Trump's NY Election Interference Trial - Trump is found guilty on all 34 counts

[Ron_Artest 767]

10 minutes ago, jerryskids said:

I was going to respond to you that those two aren't necessarily mutually exclusively (and technically, they aren't), but I agree with you that the delay was most likely to see if Trump was the presumptive nominee before going through with this farce.   

That would make it personal, not political, right?  If it was political then they would have prosecuted whoever the nominee was right?

[Engorgeous George 1,333]

Is there a distinction to be made between business records reporting requirements and campaign finance reporting requirements?  I think there is. Trying to morph business record reporting requirements into campaign finance reporting requirements seems a misuse of the purpose of the statutes.  Did Trump violate camnpaign finance reporting requirements?  It seems he did not.  Now the state is trying to prosecute the one as the other when never the twain shall meet.

[jerryskids 5,461]

5 minutes ago, Ron_Artest said:

That would make it personal, not political, right?  If it was political then they would have prosecuted whoever the nominee was right?

Wut? Like, prosecute Haley for being of Indian descent?   

NM, I get you.  Yes, it's both.  It's political because, well, obviously.  But it's personal because Trump is the mean orange man who must be stopped before he destroys the country nay the world.

[Ron_Artest 767]

2 minutes ago, jerryskids said:

Wut? Like, prosecute Haley for being of Indian descent?   

If all the charges against Trump are fake then I'm sure Biden could fake some charges against anyone else right?

[squistion 1,018]

https://twitter.com/KatiePhang/status/1787922329554624584

Necheles is trying to suggest that Stormy has "rehearsed" her testimony before taking the stand. She asks Stormy about going through mock cross-examinations.

Katie's Sidebar: there is NOTHING WRONG with preparing a witness for their testimony by going over questions that the witness might be asked on direct and on cross.

[The Real timschochet 3,321]

12 minutes ago, jerryskids said:

Let me see if I understand your point (and that of the prosecution).  Trump allegedly falsified business records, itself a misdemeanor unless performed for the purpose of committing another crime, which makes it a felony.  This is important because it gets past the statute of limitations.  The "other crime" is election interference, and this is because he paid her off close to the election, thus interfering with the election.

Do I have this right?

Thats my understanding. 

[jerryskids 5,461]

1 minute ago, Ron_Artest said:

If all the charges against Trump are fake then I'm sure Biden could fake some charges against anyone else right?

Biden can't find his way off a stage.  

But to your greater point, charging Trump is a mark of virtue signaling in the Leftist world.  Charging Haley with something as frivolous as this would not be nearly so accepted in general.

[jerryskids 5,461]

1 minute ago, The Real timschochet said:

Thats my understanding. 

Eesh.  And on this, let's call it "creative", interpretation of election interference, you are good with arresting the former POTUS and current candidate for one of the two major parties?

[Engorgeous George 1,333]

4 hours ago, squistion said:

https://twitter.com/KatiePhang/status/1787921636185743547

Direct Examination is over. Susan Necheles is up to cross Stormy.

A target rich environment, but a witness likely very willing to ignore the question and to respond  in a self-serving and nonresponsive manner, much like Fanny Willis did in that hearing.  I doubt judge Merchane can controll what's coming.  I doubt Ms. Necheles can either.  Should be interesting.  The defense needs to be very careful their questions do not solicit the same prejudicial information the judge struck earlier or they will weaken their arguments on appeal.

 

My questioning of her would be simply was she emplyed by Trump Enterprises.  Did she have any inside or direct knowledge on how the funds she recieved were designated on the Trump Enterprises books.  When she says no I would dismiss her in a talking motion looking right at the jury and I would say, "The defense dismisses this witness as she has no testimoney or knowledge remotely relevant to the highly imaginative and wholly unique charges brought in this political persecution of my client."  Yes I would be admonished.  I might even elicit a mistrial motion from the Prosecution, a motion I would join in.  I have been admonished before.  Its not so bad.

[The Real timschochet 3,321]

22 minutes ago, Engorgeous George said:

As I understand matters the judge has stricken some of her testimony and he, himself, the judge has interposed objections to other parts of her testimony.  If so, this simply confirms what I wrote this morning, her testimony is irrelevant and likely to be highly prejudicial and this was foreseeable yet the judge allowed the testimony to be solicited.  This should have lead to a mistrial.  It will lead to reversal on appeal.  The court and the prosecution are now engaged in a pointless exercise and they have to know it.  Both should be sanctioned when this is over as the court process is punishing and expensive and should not be used solely to be punishing and expensive.  Both the Court and the prosecution have an obligation to see that the process not continue for the sole end goal of having the process be punishing.  This is shameful and will be seen in the future to ber so.  It will be taught in law schools as an example of what not to do.  

Granted, I am listening to MSNBC’s coverage and of course they have an axe to grind but they have legal experts on who seem to very much disagree with you on this. 

[jonmx 1,766]

Not one person here can point to the crime associated with the 'false' business record.  

