Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Posted
31 minutes ago, ChiGoose said:

Now that’s what I’d call a bad fact for Trump.
 

 

 

Why does he need to disclose the payment at any time?  Is there some legal obligation for political candidates to disclose the existence of an NDA?  

Posted
19 minutes ago, Tommy Callahan said:

The king providing the evidence of what.  He didn't say trump told him, he said he knew what to do. 


And here’s testimony claiming that Trump told him the story would be bad for the campaign:

 

And here’s Trump saying it would be bad for his campaign and Cohen should work with ***** to fix it

 

 

1 minute ago, All_Pro_Bills said:

Why does he need to disclose the payment at any time?  Is there some legal obligation for political candidates to disclose the existence of an NDA?  


Yes, if the purpose of the NDA is to benefit the campaign. 

  • Eyeroll 1
Posted
2 minutes ago, ChiGoose said:


And here’s testimony claiming that Trump told him the story would be bad for the campaign:

 

And here’s Trump saying it would be bad for his campaign and Cohen should work with ***** to fix it

 

 


Yes, if the purpose of the NDA is to benefit the campaign. 

You believe Cohen?

  • Like (+1) 1
Posted
3 minutes ago, ChiGoose said:


And here’s testimony claiming that Trump told him the story would be bad for the campaign:

 

And here’s Trump saying it would be bad for his campaign and Cohen should work with ***** to fix it

 

 


Yes, if the purpose of the NDA is to benefit the campaign. 

I have to say that the testimony about what Trump allegedly said, and how he allegedly fretted about it, sounds very unTrump like. 

  • Like (+1) 1
Posted (edited)
6 minutes ago, Pokebball said:

You believe Cohen?


He’s definitely a problematic witness for the prosecution. Which is why they saved him for later so they could have other witnesses provide evidence for what he’s going to testify about. 
 

If most of what he says was already backed by other witnesses, they jury may find him credible. If not, or if he goes off like Stormy did at the beginning of her testimony, they might not. After all, basically everyone who has testified about Cohen so far has said he’s a POS.

 

Ultimately, I think the weight of the evidence strongly points to Trump both being involved in the payments and that the purpose was to help the campaign. 
 

Trump can always testify to the contrary but him taking the stand would be a terrible idea. 

Edited by ChiGoose
Posted

I can’t even really comment on this because it’s obviously all such a disgrace.  Utter mockery of our justice system.

 

All hinging on a deeply partisan judge and heavy politically left lean jury. 
 

Anyone trying to continue to hype this have got to feel dirty about doing so .. even some honest Dems have started clearing their conscience and questioning all of this.  I’d suggest more do the same. 

  • Like (+1) 1
Posted
4 minutes ago, ChiGoose said:


He’s definitely a problematic witness for the prosecution. Which is why they saved him for later so they could have other witnesses provide evidence for what he’s going to testify about. 
 

If most of what he says was already backed by other witnesses, they jury may find him credible. If not, or if he goes off like Stormy did at the beginning of her testimony, they might not. After all, basically everyone who has testified about Cohen so far has said he’s a POS.

 

Ultimately, I think the weight of the evidence strongly points to Trump both being involved in the payments and that the purpose was to help the campaign. 
 

Trump can always testify to the contrary but him taking the stand would be a terrible idea. 

So you might believe Cohen? Interesting

  • Like (+1) 1
  • Haha (+1) 1
  • Thank you (+1) 1
Posted (edited)
27 minutes ago, ChiGoose said:


And here’s testimony claiming that Trump told him the story would be bad for the campaign:

 

And here’s Trump saying it would be bad for his campaign and Cohen should work with ***** to fix it

 

 


Yes, if the purpose of the NDA is to benefit the campaign. 

There's no such law about NDA's and political campaigns.  If there was it would fall under the jurisdiction of the Federal Election Commission which declined to get involved and not jerk-water NY state court.  Why have an NDA if you are required to disclose its existence? 

Edited by All_Pro_Bills
  • Like (+1) 1
  • Agree 1
Posted
11 minutes ago, All_Pro_Bills said:

There's no such law about NDA's and political campaigns.  If there was it would fall under the jurisdiction of the Federal Election Commission which declined to get involved and not jerk-water NY state court.  Why have an NDA if you are required to disclose its existence? 

Bragg has kept the "crime" muddy, murkey and squishy intentionally. He wants to be able to pivot mid trial.

  • Like (+1) 1
Posted
29 minutes ago, ChiGoose said:


He’s definitely a problematic witness for the prosecution. Which is why they saved him for later so they could have other witnesses provide evidence for what he’s going to testify about. 
 

If most of what he says was already backed by other witnesses, they jury may find him credible. If not, or if he goes off like Stormy did at the beginning of her testimony, they might not. After all, basically everyone who has testified about Cohen so far has said he’s a POS.

 

Ultimately, I think the weight of the evidence strongly points to Trump both being involved in the payments and that the purpose was to help the campaign. 
 

Trump can always testify to the contrary but him taking the stand would be a terrible idea. 

You did everything but answer the question posed. I don’t blame you. 

  • Like (+1) 1
  • Haha (+1) 1
Posted
1 minute ago, JDHillFan said:

You did everything but answer the question posed. I don’t blame you. 

 

Asking a leftist to answer a question is like asking a cow to give chocolate milk. 

  • Like (+1) 1
  • Haha (+1) 1
×
×
  • Create New...