Monday, April 15th: First Ever Criminal Trial for a Former US President

[SgtSpiderMan]

It is not against the law to pay money to bury an embarrassing story. It could be a violation of federal campaign finance laws to not report the payments as a campaign expense, but Trump has not been convicted or even charged with violating federal election campaign laws.

For the 2nd time in an hour that’s not what Trump is on trial for.

 

[SgtSpiderMan]

This is not my problem either. You either manage to fix your reference or you don't. If you can't figure out how to copy/paste/quote function, again THAT'S NOT MY PROBLEM.

What a surprise, still no response.

 

[BabyBoomer50s]

But but they entered into a conspiracy to commit a legal act. A conspiracy dammit! Those are supposed to be illegal!!!!

According to the prosecution, they conspired to “run positive coverage”, “had the agreement to attack opponents” and have Pecker “act as the eyes and ears for the campaign in an effort to locate damaging information about the defendant and then take steps to try to bury it to help Trump get elected.”

Running positive campaigns, attacking opponents, and burying embarrassing stories is the job description of every campaign team member. Bragg has not told the jury what criminal statute Trump violated or tried to conceal.

 

[Lazaran]

Thanks for confirming the FEC didn’t even pursue a case against Trump. Tough to argue he tried to cover up a federal campaign violation that the FEC didn’t even pursue. The trial is in New York so it’s anyone’s guess what happens but the fact remains, Bragg still hasn’t revealed what the “crime” was.

I encourage EVERYONE to read this article:

https://www.citizensforethics.org/n...mp-of-his-hush-money-campaign-finance-issues/



BabyBoobs clearly ignored the glaring corruption / obstruction exhibited by the "republicans" at the FEC that was highlighted in the article, but the truth and reality remains.



BabyBoobs

 

[jomar]

He's used nearly every opportunity to rule against the defendant.

He clearly hasn’t.

The gag order is a perfect example. SINCE WHEN does a judge order a defendant to not protest his innocence upon a finding of contempt while everyone else can slander him with impunity?

trump could claim his innocence all day long and the judge wouldn’t have a problem. The gag order was not because trump rolled his eyes or muttered curse words under his breath in court as you said upthread. It was instituted because trump was dog whistle whining and potentially endangering and intimidating people connected to the trial, which could influence the outcome in favor of trump-not surprised you don’t get that. The judge also told Cohen to knock it off since trump couldn’t respond in kind, guess you missed that. BTW, trump tried to use the gag order as an excuse to not testify and the judge set him straight.

The motions for mistrial are another example of judicial bias against the defense.

The judge denying the defense motion for a mistrial is evidence of the judges bias? Did the edibles kick in because that’s nuts!

The standing objection against Stormy Daniels' testimony is another - even the judge felt the testimony went too far and then tried to blame the defense for not objecting. Except THEY DID!

The judge cautioned the prosecution in advance not to be too detailed with stormy details. After that, not his responsibility to do the defenses job. The defense should have objected more, op-ed people opined about THAT!

Every possible opportunity to advance the trial was taken even in the face of obvious error on the part of the court. That's not "down the middle," it's bias.

Link us up on this claim. If you can.

It's also reversible error on appeal. Which almost 100% of legal scholars will agree on, and the ones that don't aren't legal scholars except in name only.

Sure. Sounds like the infamous “Many people are saying…”

If you think their recusal will change the outcome of the trial, you're wrong. Not only is it irrelevant to the trial court, because not part of the trial,

Oof. I don’t think you understood the point. If Merchan should recuse himself for an appearance of impropriety (for donating less than $35.00 to Biden), as you opined, then the same should apply to SCOTUS, i.e., Alito and Thomas on certain cases.

the Supremes have already litigated the issue and determined that their ethical rules don't require recusal for this type of thing.

Yes, we get this SCOTUS is clearly ethically challenged and politicized.

You may disagree but your view isn't current precedent. Sorry about that.

lol, hey, no worries. I’m happy to have you set precedent on the PB.

 

[KeithD]

Interesting you saying judges shouldn’t be involved in politics. Should a judge hang an upside down flag and a “stop the steal” flag at their home?

Or accept bribes vacations from litigants in cases before their court?

 

[icanhelp1]

Thanks for confirming the FEC didn’t even pursue a case against Trump. Tough to argue he tried to cover up a federal campaign violation that the FEC didn’t even pursue. The trial is in New York so it’s anyone’s guess what happens but the fact remains, Bragg still hasn’t revealed what the “crime” was.

How does anyone violate FEC rules when using their own money? Am I missing something here?

 

[BabyBoomer50s]

How does anyone violate FEC rules when using their own money? Am I missing something here?

IDK and not sure it even matters since no charges of FEC violations have been filed.

 

[ll74]

How does anyone violate FEC rules when using their own money? Am I missing something here?

Because he lied about it.

 

[SmokingFap]

Not at all. We don't care, we will go elsewhere in search of good women to marry. They exist everywhere outside the US.

So when's your next trip? Maybe there's some poor Ukrainian woman desperate enough to marry you, or at least, fuck you.





Nah. She'd rather die in a missile attack.

 

[icanhelp1]

Because he lied about it.

Lied about what? Who lied?

 

[ll74]

Lied about what? Who lied?

45 lied about the purpose of the payment on his filings.

