reporting period would have been after the election: i.e. Trump would have had no legal obligation “during the 2016 presidential election” to reveal the payments to Clifford charged in Bragg’s indictment.

6. To be clear: the Department of Justice (under Trump and Biden) and the Federal Election Commission investigated the 2016 hush-money payments but took no enforcement action against Trump. Why? Because (a) the payment was not technically a campaign expenditure, (b) federal spending restrictions did not apply to Trump, and (c) even assuming that Trump had a disclosure obligation, the lack of regulatory disclosure cannot possibly have influenced the outcome of the 2016 election since no disclosure would have been required prior to the election.

7. The federal authorities that have jurisdiction to enforce federal election law more often than not treat violations far more egregious than Trump’s with civil fines, not criminal prosecution. President Obama’s 2008 campaign, for example, concealed millions of dollars in improper contributions and delayed in making refunds; the FEC imposed a $375,000 fine — note that even the fine (to say nothing of the violations) was larger than the violations for which Bragg is trying to prosecute Trump.

8. Although Bragg has previously prosecuted the Trump organization for tax violations, he does not allege that the state was deprived of tax revenue or otherwise cheated by the way the NDA payments were recorded. To the contrary, in reimbursing Cohen, Trump and other company executives doubled the $130,000 NDA payment to $260,000 precisely because it was expected that Cohen would pay income tax on it. That is, the manner in which the reimbursement was booked made it a taxable event for Cohen; the payment was thus inflated to ensure that Cohen would be fully reimbursed after paying taxes. (Payments in satisfaction of a debt are not income and not taxable as such; legal fees, by contrast, are taxable income.)

9. In terms of falsifying business records, yes, the expenditure was for one purpose, but Trump booked it as if it had been for a different purpose. However: That still may not be enough to establish the New York crime of falsifying business records. The relevant penal statute, §175.05, requires the state to prove beyond a reasonable doubt not just that the record entry was false, but that the defendant acted “with intent to defraud.” Generally speaking, fraud is a financial crime, involving schemes to acquire money or property by false pretenses. There is no indication that Trump intended to trick anyone into parting with assets.

10. Under New York law, deceptive schemes to cause other types of harm can also qualify as fraud. Nonetheless, there must be some concrete harm to establish fraud. It does not appear that New York state or anyone else was harmed by Trump’s misdescription of a loan repayment as the payment of legal fees. However, I assume Trump would argue that, because Cohen was his lawyer and the formal NDA with Clifford was a legal contract, describing the payments to Cohen as legal fees was not wholly fictional, much less actionably fraudulent. Again, the amount Trump paid Cohen significantly exceeded the $130,000 loan amount, and Trump would muddy the water by insisting he understood he was paying Cohen for legal services.

11. Did Trump have fraudulent intent for purposes of §175.05? It would be an interesting question if Bragg had brought an actual falsification-of-business-records prosecution. But he didn’t, and couldn’t. That crime is a misdemeanor. New York’s categorization of it as such makes sense: It is a nonviolent, not particularly serious offense — one that prosecutors should not even think about charging in the absence of concrete harm (and, of course, in the absence of being able to demonstrate that they enforce the law even-handedly against similarly situated business people). More to the point, because falsification of records is not a grievous crime, the statute of limitations for charging such an offense is just two years. Since Bragg alleges that Trump’s recordkeeping on the transaction concluded in December 2017, any charge should have been brought by late 2019 — two years before Bragg was elected DA (but around the time that federal prosecutors and Bragg’s predecessor concluded that there was nothing worth prosecuting).

Bragg, however, has not brought a falsification-of-business-records case, despite what his indictment says. He is attempting to prosecute a federal campaign-finance case.

12. Motive is not enough if the expenditures in question are not technically campaign expenditures — bills necessary to the conduct of the campaign, not non-campaign bills that the campaign has incentive to pay.

13. It will be very difficult for Bragg to show an intent to defraud — his theory that New York (indeed, the known universe) was harmed because Trump won in 2016 is not the concrete, particularized harm that is an essential ingredient of fraud crimes. But that aside, remember that the “other crime” Bragg maintains Trump was trying to conceal was a federal campaign crime — one that the feds themselves did not believe Trump committed, and that Bragg is politically engineering into a new election law that he is somehow allowed to prosecute.

But he did hurt feelings

 

[55dawg]

for the sake of argument, if a felony was committed, he should be tried for that.

Trump is no stranger to litigation pre-2016. He’s been tied up in litigation his entire career. Why would this be any different?

For the law and order crowd, it really is fun watching the pretzel, twistinfor the law and order crowd, it really is fun watching the pretzel twisting.

it also sounds like some of the jurors already selected are Fox News watchers, so the “liberal jury“ is in accurate.

