The (many) indictments of Donald Trump

[W.TN.Orange Blood]

Vivek is a clown. Always has been, always will be.

But hey, he is sacrificing himself at the Trump altar, like a good little boy.

Looks like he triggered you. You're the real clown here, there's no one else.
Congrats. How anyone can defend such a corrupt system as this trial is a lunatic at best.

 

[W.TN.Orange Blood]

Dude shines the light on the Democrats money corruption for all the world to see.

 

[SpaceCoastVol]

Looks like he triggered you. You're the clown here no one else.
Congrats. How anyone can defend such a corrupt system as this trial is a lunatic at best.

You deeply underestimate the hate for DJT. Did you see Cackles dropping the F bomb? Very presidential. The adults are back in charge, right?

 

[lawgator1]

The real shame of all of this is that the 1/6 and Mar-a-lago cases, which is where the worst crimes are, will not be tried and he will pardon himself of those if he wins. And if he wins, it will just be an outlet for people's frustrations about other things.

 

[hog88]

The real shame of all of this is that the 1/6 and Mar-a-lago cases, which is where the worst crimes are, will not be tried and he will pardon himself of those if he wins. And if he wins, it will just be an outlet for people's frustrations about other things.

The classified documents case is falling apart faster than women run away from you. There is no case against him for 1/6.

 

[whodeycin85]

The real shame of all of this is that the 1/6 and Mar-a-lago cases, which is where the worst crimes are, will not be tried and he will pardon himself of those if he wins. And if he wins, it will just be an outlet for people's frustrations about other things.

You'll be lucky of those don't get dismissed..

 

[jmacvols1]

 

[W.TN.Orange Blood]

The real shame of all of this is that the 1/6 and Mar-a-lago cases, which is where the worst crimes are, will not be tried and he will pardon himself of those if he wins. And if he wins, it will just be an outlet for people's frustrations about other things.

Just your meaningless garbage opinion & nothing else as usual.

 

[lawgator1]

What the Fox talking heads always omit is the overwhelming corroborating evidence to Cohen's version of events.

 

[whodeycin85]

What the Fox talking heads always omit is the overwhelming corroborating evidence to Cohen's version of events.

What is the crime?
If you say campaign finance violation, the why didn't the FEC charge him?

 

[lawgator1]

What is the crime?
If you say campaign finance violation, the why didn't the FEC charge him?

It is a crime in New York to cook the books to hide it.

If you believe that Trump worked with Cohen to pay her off, using the National Enquirer catch and kill mechanism they had so often before and that the purposes was to hide the payment so as to shield him politically, then it is reasonable to infer that when it came time to document the payment, i.e. to reimburse Cohen, then it was done in such a manner and with Trump's knowledge that it was being called a "legal expense," so as to prevent anyone who might see it from knowing it was a payoff to her to keep her trap shut as Trump ran for office.

Its not even the slightest bit hard to believe. In fact, it seems obvious.

Now, you want to argue that the witnesses have credibility problems and so you cannot know it beyond a reasonable doubt? Ok, argue that. Maybe you will be right and they will acquit. But just because OJ wasn't convicted doesn't mean he did not in fact murder Simpson and the boyfriend.

From a political standpoint, there are obviously millions of Trump supporters willing to overlook the entirety of it -- cheating on his wife with a porn star, buying her story, hiding the payments -- so that they can instead focus on their resentments about the changing demographics around them, or the price of milk or gas, or whatever daily grievance Trump can tap into.

Just don't come crying to me if he gets elected and throws the country into one constitutional crisis after another because he mad.

 

[W.TN.Orange Blood]

What the Fox talking heads always omit is the overwhelming corroborating evidence to Cohen's version of events.

You have no case .... take your loss & move on to the next yghn sham case.

 

[whodeycin85]

It is a crime in New York to cook the books to hide it.

If you believe that Trump worked with Cohen to pay her off, using the National Enquirer catch and kill mechanism they had so often before and that the purposes was to hide the payment so as to shield him politically, then it is reasonable to infer that when it came time to document the payment, i.e. to reimburse Cohen, then it was done in such a manner and with Trump's knowledge that it was being called a "legal expense," so as to prevent anyone who might see it from knowing it was a payoff to her to keep her trap shut as Trump ran for office.

Its not even the slightest bit hard to believe. In fact, it seems obvious.

Now, you want to argue that the witnesses have credibility problems and so you cannot know it beyond a reasonable doubt? Ok, argue that. Maybe you will be right and they will acquit. But just because OJ wasn't convicted doesn't mean he did not in fact murder Simpson and the boyfriend.

From a political standpoint, there are obviously millions of Trump supporters willing to overlook the entirety of it -- cheating on his wife with a porn star, buying her story, hiding the payments -- so that they can instead focus on their resentments about the changing demographics around them, or the price of milk or gas, or whatever daily grievance Trump can tap into.

