I only have one question….

Earl said:
After Donald Trump was found liable for sexually abusing and defaming E. Jean Carroll, his legal team and his defenders lodged a frequent talking point. Despite Carroll's claims that Trump had raped her, they noted, the jury stopped short of saying he committed that particular offense.
Click to expand...
Right. Because in NYS, unlike if he was charged Federally or in most other States, if the finding is, as it was, that Trump either used his finger or his penis to forcible penetrate her, against her will, then they must find Sexual Assault. IF they knew it was the penis then it would be rape.

Most of the rest of the country calls it all rape.

But is this a win for Trump? OR his Magats? You guys seem to love to Trump that 'Trump only forcible finger fucked her, that we can prove, against her will', like that is a win???


And as the Judge ruled in the second case, when Trump tried to counter sue, 'he DID rape her. That is an official court ruling now and Trump had the chance to appeal it and did not.

So we can all say it. TRUMP IS A RAPIST.
 
Jarod said:
Can you articulate any reason you believe this case is unjust?
Click to expand...

Bragg's case is the weakest and least relevant to Trump's time in office...

ragg's case alleges that Trump, through his former fixer Michael Cohen and the Trump Organization, falsified business records with the intent to defraud and commit another crime. Trump allegedly violated federal campaign finance laws when he paid Daniels $130,000 through Cohen to sign a NDA about their alleged sexual encounter—something we have to glean not from the indictment but from Bragg's statement that Cohen pled guilty to campaign finance violations; Cohen, who paid Daniels the money out of pocket, labeled his invoiced reimbursements as "legal services" instead of something like "reimbursement for settlement payment re: extra-marital sex."

Bragg turned this single transaction, which normally would have been one misdemeanor charge, into 34 separate felony counts with a maximum combined sentence of 136 years by throwing in the federal charge and aggressively subdividing each invoice, check, deposit, etc. into its own charge.
https://www.newsweek.com/alvin-braggs-case-against-trump-should-have-been-dismissed-opinion-1870620

Alvin Bragg's 'Election Interference' Narrative Is Nonsensical
https://reason.com/2024/04/18/alvin-braggs-election-interference-narrative-is-nonsensical/

Hasen said it’s not clear whether candidates for federal office can be prosecuted in cases involving state election laws. The defense may also argue the case can’t be brought in state court if it involves a federal election law.
https://apnews.com/article/trump-in...election-law-3cf41eb0cc5de0146840a436e49cfccc

Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg says Trump’s hush money criminal trial isn’t about politics

When he resurrected the case last April, the charges of falsifying records were raised to felonies under an unusual legal theory that Trump could be prosecuted in state court for violating federal campaign finance laws. Some legal experts say the strategy could backfire.

“It seems a bit of a legal reach, and the question is why are they doing it?” said Jonathan Turley, a professor at the George Washington University Law School. “It can be hard to escape the conclusion that this effort would not have been taken if the defendant was not Donald Trump.”
https://apnews.com/article/trump-ma...-money-trial-a164881f43b1d5064a528b36eada937e

All it takes is one juror to derail the whole trial by refusing to convict. Given the look of things, Bragg is trying charge stacking and if the jury decides that is the case, he's fighting an uphill battle even if he's essentially correct on at least one or more charges. Jurors don't usually take kindly to the prosecution going out of their way for blood so-to-speak.
 
T. A. Gardner said:
Bragg's case is the weakest and least relevant to Trump's time in office...

ragg's case alleges that Trump, through his former fixer Michael Cohen and the Trump Organization, falsified business records with the intent to defraud and commit another crime. Trump allegedly violated federal campaign finance laws when he paid Daniels $130,000 through Cohen to sign a NDA about their alleged sexual encounter—something we have to glean not from the indictment but from Bragg's statement that Cohen pled guilty to campaign finance violations; Cohen, who paid Daniels the money out of pocket, labeled his invoiced reimbursements as "legal services" instead of something like "reimbursement for settlement payment re: extra-marital sex."

