Why Trump should win his NY hush money trial

You must be relieved that such a shitty lawyer indicted Trump.

 

Trump worshipers' are manipulated by the sexual abuser's constantly whining that there is a vast, nefarious conspiracy against him, as they rave that the former show biz celebrity is above the law.

Induced paranoia aside, in reality, all specific charges in disparate legal venues are predicated upon substantive evidence and corroborative sworn testimony - mostly from Republicans intimately aware of his transgressions - and recommended by grand juries.

The election denier ran away from his right to speedy trials, desperately contriving delay after delay, to avoid having to actually confront the charges against him in court, instead braying in the media, reviling officers of the court and their families.

He cannot escape the justice system in New York, where he will now be forced to attend his trial like any American without special privileges.

However, disorderly or disruptive defendants can be removed from court during their trial, so if the whiny prima donald persists in his habitual tantrums in the court room, he'll be removed.

 

Tomorrow is the start. Due process is coming, and Trump can no longer dodge it. Nobody has been “paid off”, it’s not politically motivated and the charges are not fabricated. I think he gets convicted by a jury of regular folks.

I smell his fear from here. Or maybe it’s his diapers.

 

Sorry, 2/3rds of repubs believe the election was stolen.

That fact IS NOT TRUE for democrats.

Some thought the election wasn't legitmate, a HANDFUL of people in media which the RIGHT HAS OVERBLOWN in a DESPERATE attempt to make it seem like both sides are equal on the lies.

one more lie is what that is.

 

The Trumpers must have gone to bed.

 

Let me temper that a little. He paid a woman hush money. Not illegal. If he paid it from campaign funds then it is a misdemeanor and has passed its statute of limitations. The DOJ reviewed the case and concluded that there was no crime. This isn't a prosecution of crime. It is a prosecution of a person for political reasons. These are the reasons he should be acquitted. Will that happen? It is up to the jury. Bragg should face consequences.

 

While it is true that Donald Trump was not directly charged with campaign finance violations, let’s not overlook the intricate web of legal implications surrounding the hush money payments. Michael Cohen, Trump’s own lawyer, pleaded guilty to violating federal campaign finance law in connection with these payments. The argument that ‘NO CAMPAIGN VIOLATIONS’ occurred oversimplifies a complex situation. The ongoing trial, where Trump faces 34 felony counts related to falsifying business records, will ultimately determine the extent of his legal accountability. Ignoring this context undermines the seriousness of the matter.
Please understand that the choosing not to prosecute is a prosecutorial discretion, which may, or MAY NOT, have anything to do with whether or not in fact a crime was committed.

And who doesn't have opinions. l do,. you do, we all do, and therefore that comment is meaningless.
'de facto' all about intent. If intent could be proven that these payments were de facto reimbursements for Cohen’s Stormy Daniels payments, they could indeed be legally determined as in-kind campaign contributions. The critical factor here lies in the purpose behind those payments. If they were made to protect Trump’s image during the election, they would qualify as campaign-related expenses. However, of course, it is clear there are legal complexities abound here. Much will depend on the skill of the attorneys to present their case, but there IS strong evidence to these charges. Note that Michael Cohen was convicted of campaign violations pertaining to Stormy Daniels. If he was convicted doing Trump's bidding, why not Trump? The SDNY at the timne chose not to prosecute, but Cyrus Vance was the prosecutor then. The reason could easily have been that Vance just didn't have the cajones to do it, so that fact doesn't prove that it couldn't be done by a more courageous prosecutor. Along comes Alan Bragg, who was not intimidated by Trump's fame, wealth and power. Moreover, Alan Bragg might have since found a new angle, new evidence that Vance didn't see at the time. The salient point is, this case is not written in stone one way or the other.

Moreover, beyond campaign finance violations, other potential crimes come into play, such as obstruction of justice, false statements, and conspiracy. The ongoing trial will untangle this intricate web, revealing whether these transactions were mere business dealings or a calculated effort to influence the election. The courtroom, not oversimplified claims, will ultimately decide the fate of accountability .

Maybe so, but even if true, this is not a limiting issue.

I took a pot shot at law guesses, the salient point is above.

The state charges and thus state trial. yes, we shall see.

yes, Cohen committed perjury. But what did he lie about?