Just don't come crying to me if he gets elected and throws the country into one constitutional crisis after another because he mad.

How did he cook the books? Is it illegal to pay a lawyer, legals fees?? NDAs, and buying stories are not illegal...there is a reason the crime to elevate to a felony hasn't been charged or disclosed..there is also a the same reason the FEC and DOJ didn't prosecute..
What should fees paid to a lawyer be called on a balance sheet?

 

[BreatheUT]

IDK but in my mind the prosecutor would first have to prove he did falsify the business records then prove he did it to cover up another crime and I don't know what that crime would be.

These lowlives have no problem wasting taxpayer funds. They think they have won if they can make Trump spend his money for his defense or keep him off the campaign trail. They think they can smear him enough to make him lose the election.

 

[W.TN.Orange Blood]

These lowlives have no problem wasting taxpayer funds. They think they have won if they can make Trump spend his money for his defense or keep him off the campaign trail. They think they can smear him enough to make him lose the election.

.... and to keep their democracy destroying puppet POTUS in power.

 

[VolTull]

!!! NEW FELONY INVESTIGATION !!! ​

OK MY !!!

May 14, 2024

Trump is being investigated by the Senate Budget Committee because he’s trying to sell America’s energy policy for $1 billion to Big Oil at a recent fundraising dinner at Mar a Lago. Michael Popok examines the new investigation launched by Senator Whitehouse as the details of the smoke-filled backroom secret dinner become clear.

 

[BreatheUT]

Dude shines the light on the Democrats money corruption for all the world to see.

Vivek is

 

[Gandalf]

The classified documents case is falling apart faster than women run away from you. There is no case against him for 1/6.

IIRC, not only did they screw up the placement of the covers but GSA actually packed a special subset of boxes and delivered them. That is where all the problematic docs were found and national records knew about them because GSA had let them know before they actually sent them. This was a complete setup from the start. Essentially, GSA planted the docs, then worked with national archives and FBI to "catch" him with the docs.

 

[W.TN.Orange Blood]

 

[W.TN.Orange Blood]

 

[DinkinFlicka]

When dumbass doesn't even read the whole tweet

 

[BigOrangeMojo]

How did he cook the books? Is it illegal to pay a lawyer, legals fees?? NDAs, and buying stories are not illegal...there is a reason the crime to elevate to a felony hasn't been charged or disclosed..there is also a the same reason the FEC and DOJ didn't prosecute..
What should fees paid to a lawyer be called on a balance sheet?

It's not how it was classified, it was how they essentially created fake invoices for a retainer that did not exist....

But once again, should be just a misdemeanor with a fine attached to it.

 

[whodeycin85]

It's not how it was classified, it was how they essentially created fake invoices for a retainer that did not exist....

But once again, should be just a misdemeanor with a fine attached to it.

Do you have to have a retainer to pay legal fees?

 

[BigOrangeMojo]

Do you have to have a retainer to pay legal fees?

No, but reimbursing a lawyer who is not on retainer for expenses they incurred and creating fake invoices saying payment is per retainer agreement is exactly what this statute was intended for.

Again, without a secondary crime, just a misdemeanor though

 

[jmacvols1]

What the Fox talking heads always omit is the overwhelming corroborating evidence to Cohen's version of events.

are you talking about the corroborating evidence of a convicted perjurer and a lying porn star who admittedly hates Trump and wants to see him in jail?

Byron York
@ByronYork

On the Trump trial: Now that the prosecution has finished with its witnesses, it's hard not to see the case as a giant exercise in misdirection. Prosecutors started by defining the case as a 'criminal scheme to corrupt the 2016 election,' which is not what Trump is charged with. Prosecutors have spent days proving things that aren't in dispute -- and aren't a crime -- namely that Trump paid Stormy Daniels for a nondisclosure agreement. They have offered documents to support that fact. But the documents have created an illusion of corroboration.

They do not prove that Trump, with intent to defraud, made or caused a false business record to be created -- the 'legal expenses' entries in the Trump Organization ledger. That's what Trump is accused of doing. That's what prosecutors have to prove. Michael Cohen has addressed that -- we still don't have the transcript -- but his word is the only evidence prosecutors have offered that Trump knew the checks to Cohen were logged as 'legal expenses.' (Which, at least in part, they were.) And of course, even if prosecutors can prove that, they also have to prove that Trump, with intention to defraud, falsified the records with intent to commit another crime.

So far, nobody knows what the other crime is. On MSNBC this afternoon, pro-prosecution commentators were confused about the 'other crime' as they watched the prosecution finish without specifying it. Were prosecutors going to use New York state law against Trump? Federal law? Was the jury supposed to figure it out by themselves? It was all part of the misdirection of this case. If you try to ignore the distractions and keep your eye on the actual charges against Trump, you won't find much.