Bragg turned this single transaction, which normally would have been one misdemeanor charge, into 34 separate felony counts with a maximum combined sentence of 136 years by throwing in the federal charge and aggressively subdividing each invoice, check, deposit, etc. into its own charge.
https://www.newsweek.com/alvin-braggs-case-against-trump-should-have-been-dismissed-opinion-1870620

Alvin Bragg's 'Election Interference' Narrative Is Nonsensical
https://reason.com/2024/04/18/alvin-braggs-election-interference-narrative-is-nonsensical/

Hasen said it’s not clear whether candidates for federal office can be prosecuted in cases involving state election laws. The defense may also argue the case can’t be brought in state court if it involves a federal election law.
https://apnews.com/article/trump-in...election-law-3cf41eb0cc5de0146840a436e49cfccc

Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg says Trump’s hush money criminal trial isn’t about politics

When he resurrected the case last April, the charges of falsifying records were raised to felonies under an unusual legal theory that Trump could be prosecuted in state court for violating federal campaign finance laws. Some legal experts say the strategy could backfire.

“It seems a bit of a legal reach, and the question is why are they doing it?” said Jonathan Turley, a professor at the George Washington University Law School. “It can be hard to escape the conclusion that this effort would not have been taken if the defendant was not Donald Trump.”
https://apnews.com/article/trump-ma...-money-trial-a164881f43b1d5064a528b36eada937e

All it takes is one juror to derail the whole trial by refusing to convict. Given the look of things, Bragg is trying charge stacking and if the jury decides that is the case, he's fighting an uphill battle even if he's essentially correct on at least one or more charges. Jurors don't usually take kindly to the prosecution going out of their way for blood so-to-speak.
Click to expand...

Trump is likely to get a mistrial, that does not mean he is innocent.

Trump is being prosecuted for violating a New York State law! If you believe otherwise you got duped.
 
T. A. Gardner said:
Bragg's case is the weakest and least relevant to Trump's time in office...

ragg's case alleges that Trump, through his former fixer Michael Cohen and the Trump Organization, falsified business records with the intent to defraud and commit another crime. Trump allegedly violated federal campaign finance laws when he paid Daniels $130,000 through Cohen to sign a NDA about their alleged sexual encounter—something we have to glean not from the indictment but from Bragg's statement that Cohen pled guilty to campaign finance violations; Cohen, who paid Daniels the money out of pocket, labeled his invoiced reimbursements as "legal services" instead of something like "reimbursement for settlement payment re: extra-marital sex."

Bragg turned this single transaction, which normally would have been one misdemeanor charge, into 34 separate felony counts with a maximum combined sentence of 136 years by throwing in the federal charge and aggressively subdividing each invoice, check, deposit, etc. into its own charge.
https://www.newsweek.com/alvin-braggs-case-against-trump-should-have-been-dismissed-opinion-1870620

Alvin Bragg's 'Election Interference' Narrative Is Nonsensical
https://reason.com/2024/04/18/alvin-braggs-election-interference-narrative-is-nonsensical/

Hasen said it’s not clear whether candidates for federal office can be prosecuted in cases involving state election laws. The defense may also argue the case can’t be brought in state court if it involves a federal election law.
https://apnews.com/article/trump-in...election-law-3cf41eb0cc5de0146840a436e49cfccc

Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg says Trump’s hush money criminal trial isn’t about politics

When he resurrected the case last April, the charges of falsifying records were raised to felonies under an unusual legal theory that Trump could be prosecuted in state court for violating federal campaign finance laws. Some legal experts say the strategy could backfire.

“It seems a bit of a legal reach, and the question is why are they doing it?” said Jonathan Turley, a professor at the George Washington University Law School. “It can be hard to escape the conclusion that this effort would not have been taken if the defendant was not Donald Trump.”
https://apnews.com/article/trump-ma...-money-trial-a164881f43b1d5064a528b36eada937e

All it takes is one juror to derail the whole trial by refusing to convict. Given the look of things, Bragg is trying charge stacking and if the jury decides that is the case, he's fighting an uphill battle even if he's essentially correct on at least one or more charges. Jurors don't usually take kindly to the prosecution going out of their way for blood so-to-speak.
Click to expand...
One juror might cause a hung jury, but Trump did break this law, clearly.
 
Jarod said:
One juror might cause a hung jury, but Trump did break this law, clearly.
Click to expand...
I'd say Bragg brought a shit case that is founded totally on a twisted lie version of New York law, and yes, it's damn likely that the jury will hang, and potentially even just find Trump not guilty at this point. How would you, as a juror on that jury, see the judge not allowing the defense to bring certain witnesses for expert testimony that is highly relevant to the case? How would you see the judge cutting defense witnesses testimony short and not allowing the defense to fully present their witnesses? How would you see Cohen's testimony knowing he's a convicted perjurer, liar, and crook? How would you see that the feds refused to bring this case even though they had clearly more reason in law to do so than New York state ever did?
 
