Trump’s history-making hush-money trial begins ...(Mod Warning)

“Imagine if that came out on Oct. 15, 2016,
in the middle of the last debate with Hillary Clinton!”
​

What a sordid spectacle.

​

Illegalities aside, Porky paying hush money to bimbos he was porking behind the backs of pregnant trophy wives is an image that hardly promotes the sale of glitzy gold sneakers, let alone a presidential candidacy.

​

 

For those who don't know what in "incarceratory punishment means, here is a definition of it:
: confinement in a jail or prison : the act of imprisoning someone or the state of being imprisoned
Despite the drop in crime in past decades, rates of arrest and incarceration in New York City have not gone down.—Robin Steinberg

To this day, the Supreme Court has not overruled its infamous Korematsu opinion of 1944, which validated our mass incarceration in deference to national security.—George Takei

Here we are again with Trump in court You have to wonder what Trump will do next. The courts ought to tape Trump's mouth shut during the trial and let him speak when he'd spoken to and I think that would be a good idea wouldn't it?


Trump has already been fined $9,000 for violating gag orders and I won't be surprised if he gets fined $10,000 for doing it one more time and/or the incarceratory punishment goes in effect and Trump better mind his P's and Q's if you know what I mean. I just don't k now what Trump will do next. We could all become embarrassed in what he does in court. That's all I'm going to say for now. See you later alligator.

 

You are SUPPORTING AND DEFENDING HIS PROSECUTION. He is being prosecuted by a county DA for a FEDERAL CRIME you have yet to explain where he gets the jurisdiction to do so/

AGAIN

.....Bragg, an election denier, is trying to convict Trump of a crime that is not charged in the indictment — to wit, conspiracy to steal the 2016 election by suppressing negative information in violation of federal campaign law. This violates the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution, which requires a felony charge to be spelled out in an indictment whose criminal elements have been established by probable cause to the satisfaction of a grand jury. Here, the problem is not just that there is no indication the grand jury was presented with an election-theft conspiracy offense; there is no such conspiracy crime in New York penal law. As a state prosecutor, moreover, Bragg has no jurisdiction to enforce federal law — as to which Congress vested “exclusive” criminal- and civil-enforcement authority, respectively, in the Justice Department and the Federal Election Commission...."

Then there is the constitutionality of New Yorks own law under it's own constitution

"....The difference between the misdemeanor prescribed by §175.05 and the felony prescribed by §175.10 is that the latter requires proof that the falsifier’s fraudulent intent included the concealment of “another crime.” But the statute is constitutionally infirm — probably in all cases, but at least as applied to Trump — because it does not state what “other crimes” trigger felony liability.

Under Article III, §16 of the New York Constitution:

No act shall be passed which shall provide that any existing law, or any part thereof, shall be made or deemed a part of said act, or which shall enact that any existing law, or part thereof, shall be applicable, except by inserting it in such act. [Emphasis added.]

This is a due-process provision meant to prevent exactly what Bragg has done here: force a defendant to go to trial without being put on notice of the charge...."
https://www.nationalreview.com/2024...tent=featured-content-trending&utm_term=first


So it is established that Bragg nor this court has any jurisdiction in this matter and that the law Bragg is attempting to twist into a criminal act is unconstitution on the New York constitution.

Why do you still support this prosecution?

 

So what?

 

lol

 

Fine just tell me what court with jurisdiction convicted him or this election fraud? Cite the specific election law.

Oops you can't because he has never been charged let alone convicted in a proper court of such a crime.

Bragg HAS NO JURISDICTION TO DO SO....................what don't you get here. Plus a grand jury never indicted him for such a charge. Bragg cannot just simply declare him guilty and therefore ramp up his misdemeanors.

AGAIN

.....Bragg, an election denier, is trying to convict Trump of a crime that is not charged in the indictment — to wit, conspiracy to steal the 2016 election by suppressing negative information in violation of federal campaign law. This violates the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution, which requires a felony charge to be spelled out in an indictment whose criminal elements have been established by probable cause to the satisfaction of a grand jury. Here, the problem is not just that there is no indication the grand jury was presented with an election-theft conspiracy offense; there is no such conspiracy crime in New York penal law. As a state prosecutor, moreover, Bragg has no jurisdiction to enforce federal law — as to which Congress vested “exclusive” criminal- and civil-enforcement authority, respectively, in the Justice Department and the Federal Election Commission...."