He lied FOR Donald Trump.

He served time in jail. Trump threw his long time defender under the bus.

There is no incentive, at this juncture, for him to lie.

Moreover, his testimony will be corroborated, as it must be.

These are state law violations.

There are many federal laws that have state counterparts.

one does not exclude the other.

 

I posited that question to Kal'stang, who wrote:

There are plenty of felons out there that turned their lives around and would probably make better Presidents than anyone that has ran for the position in the last 40 years.

But, like you said, none sought to overturn the election, disrupt the peaceful transfer of power, etc.

 

Millions of Democrats did not accept Trump being elected. Many believing that the election was stolen. Many still do.

 

So YOU say.

Like I said, you can back up your claim by posting the quote, because I'm sure as hell not taking your word for your 'conclusion' about what he meant.

Otherwise, your argument fails.

 

My statement is true. There were never 2/3rds, or anywhere close to it, who believed Trump stole the election.

Their 'belief' was due mainly because of RUSSIAN INTERFERENCE.

But that isn't 'stealing the election'. That is 'undue influence by an external force'. Moreover,. THERE ARE TONS OF EVIDENCE. In Trump's accusation against dems, THERE IS NO EVIDENCE.

My statement stands.

Your claim, therefore, falters.

 

Horse manure. Your diatribe against Jack Smith is based on a selective interpretation of facts. While it’s true that the Supreme Court ruled 8-0 in favor of Robert McDonnell in the case of McDonnell v. United States, understand the context.

In that case, the Court focused on the definition of “official act” under federal bribery statutes. The Court clarified that not all interactions between public officials and constituents constitute bribery. They emphasized that routine political courtesies and access to officials do not necessarily cross the line into criminal conduct. The decision did not specifically target Jack Smith or impugn his character.

Regarding your claim that Jack Smith was chosen by Biden’s DOJ to prosecute an election opponent, you should recognize that prosecutors are often assigned cases based on their expertise and experience. It’s not uncommon for prosecutors to handle high-profile cases, regardless of their political affiliations. Smith’s involvement in a case does not automatically make him corrupt or partisan, though, of course, it would serve your right wing agenda to paint him with that vitriolic and biased brush.

As for the court in Florida, it’s essential to recognize that legal proceedings can be contentious, and judges may express frustration with attorneys on both sides. Such scoldings are not uncommon and do not necessarily reflect an attorney’s overall competence or integrity.

Lastly, the use of a grand jury in DC to indict a defendant from a Florida district is a procedural matter. Federal grand juries have jurisdiction across multiple districts, and their decisions are based on evidence and legal arguments presented to them. It does not inherently indicate corruption or wrongdoing on Smith’s part.

Characterizing Jack Smith as “dirty and corrupt” based on selective snippets misrepresents the complexities of legal proceedings and the role of prosecutors and if anything, reveals bias and partisanship on your part, and it trivializes the admirable work of a bold and courageous man. A man who has the courage to take on high profile, difficult and complex cases, is not going to have the batting average that a more timid prosecutor who chooses only the open/shut slam dunks will have. So, making a case based on success/fail rates prove nothing.

 

Oh puhleeze... "Russian interference" was synonymous with "stolen election" for years. And guess what, even as of 2022 72% of Democrats still believe that Russia stole the election for Trump.

 

Whether or not Trump's behavior with Stormy constituted a felony or misdemeanor, will depend on various factors which will not be revealed in their complexity until the trial starts. Rest assured, Bragg isn't foolish enough to prosecute, for the first time in history, with all the world wide attention that it will garner, risking his very career in the process, if he didn't honestly beleive he could prove his case. Moreover, that the Hush money acts, if there were any violations of statutes which are past the statute of limitations, won't matter. All Brag has to prove is that, in the time frame the acts were committed, felonies were committed, and that Trump's payments to Cohen would disguised to look like retainers for legal services, those crimes, if proven, haven't passed the statute of limitations (probably due to 'tolling' --Trump moves to FLA and the statute of limitations is suspended until he returns).

