Why Trump should win his NY hush money trial

They are only trying to get him "labeled" for now... appeals courts will see it for the sham it is.... but it all just gives him a name that the left (and we will see it non-stop on here) can trumpet till the election.... but it is so laughable the left does not see that they are not hurting Trump, they are helping him...

 

Given Biden's miserable failure as a President, I don't think they have anything else. This is their Hail Mary to try to rig two in a row.

'We have partisan prosecutors in partisan jurisdictions who will ultimately get partisan juries to achieve a predetermined guilty verdict. What's happening here is not justice.'

Without the perception of fairness, and this does not have that, a guilty verdict condemns them, not Trump, for it validates what he has been saying about them, for quite awhile now.

Why Should Anyone Care if Trump Is Convicted?



'We also know that these prosecutors have coordinated with the Biden Justice Department in their efforts. And speaking of the Biden Justice Department, they went after Trump, too, using the full power of the federal government in the hopes of convicting Trump and making him ineligible to serve as president of the United States. We have partisan prosecutors in partisan jurisdictions who will ultimately get partisan juries to achieve a predetermined guilty verdict. What's happening here is not justice.'

'Democrats made it clear from the beginning of Trump's presidential ambitions that they were (and still are) afraid of him. Heck, the Hillary Clinton campaign created the phony Russian collusion narrative that the Obama administration used as a pretext to literally spy on his campaign.'

'How afraid of Trump were they?'

'Isn't it obvious? Well before Donald Trump served a day as president, unhinged Democrats resolved to impeach him, and the media was openly speculating about it. For example, Politico raised the question of Trump's potential impeachment as early as April 2016. Other articles followed, like “The Case for Donald Trump’s Impeachability” in the Intelligencer a month before Trump took office.'

Read the whole thing

https://web.archive.org/web/2024041...ld-anyone-care-if-trump-is-convicted-n4928173

 

Everyone else didn't just the trump hate brigade and there dislike of everyone who will not bow to their agenda of destroying the middle class and restoring a monarchy as in North Korea.

 

It just shows that our justice system is completely corrupt, in need of a complete clean up, and Trump's just the guy to launch the campaign to rid the justice system of its deep rot.

And the Media/DNC complex:

'the Washington Post reported less than 20 minutes after Trump's inauguration that the campaign to impeach him had already begun. And, of course, they ultimately did. Not because of any legitimate reason, but because they wanted to, their donors wanted them to, and they wanted to stop him from being able to be president again. However, their efforts to impeach him failed to achieve a conviction, and the current efforts to convict him of various bogus charges are just a continuation of the impeachment movement against him. It was clear after he left office that Trump was plotting a return to the White House, and, as polls show, it's looking very likely that he will win.'

'Hence the lawfare.'

'So, no, why should I care if any of these carefully plotted partisan prosecution succeed? They'll only serve as proof that our legal system is' badly in need of overhaul.

https://web.archive.org/web/2024041...ld-anyone-care-if-trump-is-convicted-n4928173

 

tag for post-trial results #lawfare2024

 

'the Stormy Daniels trial. Or the porn payoff prosecution. Call it whatever you want; it is a total farce. Bragg's legal theory is that Donald Trump paid off Stormy Daniels as a campaign expense, violating federal campaign law.'

'It's an insane legal theory and one rejected by both Bragg's predecessor and even Merrick Garland's Justice Department.'

'But as with all things Democrat and Trump, logic is irrelevant. The law is irrelevant. Fairness is irrelevant. Even basic facts are irrelevant.'

'Orange man bad.'

'Ironically, this prosecution may be annoying and expensive for Trump--bankrupting Trump is clearly one of the goals the Democrats have this election season--it will electoral gold, as is always the case with Democrat attacks on Trump.'

https://hotair.com/david-strom/2024...ump-trial-begins-today-helping-trump-n3786536

Team Trump releases video ahead of NYC trial: "This is not a prosecution, it’s a persecution." MORE: https://trib.al/738XpDK

Great Video.

 

Here's why prosecutors are bringing up Trump's recent social media posts
Judge Juan Merchan must now consider whether Donald Trump violated a gag order.

According to CNN's Paula Reid, Merchan faces a tough task on how to keep the former president within the bounds of the order without making him a martyr or disrupting the case.

Prosecutors pointed in court this morning to recent social media posts calling his former attorney Michael Cohen and adult-film star Stormy Daniels "sleazebags." They argued that the post appears to be attacking the key witnesses in this case, which would be a violation of the gag order.

"Right now, the big question is what are they going to do about this gag order, because this is going to be a reoccurring issue, every day, throughout this trial, because as we know Trump does not stay within the bounds of gag orders," Reid said.
https://www.cnn.com/politics/live-n...l-04-15-24/h_3944c5fc152b586590ac061e98e618bf

...
He has been acting guilty since the beginning and trying to threaten people involved in the case.
Why? Innocent people don't worry about others. They can prove without a doubt they are innocent.

