I'm still waiting for proof that TRUMP said "storm the capital"

My point is, of all the things one can charge Trump with, the Cohen case is the simplest.

Why? Because Cohen was convicted, and he was directed by Trump, who, on the charging document, is listed as co-conspirator.

In short, the only reason he wasn't convicted was that he was the President.

so, what counter argument could assert Trump wasn't guilty, when Cohen was already convicted doing a crime that was at the direction of the president?

There is more than sufficient facts and evidence here to 'presume' his guilt....

...by me, but of course, that is not the language that will be presented to the jury, and that's a given.

So, if you think he's innocent, let's hear your counter defense of the prez.

You seem to be making the argument I should assume his innocence,

I'm not on the jury, so I'm entitled to have an opinion. If I were on the jury,
that would be different, a difference you seem not to be taking into account.

 

No, it's great to find the truth.

 

Given that members of his flock have already engaged in planning violence ( The kidnapping of the Governor ) and that he has been telling his fans 'dems stole the election' he'd have to be a moron to believe something violent would not happen. Particularly when he is briefed by intel every morning, who would have warned him about the potential, and make recommendations to tame the crowd during his speech. But, he did NOTHING to tame the crowd, and EVERYTHING to rile them up, and after they laid siege, he did very little. Did he rise to the occasion, did he appear before his fans and tell them to stop? No, he did a lame tweet. That doesn't cut it, at the presidential level. Moreover , he didn't even call the national guard, Pence had to do that.

 

I thought he wasn't reading any intel briefings and certainly not attending any meetings?

 

No, no, no, I am keeping an open mind as to whether the facts fit the statute. And we also need to know whether Trump specifically directed Cohen to pay the money AND we have to decide whether it was solely for the purpose of affecting the election as opposed to saving him embarrassment -- he has a wife and several kids, the youngest of whom Trump may have been particularly anxious to hide the truth about the affair(s). If I were his lawyer I would certainly explore that argument with Trump. Trump would need of course to tell me that that was his motive.

I am indeed making the argument that you should presume his innocence. I already explained why. It''s a matter of fairness as well as constitutional law. Sure, you have the "right" to think what you will, but it's dangerous thinking and problematic for the prosecution.

Again, what if everyone in the jury pool from which 12 are to be selected said "I already know he's guilty. I don't need to hear his side and I know all the facts."

 

Unfair to impute that to Trump. He never countenanced anything of the kind.

 

Again you take the government's side before hearing the other side. "We don't need to hear from the defense."

Outrageously unconstitutional.

 

To be fair, he IS a moron.

 

You obviously haven't been following the Cohen case. the facts are all there, for anyone to read. ( link below )
Embarrassment? He paid the money weeks before the election. EVeryone knew he schtupped a porn star just after his newly wed wife gave birth, many years prior. Since when is a guy like Trump, a veritable scoundrel, 'embarrassed' about anything?
As Cohen testified, Trump micromanages, nothing happens without his direction and consent, insofar as his affairs.

The fact that he waited only a few weeks before the election, after years when the fornication occurred, not just once, but twice, the second being a playboy playmate, clearly demonstrates this is about hiding the fact from the electorate, which goes to the charging document which indicted Cohen on felony campaign finance violations:

Read the facts of the indictment here: Scroll to the Campaign finance violations section:

https://www.justice.gov/usao-sdny/p...ral-court-eight-counts-including-criminal-tax

 

He has been, for years, telling his flock that democrats stole the election. What happened in Michigan was by a Michigan militia, so they lashed out , or were planning to lash out, at the Michigan Governor because the election didn't go their way. See, they wouldn't have done that if they hadn't believed the election was stolen in Michigan. So, why did they believe the election was stolen? Because Trump has been telling them that. Therefore, it's totally fair to impute it to Trump.

You see, trump didn't direct them to do it, he got them so filled with hatred, it's like what happens when a volcano erupts.

 

I'm sorry, but indictments do not contain facts. They contain allegations. They may or may not be proved beyond reasonable doubt after cross examination of the witnesses.

We will be in trouble when the populace begins confusing allegations with facts. With all those "facts" in the indictment, we may as well string Trump up now without a trial.

And yes, embarrassment is a possible explanation. If you can't keep an open mind, debate is pointless.

 

That is an absurd an unfair leap of logic.

 

We are not in a court of law, and I'm entitled to have an opinion, which comes from the Judges ruling, which states all the pertinent facts of the case.

Fine, all of that ground which has already been covered, and revealed, which just be gone over when Trump appears in court for his crime.

But all of this is beside the point. The original point was that, when Trump self pardons, the DOJ will not let it stand, and they only way they can get the self pardon, is to indict him for something. the one case that has all the facts already known, is the Cohen case, of which he was named unindicted co-conspirator. So that is the case most likely to be selected as the vehicle to get the self pardon shot down by SCOTUS.

 

Do you know what a moron is? It has a definition, and you are being cruel as well as inaccurate.

 

What's absurd is your failure to see the truth. Trump tells his flock dems have stolen the election, and his extreme followers are enraged and act criminally on that rage.

That is an argument that would work in court.

 

Rulings contain facts, read the link. They are facts.

I explained to you why embarrassment is not on the table. I suggest your read the document I provided, and reread my rebuttal.

Your inability to consider the facts I present suggest to me that it is your mind that is not open.

 

We have irrefutable proof that he said no such thing.

Just Months Ago, Democrats Blocked a Resolution Condemning Mob Violence.

 

Everything is so partisan. Why cant we all condemn mob violence regardless of who it is? Right, left, both need to be more sensible and less tribal.

 

Just as many people are waiting to see that Biden said, "steal the election."

 

Name one.

 

Donald J Trump.

 

I'd like to see the quote of Trump (whose resignation I have called for on this forum) claiming that Biden said "steal the election."

I hope you aren't referring to this:

“We are up BIG, but they are trying to STEAL the Election,” Trump wrote in a tweet (without proof), adding, “Votes cannot be cast after the Polls are closed!”

He's obviously referring there with the "they"to Democratic poll workers or election officials in Pennsylvania and a few other states. Trump has consistently said that Biden does not control anything and barely knows what's going on.

 

why is this terrorist riot chief hiding in a basement somewhere with authorities searching for him if he's such a great guy? lol
https://www.yahoo.com/news/stop-steal-organizer-hiding-denying-020833348.html

 

You can read all the Tweets he posted about the election being stolen. Since Biden is the winner of the claimed stolen election the inference is obvious.
Oh wait, you can't read them any more...

 

Wow. Eight pages and still No proof

sad!