That's not accurate. I'll repeat what I wrote in #282:

If intent could be proven that these payments were de facto reimbursements for Cohen’s Stormy Daniels payments, they could indeed be legally determined as in-kind campaign contributions. The critical factor here lies in the purpose behind those payments. If they were made to protect Trump’s image during the election, they would qualify as campaign-related expenses. However, of course, it is clear there are legal complexities abound here. Much will depend on the skill of the attorneys to present their case, but there IS strong evidence to these charges. Note that Michael Cohen was convicted of campaign violations pertaining to Stormy Daniels. If he was convicted doing Trump's bidding, why not Trump?

To your point:

The SDNY at the time chose not to prosecute, but Cyrus Vance was the prosecutor then. The reason could easily have been that Vance just didn't have the cajones to do it, so that fact doesn't prove that it couldn't be done by a more courageous prosecutor. Along comes Alan Bragg, who was not intimidated by Trump's fame, wealth and power. Moreover, Alan Bragg might have since found a new angle, new evidence that Vance didn't see at the time. The salient point is, this case is not written in stone one way or the other.

Moreover, beyond campaign finance violations, other potential crimes come into play, such as obstruction of justice, false statements, and conspiracy. The ongoing trial will untangle this intricate web, revealing whether these transactions were mere business dealings or a calculated effort to influence the election. The courtroom, not oversimplified claims, will ultimately decide the fate of accountability .

Horse crap. Yes, a jury will decide. Trump better prey he has a better lawyer than Alina Habba.

 

You are mistaken. Please try to document your false claim.

In 2016, Hillary Clinton conceded and congratulated Trump the morning after the election.

Hillary Clinton Concession Speech: Read the Full Transcript - TIME
Nov 9, 2016 ·

 

That's not accurate.

What Russian interference was was exacting undue influence.

now then, there are TONS of evidence of it, as revealed in the Mueller report.

There is NO EVIDENCE of 'dems rigging the election' by any internal means, as Trump has alleged.

2/3rds of Dems do not believe Trump 'stole the election' by internal rigging as Trump as accused Dems of, if you can show me a poll that framed the question properly, and clarified the distinction between rigging an election and exacting undue external influence. However, no poll which makes that distinction was ever done.

Again, I must remind you of the point, that NO DEMOCRATIC CANDIDATE ever poisoned the minds of 2/3rds of the electorate against elections.

Trump did.

Biden did not.

Hillary, like other dems, believed russian interference, plus Comey during the last week, tipped the scales in favor of Trump.

But this is external undue influence, this isn't internal rigging.

This isn't what Trump is accusing dems of, he is accusing dems of internal tampering, stuffing ballots, rounding up illegals to vote, that sort of thing. Dems are not accusing Trump of this kind of thing.

What Trump is accusing dems of, there is no evidence.

What Dems are accusing the 2016 election of, there is evidence, plenty of it as expressed in excruciating detail in the Mueller report.

 

A president cannot be charged — it’s an interesting legal conundrum but I could see the argument that any period a person is “immune” from charges the time should pause.

Let’s watch how the court case goes. Should be interesting

I will accept the results either way — will you?

 

Senate Intel report confirms Russia aimed to help Trump in 2016
The report represents a confidence-booster to the country’s intelligence community.
https://www.politico.com/news/2020/...rms-russia-aimed-to-help-trump-in-2016-198171
​

It was confirmed that Russia interfered in the 2016 election to help Trump and hurt Clinton, but there is no reason to assume that the interference was determinative.

 

Right so it's good that these creeps hate him and are so scared of him. So the more reason to vote for him.

 

I don't need to they already know probably how they'll argue it in court.

 

Do you thing the crybaby will respect the court and behave, or throw one on his tantrums and have to be removed?

 

You should only respect the court if the court acts respectable. Entertaining a charge for something that isn't the crime is not acting respectable it's acting maliciously so nobody should respect this court the only reason you do is because you are terrified.

 

If every perp had the right to decide every court where he faced charges was "not respectable" where would that leave the American justice system?

I hope that the accused can, at least, save his tantrums for the cameras.

 

There's no perp there's no crime outside of the court itself perpetrating malicious prosecution. That's why it's not respectable it's mired in extreme hypocrisy

Accusal of non crime should be a crime of the accuser.

 

The sexual abuser's worshipers can parrot his crybaby mewling, but patriots support our justice system under which an accused has the right to try to refute charges against him in court and be judged by a jury of his peers.