B-Man Posted April 16 Posted April 16 The case against Trump is a joke because the records violation of which Trump is accused is a misdemeanor, on which the statute of limitations has run. It is only a felony if the records were falsified to cover up another crime. That is what Bragg alleges. But what crime? Bragg’s indictment doesn’t say. Presumably his theory will be that the payment to Daniels was a campaign finance violation, only it wasn’t. The payment was legal and no false filing was made with the FEC. Trump has not been charged with, let alone convicted of, any such violation. So the case against Trump is terrible. But does it matter? The only reason Bragg brought the case (and the only reason the other prosecutions of Trump have been brought) is so that Democratic Party news outlets can say that Trump is a “convicted felon.” That is all that matters until November. Any conviction will most likely be reversed on appeal, but not until long after the election. So the trial is really a show, with the jury in the starring role. Can Donald Trump get a fair trial in front of a Manhattan jury? No. He is reviled there. Jurors will understand the politics of what they are engaged in, and my guess is that they will play their part to the letter. Any trial lawyer will tell you that the most important thing he does in any trial is pick the jury. And here, I am afraid that is a hopeless task. So, good luck to Trump’s lawyers. Maybe lightning will strike and the jury will include one honest man (or woman). But don’t count on it. Regardless of the weakness of the case, a conviction is highly probable, with the result that newspapers and TV networks will do their “convicted felon” shtick for the next six months. The consequences of that are unpredictable, but they can’t be good. https://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2024/04/trump-goes-on-trial.php
BillStime Posted April 16 Posted April 16 LAWFARE & ELECTION INTERFERENCE LAWFARE & ELECTION INTERFERENCE LAWFARE & ELECTION INTERFERENCE LAWFARE & ELECTION INTERFERENCE LAWFARE & ELECTION INTERFERENCE LAWFARE & ELECTION INTERFERENCE LAWFARE & ELECTION INTERFERENCE The case against TRUMP is about: ELECTION INTERFERENCE ELECTION INTERFERENCE ELECTION INTERFERENCE ELECTION INTERFERENCE ELECTION INTERFERENCE ELECTION INTERFERENCE ELECTION INTERFERENCE
wnyguy Posted April 16 Posted April 16 2 hours ago, TH3 said: Dude...do you realize how dime store psych 101 you are? Let me guess...you loved the Sopranos right? You see dt as your godfather..."Sure he breaks the law...but I am part of hs family and he is going to take care of me...so his faults are embraced..." Feels great right ...part of the fam.... Tony S, Gotti, Corleone....you aint breaking new ground here bro...Just another minion who mistakenly thinks some thug is going to watch out for him....Yet all the while he is just shaking you down while those behind him - not even hidden really - get what they want.... Comic book psychology oh..."Communist" ? What are you ....like 7 years old - just throwing a name out....that makes no sense at all? 😄 Heeey, fuhgeddaboudit. 1
ChiGoose Posted April 16 Posted April 16 4 minutes ago, B-Man said: The case against Trump is a joke because the records violation of which Trump is accused is a misdemeanor, on which the statute of limitations has run. It is only a felony if the records were falsified to cover up another crime. That is what Bragg alleges. But what crime? Bragg’s indictment doesn’t say. Presumably his theory will be that the payment to Daniels was a campaign finance violation, only it wasn’t. The payment was legal and no false filing was made with the FEC. Trump has not been charged with, let alone convicted of, any such violation. NYS law tolls the statute of limitations when a defendant is out of state (CPL sec. 30.10 4(a)(i)) NY AG alleged that the falsifying of business documents was done as part of a scheme to violate election laws (Statement of Facts, paragraph 2) The payment would have been legal had it come from the Trump Campaign and properly disclosed (which would have ensured this case never happened) but the whole activity was done to prevent that from happening. Arguing that failure to properly disclose payments to the FEC isn't a crime because they never filed what they were supposed to with the FEC is quite the position. 2
BillsFanNC Posted April 16 Author Posted April 16 It makes perfect sense TH3 you commie. If it made sense to you then you wouldn't be a commie.
The Frankish Reich Posted April 16 Posted April 16 20 minutes ago, BillsFanNC said: Oh, look at who's back in TrumpWorld's good graces! None other than Steve Bannon. And the very very truthful and adept "Mike Davis" is happy to appear on his show to praise the treasonous former prez and his family. Trump on Bannon: “Steve Bannon has nothing to do with me or my Presidency. When he was fired, he not only lost his job, he lost his mind. Steve was a staffer who worked for me after I had already won the nomination by defeating seventeen candidates, often described as the most talented field ever assembled in the Republican party.” Trump continued, “Now that he is on his own, Steve is learning that winning isn’t as easy as I make it look. Steve had very little to do with our historic victory, which was delivered by the forgotten men and women of this country. Yet Steve had everything to do with the loss of a Senate seat in Alabama held for more than thirty years by Republicans. Steve doesn’t represent my base - he’s only in it for himself.” Bannon on Trump: Stephen K. Bannon — Trump’s former top strategist, who now heads the conservative Breitbart News — describes a meeting that Trump’s son Donald Trump Jr. and son-in-law Jared Kushner had with a Russian lawyer at Trump Tower during the 2016 campaign as “treasonous” and “unpatriotic.” The book also quotes Bannon as describing Ivanka Trump, the president’s daughter, as “dumb as a brick.” 1
Tommy Callahan Posted April 16 Posted April 16 The facist mob sees this as a pound of flesh. everyone else sees it for what it is, political. 1 1
The Frankish Reich Posted April 16 Posted April 16 51 minutes ago, BillStime said: True. If Melania cared about marrying an uber wealthy philanderer, she never would've married Trump. Trophy wife gonna trophy wife.
BillsFanNC Posted April 16 Author Posted April 16 Not a show trial at all. Keep defending this commies, as you surely will.
ChiGoose Posted April 16 Posted April 16 Some good coverage of the jury challenges this afternoon: Trump challenges jury candidates 1, 2, 3, 6 for cause. Challenges for 1 and 3 are denied. Challenges for 2 and 6 are granted. Trump then uses peremptory challenges to strike jury candidates 1, 3, 5, and 10. By the end, they have seated six members of the jury: candidates 4, 9, 12, 14, 17, 18. They are sworn in and told to be ready to come back on Monday.
SCBills Posted April 16 Posted April 16 Liberal white women think they’re immune to this. They won’t be forever..
Recommended Posts