I honestly don’t care if he’s found guilty or not. It’s just been really fun to watch him squirm for the last 48 hours. He’s so uncomfortable.

there have been many reports of the large number of libs watching fox

 

[55dawg]

The alleged crimes occurred when he was the republican nominee for president/POTUS.

Felony conviction doesn't keep him off the ballot. Just means he gets one less vote for himself (his own vote).

Having read the statement of facts of the case presented alongside the grand jury indictment, I don't see anything that is not on the "up and up". 34 counts is a lot of alleged criming.

Spare me the judge stuff. Cannon in the Florida case is woefully incompetent and a trump appointed judge yet I don't see republicans screaming for her to recuse herself. If her appointment by trump is not cause for recusal nothing is.

The shoe is on the other foot with Biden being investigated for impeachment. And I'm happy to see what comer and company have on him. To date...they have nothing impeachable outside of "common sense tells us" or "evidence is coming soon just wait". I'm just as eager to read about what is presented in the NY case because we haven't seen all the evidence yet. Let it play out. It's not a witch-hunt.

You’re kidding right ? This is 100% witch hunt. You and everyone else knows it. Bragg reduces legit felonies to misdemeanors on the regular . But manipulates this 7 year old “case” into felony ? And during the homestretch of a presidential election. Come on man. Just admit it.

 

[jlstone412]

You’re kidding right ? This is 100% witch hunt. You and everyone else knows it. Bragg reduces legit felonies to misdemeanors on the regular . But manipulates this 7 year old “case” into felony ? And during the homestretch of a presidential election. Come on man. Just admit it.

Poor poor pitiful trump. Everyone is just out to get him I guess. How dare someone prosecute him for alleged crimes? So unfair.

 

[Moosefish]

Poor poor pitiful trump. Everyone is just out to get him I guess. How dare someone prosecute him for alleged crimes? So unfair.

So, I assume you can coherently explain exactly what law he broke here? I'd appreciate it if it also referenced my previous post in this thread, so I don't have to revisit subjects I already covered.

Bragg himself has yet to provide details. "Falsification of Business Records" is a hell of a reach. There are plenty of non-Trump supporters calling out the ridiculous nature of these charges.

It's a circus & we're all clowns.

 

[Eastmandawg]

So, I assume you can coherently explain exactly what law he broke here? I'd appreciate it if it also referenced my previous post in this thread, so I don't have to revisit subjects I already covered.

Bragg himself has yet to provide details. "Falsification of Business Records" is a hell of a reach. There are plenty of non-Trump supporters calling out the ridiculous nature of these charges.

It's a circus & we're all clowns.

Alan Dershowitz concurs….

 

[Don Ellis]

I love how none of Trumps MAGA supports here have mentioned displeasure that Trump cheated on his pregnant wife with a p0r$tar and paid her off. I guess the character of their leaders doesn't matter to the GOP and conservatives anymore. The fact that the cheating doesn't cause them to back away from Trump says alot about the state of many Republicans in this country.

Didn’t the Dems just trot out a former President on stage at a fundraiser that was getting blowjobs in the Oval Office while being married?

 

[Eastmandawg]

Didn’t the Dems just trot out a former President on stage at a fundraiser that was getting blowjobs in the Oval Office while being married?

But he didn’t have sexual relations w/ that woman….nor did he inhale.

 

[jlstone412]

So, I assume you can coherently explain exactly what law he broke here? I'd appreciate it if it also referenced my previous post in this thread, so I don't have to revisit subjects I already covered.

Bragg himself has yet to provide details. "Falsification of Business Records" is a hell of a reach. There are plenty of non-Trump supporters calling out the ridiculous nature of these charges.

It's a circus & we're all clowns.

Short answer to your question: no. I cannot...and have never claimed to be able to explain what law(s) he allegedly broke here. I have been clear that I have limited understanding here in that this is WAY out of my field.

But, noe of us on this board have been exposed to the full facts of this case to say one way or another. In my opinion, 34 felony counts is nothing to scoff at. Either Bragg has something or he FOS and can sell ice to an Eskimo.

If I recall the post you are referencing (and I appreciate when you chime in as it is very level headed)...it is actually a good rebuttal and one that I appreciate being posted here. I'm always looking for both sides of the story because the truth is in the middle somewhere.

But some are jumping to conclusions claiming "100% witch-hunt" without having been presented with all the facts or having an understanding to the charges (not saying i do...but 12-18 people are about to become experts and can show off at parties).

It's up to Bragg to connect the dots for the jury and for trump's team to poke holes in it. Bragg's gotten it this far...can he land the plane? I have no idea; these are not easy cases to try. It's popcorn time come Monday morning though that's for sure.

 

[Moosefish]

Short answer to your question: no. I cannot...and have never claimed to be able to explain what law(s) he allegedly broke here. I have been clear that I have limited understanding here in that this is WAY out of my field.