Then there is the constitutionality of New Yorks own law under it's own constitution

"....The difference between the misdemeanor prescribed by §175.05 and the felony prescribed by §175.10 is that the latter requires proof that the falsifier’s fraudulent intent included the concealment of “another crime.” But the statute is constitutionally infirm — probably in all cases, but at least as applied to Trump — because it does not state what “other crimes” trigger felony liability.

Under Article III, §16 of the New York Constitution:

No act shall be passed which shall provide that any existing law, or any part thereof, shall be made or deemed a part of said act, or which shall enact that any existing law, or part thereof, shall be applicable, except by inserting it in such act. [Emphasis added.]

This is a due-process provision meant to prevent exactly what Bragg has done here: force a defendant to go to trial without being put on notice of the charge...."
https://www.nationalreview.com/2024...tent=featured-content-trending&utm_term=first

 

AbsaByGodLutely!

Didn’t read further because, he IS being prosecuted and, WILL CONTINUE TO BE PROSECUTED no matter how many times or how many ways you cry about it.

 

You must have missed the day Trump, after court, held up a bunch of printed out articles, some from the same sources you cite, that state the same claims.
So, you are suggesting that the judge is wrong, the prosecution is wrong, Trump's attorneys are all incompetent and all the other "experts" who don't espouse those views are wrong.
You hang on to that. It will be up to the jury to decide, not me, you or anyone else including the pundits at national review or CNN for that matter.
What I would suggest to you is not to get your dander up too much over something you read in an opinion piece. Not that they are always wrong, but because opinions are opinions, and they are being used by many writers to make money. The liberals do it too.
That opinion you quote is taking you down a rabbit hole, in MY opinion, for the reason I stated in my previous post. As the well used saying goes, we'll see.
That's the nice thing about a trial. The facts come out, the defense has an opportunity to bare any mispractice, and a jury gets to make a determination.

 

Lack of a rebuttal of the law and the facts noted AGAIN. Your simple dismissals for lack of substance refutes nothing. And stop trying to out words in my mouth. Either discuss the facts and the law or admit you have neither on your side.

 

There’s another gag order hearing tomorrow morning. This will likely be his last warning before he gets tossed into jail for contempt of court. If he violates it again, toss his orange cottage cheese ass into the slammer.

 

Your constant misconstruction of the law doesn’t warrant a rebuttal. It’s been debunked dozens of times.

 

Where have I said he is not being PROSECUTED?

He is being prosecuted by a county DA for a FEDERAL CRIME you have yet to explain where he gets the jurisdiction to do so/

AGAIN and try to actually respond the the law and the facts.

.....Bragg, an election denier, is trying to convict Trump of a crime that is not charged in the indictment — to wit, conspiracy to steal the 2016 election by suppressing negative information in violation of federal campaign law. This violates the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution, which requires a felony charge to be spelled out in an indictment whose criminal elements have been established by probable cause to the satisfaction of a grand jury. Here, the problem is not just that there is no indication the grand jury was presented with an election-theft conspiracy offense; there is no such conspiracy crime in New York penal law. As a state prosecutor, moreover, Bragg has no jurisdiction to enforce federal law — as to which Congress vested “exclusive” criminal- and civil-enforcement authority, respectively, in the Justice Department and the Federal Election Commission...."

Then there is the constitutionality of New Yorks own law under it's own constitution

"....The difference between the misdemeanor prescribed by §175.05 and the felony prescribed by §175.10 is that the latter requires proof that the falsifier’s fraudulent intent included the concealment of “another crime.” But the statute is constitutionally infirm — probably in all cases, but at least as applied to Trump — because it does not state what “other crimes” trigger felony liability.

Under Article III, §16 of the New York Constitution:

No act shall be passed which shall provide that any existing law, or any part thereof, shall be made or deemed a part of said act, or which shall enact that any existing law, or part thereof, shall be applicable, except by inserting it in such act. [Emphasis added.]

