jonmx

No, it was not based on what Trump said. The judge made it clear if Trump testified the door was open for everything, regardless of what he said

Who do you think he talked to?

Not so. The judge made it clearnif Trump testify that would open the door for the prosecution to bring up every piece of dirt Trump was ever accused of. The judge effectively forced Trump to not testify.

JFC....every attorney who ever existed advises their client not to testify. You side is full of a bunch of disingenous bootlicking low-life liars.

Why would he be remorseful? Oh my gawd, his accountant called a payment to a lawyer 'legal expenses'! Lock him up! Ironically, you morons think it is Trump who is unhinged. He actually gave a pretty good speech, although I bet his obvious references to Cohen will get him in trouble with the illegal gag order.

No they haven't. Being a moron and saying Election Interference just shows you are too stupid to know what election interference is.

It does not violate the gag order, regardless of the illegalities of it.

Trumpeter? Hardly, this will be my first time voting for him. The last 4 years have opened up my eyes to just how evil and corrupt the deep state apparatus has become. Third parties? Good luck with that. The Libertarians have just nominated a wokist far-leftist who is still virtue-signalling with a mask in 2024. RFK jr? For someone who believes his father and uncle were killed by the CIA, he still seems to love big government power. A real enigma. I see how much power has accumulated in the executive branch with absolutely no oversight and no accountability and believe our government is rogue. They are firmly in bed with corporate giants and robbing us blind, censoring all our information, and creating huge profiles on each and every one of us should we dare to stand up. Is Trump going to fix this mess? I doubt it, but at least he has shown the balls to take it on.

And yet the 1000th failure to identify what the real crime in this case was.

Fock you idiot. He was not disagreeing with my legal point, but taking issues with tactics.

Which has crushed every single point. Not one of you focking idiots can point to the underlying law which applies to the case to make it a felony.

That was editorial fluff on a football message board. The crux of the arguement was based on the state's authority to use federal law, which you have yet to comment on.

Every arguement posed against me has gone down in flames. You guys are too focking stupid to know when you lost.

My arguement is not based on the judges intent. It is wholly based upon clear legal error. I just happen to believe the way he minupulated his instructions it was very intentional to give the jury an easy path to a guilty verdict. But that has zero to do with the legal point I made and which you continue not to address. While I understand your due process arguement, I was making a much more specific arguement. There were numerous errors in due process including not articulating the underlying charge in the charging documents and even gagging Trump was a failure of due process.

Nothing I said was was even remotely arguing facts. I was arguing law and process. 1. When a New York law makes a general reference to other crimes, can it rely on federal crimes? That has nothing to do with the facts in this case, and there numerous ironclad arguments against allowing it. First and foremost, New York law defines 'crime' as a violation of state or local law. So how can he legally instruct the jury using general references to federal laws? He must rely on state crimes. I could get into New York Constitutional law and how the specific statue violates it by not specially referencing what the other crimes it could be. I could get into the specific federal statues and show how they do not apply to this case. But it is not required. This court has no jurisdiction or statutory authority to bring in federal law as the underlying crime. Did you even read my post? I am lost at why you think I was arguing facts.

What is this case about? He was basically correct, except the judge gave them three very general federal crimes to consider....tax violations, campaign finance, or election interference. None of those hold water to any real scrutiny.

Using undefined references to federal crimes to establish the underlying crime of this business records law was very intentional and goes well beyond using discretion. This judge bamboozled the jury into considering Trump's activities as somehow violating federal Election Interference laws. Let's forget that New York law can't legally use federal crimes to support this statue. There are no election interference laws which covers hiding embarrassing facts. None. Election interference laws were enacted after the slaves were freed to make sure they could cast their vote. Preventing people from casting legal ballots is election interference. Trump did not do that. This judge intentionally mislead the jury with his instructions. Seriously, tell me where I am wrong.

This judge has zero authority to be making a case based on potential violations of federal law. This specific business records law mentions another 'crime'. The New York Code defines 'crime' as a violation of state and local laws. So none of those laws are even legally applicable in this case. Furthermore, there was no evidence presented how Trump violated any of those laws. I specifically earlier posted the DOJ fact sheet on on what constitutes election interference. Newfalsh, hiding embarrassing information is not a violation of any election law. And any federal campaign law expert would tell you, paying off Stormy is not a campaign contribution. But experts were not allowed in this case. Instead the jury was left to falsely assume it was a violation of some unnamed law by the asinine jury instructions of this corrupt judge.

Falsifying business records = categorizing something which someone disagrees with. Everyone thst runs a business could easily be charged with that as there are always bills which don't cleanly fit into a classification. Paying a lawyer and calling them legal expenses is not a fraudulant record.

Wiki....lol....right up there with your completely discredited Snopes.

That is a misdemeanor. You are smarter than this. There has to be an underlying crime to make it a felony. Stop the deflections.

A few establishment backstabbers along with a hoard of Democrats. Keeping him out if the primaries keeps him off the general. HTH. You are not very good at this debating stuff.

It is called the ability to read and comprehend English. That is all it takes to understand the law. There could be precedence which shape how the law is interpreted, but this case is so novel case there are none. This case required and underlying crime. There is no debate that fact. This judge identified three possibilities. Which one is it and how can federal laws be attached to state crimes. I don't blame you for not being able to answer, because there are no answers. The judge is a corrupt lying bastard. So your only options are to deflect or be honest....so you deflect.

Just tell me what focking crime he committed and we can have a discussion. Tax fraud? Election interference? Campaign finance. What exactly did Trump violate, because we still don't know. This case is a focking joke.

The question is why the government is pushing the cultist ideology of the queer movement? We got away from putting religious symbols everywhere and passing out Bibles. Now we put rainbow flags everywhere and celebrate the religion of queerdom. The government needs to get out of the business of pushing a religion to control people. And that definitely includes painting rainbows on the street. I completely support tbe freedom of expression to desecrate that cult symbol.