All we get is the bootlicking cultists saying, 'the state of New York says it is!'.

As the saying goes, it is difficult to win an argument with an intelligent person.  But it is impossible to win an argument with a braindead bootlicking state-worshiping idiot. 

[Fnord 1,205]

Just now, jonmx said:

Not one person here can point to the crime associated with the 'false' business record.  

All we get is the bootlicking cultists saying, 'the state of New York says it is!'.

As the saying goes, it is difficult to win an argument with an intelligent person.  But it is impossible to win an argument with a braindead bootlicking state-worshiping idiot. 

Which is why, despite being told a multitude of times what the crime is, you refuse to acknowledge it. You're an idiot. In your own words.

[jonmx 1,766]

6 minutes ago, The Real timschochet said:

Thats my understanding. 

So point me to this election interference law....I have been begging for a month for this. 

[The Real timschochet 3,321]

2 minutes ago, jerryskids said:

Eesh.  And on this, let's call it "creative", interpretation of election interference, you are good with arresting the former POTUS and current candidate for one of the two major parties?

I am. It’s a bit of a sleazy case and IMO the other 3 indictments are far more serious. Nonetheless what Trump did here does seem to rise to the level of a felony and I think it’s a worthy prosecution. 
FTR I felt the same way when Bill Clinton lied to a grand jury, under oath, about his relationship with Lewinsky. I believe he should have been prosecuted. 

[jonmx 1,766]

Just now, Fnord said:

Which is why, despite being told a multitude of times what the crime is, you refuse to acknowledge it. You're an idiot. In your own words.

Show me what law asswipe.  Election interference is not what you think it is you fuking idiot

[BeachGuy23 604]

8 minutes ago, jerryskids said:

Eesh.  And on this, let's call it "creative", interpretation of election interference, you are good with arresting the former POTUS and current candidate for one of the two major parties?

Astounding the lengths cultist will go to defend a dude who wouldn't pis$ on them if they were on fire.

He'd sell you all down the river for the a buck or the chance to bang his daughter.

Imagine selling yourself out for such a huge POS.

[Engorgeous George 1,333]

11 minutes ago, The Real timschochet said:

Granted, I am listening to MSNBC’s coverage and of course they have an axe to grind but they have legal experts on who seem to very much disagree with you on this. 

I would anticipate nothing less.  They are concentrating on providing political commentary.  Were they capable to concentrate of the legal process, to separate it from the odious slimeball that is Trump they might give another analysis.  Still, disagreeing with my legal conclusions is something I am use to.  Lots of very qualified lawyers have over the years.  In the end, however, I have almost universally been upheld on appeal.  Still, this matter is far from over and who really knows the final outcome.

[BeachGuy23 604]

2 minutes ago, jonmx said:

So point me to this election interference law....I have been begging for a month for this. 

I posted the statute he's been indicted under several times you CT nutjob. 

[thegeneral 1,592]

It seems Team Trump is sticking with that Stormy is a liar and Cohen did this on his own. 

[Engorgeous George 1,333]

Just now, thegeneral said:

It seems Team Trump is sticking with that Stormy is a liar and Cohen did this on his own. 

You seem to be getting blow by blow interpretations of the testimony taking palce.  
Would you be willing to share the source you are viewing for this?

[The Real timschochet 3,321]

1 minute ago, thegeneral said:

It seems Team Trump is sticking with that Stormy is a liar and Cohen did this on his own. 

Jon, isn’t this in itself a refutation of your argument? If no law had been broken here then why does Trump’s team need to insist that he never directed Cohen to pay her? Why not simply argue that it’s irrelevant because no law was ever broken? 

[jonmx 1,766]

1 minute ago, Engorgeous George said:

I would anticipate nothing less.  They are concentrating on providing political commentary.  Were they capable to concentrate of the legazl process, to separate it from the odious slimeball that is trump they might give another analysis.  Still, disagreeing with my legal conclusions is something i am use to.  Lots of very qualified lawyers ahve over the years.  In the end, however, I have almost universally been upheld on appeal.  Still, this matter is far from over and who really knows the final outcome.

The final outcome is:

1.  They gag Trump illegally for three months.

2.  They maybe score a scam conviction. 

3.  Everything is exposed as a corrupt fraud....after the election. 

[edjr 5,783]

There is not a thing you could see or hear that any of you clowns would change your stance.

You know the definition of insanity?

[thegeneral 1,592]

1 minute ago, Engorgeous George said:

You seem to be getting blow by blow interpretations of the testimony taking palce.  
Would you be willing to share the source you are viewing for this?

Cnn.com has this a live from the court thing going on where they drop updates.

[jerryskids 5,461]

5 minutes ago, BeachGuy23 said:

Astounding the lengths cultist will go to defend a dude who wouldn't pis$ on them if they were on fire.

He'd sell you all down the river for the a buck or the chance to bang his daughter.

Imagine selling yourself out for such a huge POS.