This is a due-process provision meant to prevent exactly what Bragg has done here: force a defendant to go to trial without being put on notice of the charge...."
https://www.nationalreview.com/2024...tent=featured-content-trending&utm_term=first


So it is established that Bragg nor this court has any jurisdiction in this matter and that the law Bragg is attempting to twist into a criminal act is unconstitution on the New York constitution.

Why do you still support this prosecution?

 

Oh, I have, many times and still, you refuse to accept reason.

 

The hearing tomorrow morning is likely to provide notice to the Orange Barnicle that the next gag order violation will land him in jail. He better pack a toothbrush and lubricants.

 

@Bluesguy, as you've been advised dozens of times, he's not prosecuting a federal crime:

https://www.lawfaremedia.org/article/charting-the-legal-theory-behind-people-v.-trump

"So those are the business records. What about the “object crime”—that is, the crime that Trump allegedly intended to commit or conceal in such a way as to transform the underlying misdemeanor offense into a felony?

If you’re looking for the clearest statement of Bragg’s legal theory, you can find it in a November 2023 court filing opposing Trump’s motion to dismiss the case, along with Merchan’s ruling on that motion. Notably, in that ruling, Merchan clarified that § 175.10 “does not require that the ‘other crime’ actually be committed”—“all that is required is that defendant … acted with a conscious aim and objective to commit another crime.”

In his filing, Bragg sets out four potential object offenses: violations of federal campaign finance law under the Federal Election Campaign Act (FECA); violations of New York Election Law § 17-152; violations of federal, local, and state tax law; and additional falsifications of business records outside the Trump Organization. Merchan allowed Bragg to move forward with the first three theories but tossed out the last one."

chrome-extension://efaidnbmnnnibpcajpcglclefindmkaj/https://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/24432832/2024-02-15-order-denying-motion-to-dismiss-people-v-donaldtrump-2-15-24decision-1.pdf

Start at page 11 of the order debunking blueclues nonsense.

 

No court on Wednesdays for Trump's trial because Judge Merchan has other cases he attends to.
****ing funny Wednesday,

'And now, it's Steve Bannon's turn'

"Top Donald Trump ally Steve Bannon is set to appear in a New York court Wednesday in connection with allegations that he defrauded people who donated to a campaign to build a wall along the U.S.-Mexico border.

Bannon, a former White House senior adviser, is scheduled to appear in front of Judge Juan Merchan for a pretrial motion hearing at the New York Supreme Criminal Court, where Bannon's lawyers are expected to argue that the case should be thrown out.'

cont:
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/poli...1&cvid=90a364f385d740b1b7780a8760f11bd7&ei=14

 

Maybe "Sloppy Steve" and the Orange Turd can be cellmates in the future.

 

Back in court today. More from his mistresses lawyer. First more gag order violations need to be addressed. BUT!!! one supporter did show up outside the courthouse.

 

I anticipate more fines and one more warning that additional violations will result in incarceration . There will undoubtedly be whining and crying and additional violations resulting in incarceration. He’s so undisciplined that I can’t believe people would vote for him.

 

CNN Updates:
Keith Davidson's testimony with prosecutor finished.
On a break and then comes the defense.

https://www.cnn.com/politics/live-news/trump-hush-money-trial-05-02-24/index.html

 

Updates:

1 min ago
Trump attorney will now cross-examine Davidson


Trump attorney Emil Bove will now cross-examine Keith Davidson, the lawyer who negotiated the Stormy Daniels and Karen McDougal hush money agreements.

https://www.cnn.com/politics/live-news/trump-hush-money-trial-05-02-24/index.html

 

8 min ago
Trump attorney has a testy exchange with Davidson


After Davidson responded with little or no detail to a line of questions from Trump attorney Emil Bove, Bove jabbed at the witness — who is also an attorney — about his "fuzzy memory."

That led to a testy exchange.

"We're both lawyers. I'm not here to play lawyer games with you," Bove said.
Merchan sustained an objection to that remark

“You’re getting truthful answers, sir," Davidson says.