But, noe of us on this board have been exposed to the full facts of this case to say one way or another. In my opinion, 34 felony counts is nothing to scoff at. Either Bragg has something or he FOS and can sell ice to an Eskimo.

There are a ton of non-partisan opinions that say Bragg is FOS. Even making it "34 counts" is a political move.

If I recall the post you are referencing (and I appreciate when you chime in as it is very level headed)...it is actually a good rebuttal and one that I appreciate being posted here. I'm always looking for both sides of the story because the truth is in the middle somewhere.

Also...sometimes the truth isn't "the middle". Sometimes, the "truth" is one side making a mockery of the justice system. That's what's happening here. You don't have to be a "Trump Supporter" to recognize that this is a clear attempt to twist laws in new & unique ways, simply to "get" Trump. Hell...left-leaning commentators have admitted as much.

THIS trial is a travesty. I'm still waiting for a clear, unbiased explanation of why this is a legitimate trial. If you have found one, please provide it. Most of what I've read is explaining why Trump is 'at risk'...which is a different discussion and also subsequently a sad commentary of why this is BS.

But some are jumping to conclusions claiming "100% witch-hunt" without having been presented with all the facts or having an understanding to the charges (not saying i do...but 12-18 people are about to become experts and can show off at parties).

I haven't ever said "witch hunt". But, I have provided actual legal commentary from actual experts that explain the big problems there are with this case.

It's up to Bragg to connect the dots for the jury and for trump's team to poke holes in it. Bragg's gotten it this far...can he land the plane? I have no idea; these are not easy cases to try. It's popcorn time come Monday morning though that's for sure.

Neutral legal experts have pointed out numerous problems w/ Bragg's case, here. Again: I'm begging for somebody to explain/defend the legal merits of this case. I have yet to find anybody to place their legal chops on the line in defense of this travesty.

This isn't a "defense of Trump!", here. This is my personal concern for the weaponization of the legal process. We should all be wary of what this type of crap could imply, moving forward.

 

[55dawg]

Short answer to your question: no. I cannot...and have never claimed to be able to explain what law(s) he allegedly broke here. I have been clear that I have limited understanding here in that this is WAY out of my field.

But, noe of us on this board have been exposed to the full facts of this case to say one way or another. In my opinion, 34 felony counts is nothing to scoff at. Either Bragg has something or he FOS and can sell ice to an Eskimo.

If I recall the post you are referencing (and I appreciate when you chime in as it is very level headed)...it is actually a good rebuttal and one that I appreciate being posted here. I'm always looking for both sides of the story because the truth is in the middle somewhere.

But some are jumping to conclusions claiming "100% witch-hunt" without having been presented with all the facts or having an understanding to the charges (not saying i do...but 12-18 people are about to become experts and can show off at parties).

It's up to Bragg to connect the dots for the jury and for trump's team to poke holes in it. Bragg's gotten it this far...can he land the plane? I have no idea; these are not easy cases to try. It's popcorn time come Monday morning though that's for sure.

100% witch hunt

 

[Eastmandawg]

There are a ton of non-partisan opinions that say Bragg is FOS. Even making it "34 counts" is a political move.



Also...sometimes the truth isn't "the middle". Sometimes, the "truth" is one side making a mockery of the justice system. That's what's happening here. You don't have to be a "Trump Supporter" to recognize that this is a clear attempt to twist laws in new & unique ways, simply to "get" Trump. Hell...left-leaning commentators have admitted as much.

THIS trial is a travesty. I'm still waiting for a clear, unbiased explanation of why this is a legitimate trial. If you have found one, please provide it. Most of what I've read is explaining why Trump is 'at risk'...which is a different discussion and also subsequently a sad commentary of why this is BS.




I haven't ever said "witch hunt". But, I have provided actual legal commentary from actual experts that explain the big problems there are with this case.



Neutral legal experts have pointed out numerous problems w/ Bragg's case, here. Again: I'm begging for somebody to explain/defend the legal merits of this case. I have yet to find anybody to place their legal chops on the line in defense of this travesty.

This isn't a "defense of Trump!", here. This is my personal concern for the weaponization of the legal process. We should all be wary of what this type of crap could imply, moving forward.

politically motivated, could be a win win no matter the outcome (dem)....at least that is what they are more than likely hoping for imo. they can't run on the issues, so they are just attacking the candidate to see what sticks, their best chance...conspiring at it's best. my only hope is that it is proven and the ones behind it are punished in a court of law......but that will never happen imo.

hoping that the public sees through this and it all backfires. another 4 years of Biden in office could be catastrophic.....BWTFDIK.

can't imagine how long it will take this time to declare a winner, gonna be a show. the winner, the media.