  • Like
Reactions: TOP
T. A. Gardner said:
I'd say Bragg brought a shit case that is founded totally on a twisted lie version of New York law, and yes, it's damn likely that the jury will hang, and potentially even just find Trump not guilty at this point. How would you, as a juror on that jury, see the judge not allowing the defense to bring certain witnesses for expert testimony that is highly relevant to the case? How would you see the judge cutting defense witnesses testimony short and not allowing the defense to fully present their witnesses? How would you see Cohen's testimony knowing he's a convicted perjurer, liar, and crook? How would you see that the feds refused to bring this case even though they had clearly more reason in law to do so than New York state ever did?
Click to expand...
1) The Jury will not know about the judge not allowing certain witnesses.
2) It is very normal for judges to bar witnesses, even if others really badly want to believe they are relevant.
3) Plenty of cases are seen differently by different prosecutors.
 
Jarod said:
1) The Jury will not know about the judge not allowing certain witnesses.
2) It is very normal for judges to bar witnesses, even if others really badly want to believe they are relevant.
3) Plenty of cases are seen differently by different prosecutors.
Click to expand...
There are two attorneys on that jury... Do you not think They understand exactly what's taking place?
 
Jarod said:
I’ve looked into the current criminal case against Trump. It seems like a solid case (even so you never know what a jury will do) but I haven’t seen any evidence except Cohen, that shows Trump knew what was happening.
Click to expand...

So, you haven't seen any evidence of the unnamed crime, but believe it's a sold case. Anyone else here see how stupid that is? :laugh:

Jarod said:
I hope they have something to cooperate Cohen!
Click to expand...

The term you are struggling with is "corroborate" And no, they have nothing that does this. Just the serial liar's word. Weak I know.

However, the DA does have someone who is currently held in a jail cell named Allen Weisselberg who would be able to corroborate Cohen's lies. Why do you think they don't want to put him on the stand?
 
Phantasmal said:
Trump is also on tape and video confessing to his crimes.

https://www.npr.org/2018/05/02/607943366/giuliani-says-trump-did-know-about-stormy-daniels-payment
Click to expand...

That is a lie. NPR's healdine is a lie. You obviously didn't read the article that admits they are lying.

Trump admitted Thursday to reimbursing his lawyer for a $130,000 payment made on the eve of the 2016 election to porn actress Stormy Daniels as part of a settlement about her alleged 2006 sexual encounter with Trump.

Trump never admitted such a thing. He wasn't on the stand. That is a lie.

Trump, however, denied any sexual encounter and claims the payment was in no way connected with the campaign — despite the timing.

Trump wasn't on the stand. The payment was made by Cohen. The NDA was Cohen's idea. He used his own money then admitted under oath that he cheated Trumps company out of $60K.

There has been ZERO evidence presented that suggests Trump coordinated, knew of, or agreed to the NDA. He didn't even sign it.

Be smarter if that is even remotely possible for someone so uneducated and dishonest.
 
Phantasmal said:
Remember when Trump claimed extortion! Then they realized that defense would mean Trump had knowledge of the crime :laugh:
Click to expand...

He was being extorted. What do you call when someone threatens to expose salacious, and probably false information to the public unless they get paid.

To Whom It May Concern:

Over the past few weeks I have been asked countless times to comment on reports of an alleged sexual relationship I had with Donald Trump many, many, many years ago.

The fact of the matter is that each party to this alleged affair denied its existence in 2006, 20011, 2016, 2017 and now again in 2018. I am not denying this affair because I was paid “hush money” as has been reported in overseas owned tabloids. I am denying this affair because it never happened.

I will have no further comment on this matter. Please feel free to check me out on Instagram at @thestormydaniels.

Thank you,

Stormy Daniels
 
BidenPresident said:
If I was a juror on Trump's trial. Will I be fair and impartial? Why should I? When has Trump ever treated someone fairly. Off with his head.
Click to expand...

More evidence of how dishonest and stupid leftist dullards who support a corrupt, senile, serial lying douchebag like Biden.

I doubt you have sufficient IQ to comprehend that you prefer a lawless Banana Republic run by autocrats.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top