He also took exception to some of the specific terminology Bove was using in his questions.

"If you're not here to play legal games, then don't say 'extract,'" Davidson told Bove.

https://www.cnn.com/politics/live-news/trump-hush-money-trial-05-02-24/index.html

 

What the hell does Charlie Sheen have to do with Stormy/Trump?
Zilch.

6 min ago
Judge says Davidson is asserting privilege when declining to answer question about alleged settlement


Trump attorney Emil Bove asked whether there was a "settlement" between Keith Davidson's client and Charlie Sheen.

"I'm not going to answer that," Davidson said.

Bove asked Judge Juan Merchan to instruct Davidson to answer the question about the settlement.

Merchan said Davidson is asserting privilege and told Bove to ask another question.


https://www.cnn.com/politics/live-news/trump-hush-money-trial-05-02-24/index.html

 

9 min ago
Here’s what we learned from Stormy Daniels’ ex-lawyer's testimony this morning

From CNN's Kara Scannell, Jeremy Herb and Lauren del Valle

Keith Davidson, Stormy Daniels' former attorney resumed his testimony Thursday morning walking through more communications in the lead up to the hush money payment in 2016.

Here’s how it played out:

• Cross examination resumes: After the midmorning break, it was elicited through testimony that Daniels former attorney “lost trust” in Trump's lawyer, Michael Cohen due to the “delays in funding.” When the amount came through Davidson texted the National Enquirer editor who was helping broker the deal — “was never really sure.”
• Settlement agreement: Jurors also saw the confidential settlement agreement between Daniels and the former president — under the pseudonyms David Dennison and Peggy Peterson. Notably there is a side agreement which includes Trump’s real name and not Dennison’s — written in Davidson’s handwriting. The side letter agreement "decodes" the agreement that uses the pseudonyms, Davidson explains.
• No copy of agreement: Davidson says he never saw a copy of the agreement where there was a signature on the line for "David Dennison." Only Michael Cohen signed the agreement on Trump's behalf. All in Davidson was paid $10,000 for his role.
• Text to enquirer editor: Davidson texted then National Enquirer editor Dylan Howard “what have we done” on election night. "Oh my god," Howard responded. Prosecutors also brought back up a Wall Street Journal story about McDougal published Nov 4 2016 just four days before the election. Davidson at the time represented McDougal who was engaged in a deal with AMI over her allegations of a relationship with Trump.
• Davidson speaks to Cohen: Davidson spoke to Cohen "more than once" describing him as “very upset that the article had been published.” “He was very upset about the timing of the article and wanted to know who the source of the article was…he threatened to sue Karen McDougal.” Davidson confirms "his boss" was a reference to Donald Trump.

Remember: The deal with Stormy Daniels was also executed before election night. "It was on election night as the results were coming in. There was sort of surprise among the broadcasters and others that Donald Trump was leading in the polls and that there was a growing sense that folks were about ready to call the election."

"There was an understanding that our efforts may have in some way — strike that — our activities may have in some way assisted the presidential campaign of Donald Trump.”

"Who won the election?" Steinglass asks, just for the record. "Donald Trump," Davidson says.

https://www.cnn.com/politics/live-news/trump-hush-money-trial-05-02-24/index.html

 

8 min ago
Davidson says a "former friend" of McDougal's attempted to publicize her interactions with Trump in the press


Trump attorney Emil Bove is questioning Keith Davidson about Karen McDougal again.

Davidson said that when Donald Trump was ascending in the polls, a "former friend" of McDougal attempted to publicize her interactions with Trump in the press.





9 min ago
Trump attorney asks Davidson more about 2012 extortion case involving Hulk Hogan
Trump attorney Emil Bove has been asking a series of questions relating to the time Davidson, the witness, was investigated as part of a 2012 extortion probe tied to Hulk Hogan.

After several exchanges surrounding the investigation, Davidson confirmed in his testimony that he was not charged in connection with the case.

Bove asked again if the experience "gave him familiarity" with extortion law.

"Perhaps, I don't know," Davidson responds, shaking his head.
https://www.cnn.com/politics/live-news/trump-hush-money-trial-05-02-24/index.html