 

[HisArpy]

45 lied about the purpose of the payment on his filings.

WTF? (again)

He didn't lie about the payments, he paid for an NDA (which is perfectly lawful) arranged by his lawyer. The bookkeeping entries accurately reflect those expenditures.

There is no law making it illegal to enter into a settlement agreement. There is no law making it illegal to record the payment for that settlement agreement as "legal services" and in fact the tax code REQUIRES it to be recorded that way.

So, he did a lawful thing, recorded it in accordance with the law, and somehow you think that's a "lie"? WTF?? (again)

 

[ll74]

WTF? (again)

He didn't lie about the payments, he paid for an NDA (which is perfectly lawful) arranged by his lawyer. The bookkeeping entries accurately reflect those expenditures.

There is no law making it illegal to enter into a settlement agreement. There is no law making it illegal to record the payment for that settlement agreement as "legal services" and in fact the tax code REQUIRES it to be recorded that way.

So, he did a lawful thing, recorded it in accordance with the law, and somehow you think that's a "lie"? WTF?? (again)

He recorded it as "attorney services" when it was a campaign action.

https://www.fec.gov/files/legal/murs/7324/7324_19.pdf

 

[HisArpy]

He recorded it as "attorney services" when it was a campaign action.

https://www.fec.gov/files/legal/murs/7324/7324_19.pdf

It wasn't part of the campaign. It was an NDA arranged for a private citizen and used personal funds to pay for it. Had Trump used campaign funds (which were his own personal funds) for the NDA and put it on his campaign books that would have been illegal. So what you're saying he should have done, is illegal.

Further, it is not illegal to suppress negative information. It's also not a campaign issue to suppress negative information just because the person is running for public office.

You can believe whatever anti-Trump fantasy you want, but the reality is that this is not a crime. If it is then every politician out there is guilty of doing the same thing and NONE OF THEM are on trial for it. Nor is anyone alluding to it.

 

[Fuzzy1975]

It wasn't part of the campaign. It was an NDA arranged for a private citizen and used personal funds to pay for it.

Seems the grand jury disagrees with you.

 

[SgtSpiderMan]

WTF? (again)

He didn't lie about the payments, he paid for an NDA (which is perfectly lawful) arranged by his lawyer. The bookkeeping entries accurately reflect those expenditures.

There is no law making it illegal to enter into a settlement agreement. There is no law making it illegal to record the payment for that settlement agreement as "legal services" and in fact the tax code REQUIRES it to be recorded that way.

So, he did a lawful thing, recorded it in accordance with the law, and somehow you think that's a "lie"? WTF?? (again)

He’s not on trial for that.

 

[icanhelp1]

Seems the grand jury disagrees with you.

Seems like Bragg wasn’t completely up front with the grand jury, he withheld exculpatory evidence from the grand jury.

 

[jomar]

Seems like Bragg wasn’t completely up front with the grand jury, he withheld exculpatory evidence from the grand jury.

So link us up

 

[Fuzzy1975]

Seems like Bragg wasn’t completely up front with the grand jury, he withheld exculpatory evidence from the grand jury.

So link us up

So link us up....start posting the evidence, or just shut the fuck up. I'm sick n tired of the weak assed crap you keep putting out. You're not even close to Arpy and Boomer on this. Lame third wheel dragging up the ass end. That's all you are on this. Your post aren't even funny anymore, just dull and to the point of ridiculous.

 

[TastySuckToy]

So now it's revealed Michael Cohen took out an loan against his own home to pay off Stormy Daniels, then stole money from the Trump organization with falsified invoices to reimburse himself after the fact, and has admitted Trump wasn't part of it.

Talk about case closed.

 

[icanhelp1]

So link us up

https://archive.org/details/FOXNEWSW_20240519_090000_Life_Liberty__Levin

https://archive.org/details/FOXNEWSW_20240519_090000_Life_Liberty__Levin

https://archive.org/details/FOXNEWSW_20240519_090000_Life_Liberty__Levin

https://archive.org/details/FOXNEWSW_20240519_090000_Life_Liberty__Levin

Video feeds ( boxes) 4/5/6/7/8/9 explaining how Bragg’s DA has withheld exculpatory evidence from the grand jury. The narratives are below the video feeds. The whole interview is quite remarkable. I tried to copy the narratives but it wouldn’t let me.

 

[TastySuckToy]

Hilarious to see this last case against Trump just totally collapse.

 

[HisArpy]

Hilarious to see this last case against Trump just totally collapse.

They've got lost him now.

 

[Fuzzy1975]

https://archive.org/details/FOXNEWSW_20240519_090000_Life_Liberty__Levin

https://archive.org/details/FOXNEWSW_20240519_090000_Life_Liberty__Levin

https://archive.org/details/FOXNEWSW_20240519_090000_Life_Liberty__Levin

https://archive.org/details/FOXNEWSW_20240519_090000_Life_Liberty__Levin

Video feeds ( boxes) 4/5/6/7/8/9 explaining how Bragg’s DA has withheld exculpatory evidence from the grand jury. The narratives are below the video feeds. The whole interview is quite remarkable. I tried to copy the narratives but it wouldn’t let me.

all four lead to the same screenshot on my chromebook. So your links lead to nothing. But who's up at watching this shit at 2am PDT...