Non-responsive drivel.  Otherwise, good post, good effort.   

[jonmx 1,766]

1 minute ago, The Real timschochet said:

Jon, isn’t this in itself a refutation of your argument? If no law had been broken here then why does Trump’s team need to insist that he never directed Cohen to pay her? Why not simply argue that it’s irrelevant because no law was ever broken? 

Because when you argue against a case, you refute every point you disagree with...if you don't refute a lie, it legally is considered a fact. 

[Engorgeous George 1,333]

8 minutes ago, thegeneral said:

Cnn.com has this a live from the court thing going on where they drop updates.

Thank you.  I have not checked in with CNN in a while.  I will do so for a bit to get their perspective on updates.  I did watch a panel on CNN last evening for a bit while flipping away from the NBA games.  Some of their expert panalist seemed to believe the prosecution was going quite poorly while others were of the exact opposite opinion.  The coverage of matters I have seen on MSNBC and on FOX have been uncompromising and serving of their end of the political spectrum, while CNN has entertained, at least a bit, some actual discussion. 

[squistion 1,018]

 

[edjr 5,783]

1 minute ago, squistion said:

 

Lemon?

[jonmx 1,766]

8 minutes ago, BeachGuy23 said:

I posted the statute he's been indicted under several times you CT nutjob. 

You pointed to some hair-brain theory about some conspiracy law which has never been brought up in court nor has even been used to prosecute anyone.  The legal theory is basically, we have a conspiracy to commit a conspiracy but there is no crime in either.  

[Engorgeous George 1,333]

3 minutes ago, squistion said:

 

Interesting.  A fascinating call back to a simpler time.  I wonder, if Trump got a palne in the air with a short message how Judge Merchane would respond to that.

 

Would unascribed sky writting or plane towing of banners fall within his gag order?  I mean if the message is suspected by readers as coming from Trump but not directly ascribed to him is it a violation.

 

Well at any rate I appreciate the use of creative media.  I wonder if we will see a return of the Trump Baby parade balloon.  Frankly I think some vendor might do well selling down sized copies as helium ballons outside the courthouse.

[thegeneral 1,592]

8 minutes ago, Engorgeous George said:

Interesting.  A fascinating call back to a simpler time.  I wonder, if Trump got a palne in the air with a short message how Judge Merchane would respond to that.

 

Would unascribed sky writting or plane towing of banners fall within his gag order?  I mean if the message is suspected by readers as coming from Trump but not directly ascribed to him is it a violation.

 

Well at any rate I appreciate the use of creative media.  I wonder if we will see a return of the Trump Baby parade balloon.  Frankly I think some vendor might do well selling down sized copies as helium ballons outside the courthouse.

Would get more immediate eyeballs than his Truth Social online diary posts. 

[thegeneral 1,592]

Looking forward to Von Shitzinpants taking the stand. He can clear this whole thing up then!

[The Real timschochet 3,321]

looks like Trump will be skipping Baron’s graduation: 

https://people.com/donald-trump-headlines-minnesota-event-same-day-barron-graduation-8644487

[thegeneral 1,592]

30 minutes ago, edjr said:

There is not a thing you could see or hear that any of you clowns would change your stance.

You know the definition of insanity?

I don’t get people not finding this whole thing interesting, funny, absurd, etc. 

Is very entertaining.

[Ron_Artest 767]

1 minute ago, thegeneral said:

I don’t get people not finding this whole thing interesting, funny, absurd, etc. 

Is very entertaining.

They don't like to see their hero being dragged through the mud

[thegeneral 1,592]

1 minute ago, Ron_Artest said:

They don't like to see their hero being dragged through the mud

To that I’d say If you are so inclined you can get into the whole “deep state” bullshit. He’s a victim, Joe Biden is doing this type of stuff.

[TBayXXXVII 2,215]

1 hour ago, The Real timschochet said:

OK. I get you believe this. Many conservatives I know believe it.

Because it's true.

 

1 hour ago, The Real timschochet said:

I disagree with you.

Which makes you wrong.

 

1 hour ago, The Real timschochet said:

And I think it’s actually the opposite: if not for politics this trial would have happened years ago. 

Which proves you're delusional.

[TBayXXXVII 2,215]

1 hour ago, jerryskids said:

Well, we can agree on the bolded.  It was stalled so that it could happen during the election year.

 

1 hour ago, Strike said:

I'm gonna disagree with both of you.  It was BROUGHT because it's an election year.  Had Trump not run for President this time none of these lawsuits happen.

If Trump walked away from politics and said, "screwed this", after the Nov 7, 2020, this trial never happens.

[TBayXXXVII 2,215]

1 hour ago, BeachGuy23 said:

Astounding the lengths cultist will go to defend a dude who wouldn't pis$ on them if they were on fire.

He'd sell you all down the river for the a buck or the chance to bang his daughter.

Imagine selling yourself out for such a huge POS.

LOL, says the guy who defends and supports the candidate who literally bathed with his daughter.