 

The sexual abuser's desperate attempts to delay justice having failed in this instance, the lowlife's bum kissers cannot prevent evidence and sworn testimony from being presented to a jury of impartial Americans as they seriously assess his defense team's attempts to refute it all.

Conjuring conspiracies, contriving rationales, concocting fake comparabilities, and flailing the cry baby's tired "victim" card, as well as his targeting officers of the court and their families, are of no consequence.

I do not know whether the degenerate will be held to account but, as a patriotic American, I have faith in our judicial systems, just as I do in the nation's certified democratic elections,
especially after the loser's own Director of the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency in the United States Department of Homeland Security proclaims an election to be the most secure in history.

For a loser to stubbornly persist in lying about the will of the People does not attest to his credibility in other matters.

 

LOL. The democrats are doing this?
Most of us are not that gulilble.

 

RP lawyers seem to think this trial will drag on and that Trump may win.
That will only happen if a jury of Trump Haters sides with DJT over their local heroes and the kangaroo justice system they voted for.

1. Jury selection will be fast.
2. Trump's lawyers will be denied most challenges for cause. Every juror will have decided to convict before they are seated.
3. Trump's defense has already been limited by the judge. Exculpatory evidence will not be presented to the jury.
4. The substantive objections by Trump's lawyers will be denied if they matter at all.
5. The judges instructions to the jury will all but mandate a conviction
6. DJT will be convicted.
7. DJT should start wearing shoes without laces, and pants without a belt.

I doubt that DJT fully understands how kangaroo justice works for its targets.
This trial will be like a Nobiskrug Sailing Yacht Vs. an Iowa Class Battleship

 

I'm sorry, common sense does not exonerate Donald Trump. Quite the opposite.

He didn't violate just one statue, a number of them, of which some are felonies.

If Donald Trump used Michael Cohen as a conduit to pay Stormy Daniels hush money, and the payments to Cohen were disguised as reimbursements, several federal laws which are felonies could potentially have been violated. These include:

Campaign Finance Violations: The central issue might be whether the payment constituted an unreported campaign expense. Federal law requires the disclosure of payments that are made for the purpose of influencing an election. If the hush money was intended to influence the election by suppressing damaging information, failing to report it could be a violation of federal campaign finance laws.

False Statements: If any false statements were made to the Federal Election Commission (FEC) regarding these payments, those involved could be charged under laws against providing false information to the government

Money Laundering: If the payments to Cohen were structured in a way to conceal their origin, source, and purpose, it might be considered money laundering. Money laundering involves disguising financial assets so they can be used without detection of the illegal activity that produced them.

Tax Evasion: If the reimbursement payments to Cohen were not properly reported to the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) as income, this could constitute tax evasion.

Conspiracy: If two or more persons conspired to commit any of the above offenses, they could be charged with conspiracy to commit those crimes.

Bank Fraud: If any financial institutions were misled about the nature of the payments to Cohen (for example, if Cohen took out a home equity line of credit to make the payment and did not disclose the true purpose of the loan), those involved could potentially face charges of bank fraud

FELONIES.

Capiche?

Moot point, see above.

The crime which is being prosecuted occured in NYC, he has jurisdiction.

The subordinate crime on which the misdemeanor crimes gets elevated to felonies do not require jurisdiction or statute of limitations by the NY statute.

True, the SDNY at the time chose not to prosecute, but Cyrus Vance was the prosecutor then. The reason could easily have been that Vance just didn't have the cajones to do it, so that fact doesn't prove that it couldn't be done by a more courageous prosecutor. Along comes Alan Bragg, who was not intimidated by Trump's fame, wealth and power. Moreover, Alan Bragg might have since found a new angle, new evidence that Vance didn't see at the time. The salient point is, this case is not written in stone one way or the other.

Moreover, beyond campaign finance violations, other potential crimes come into play, such as obstruction of justice, false statements, and conspiracy. The ongoing trial will untangle this intricate web, revealing whether these transactions were mere business dealings or a calculated effort to influence the election. The courtroom, not oversimplified claims, will ultimately decide the fate of accountability .

Moot point.

He defrauded the electorate in the state of NY, and, in so doing, victimized them.

Moot point, see above

The purpose of bringing the prosecution is that Trump defrauded the electorate, and must be tried for this crime.

That's interesting, I see the evidence which points directly to a man defrauding the electorate in order to become president.

Frankly, using my common sense, I can't fathom how you could come to any other conclusion.

Bragg is not Trump's political opponent.

Here's what common sense should reveal to you:

This idea that Bragg would accuse a former US president, which represents a historical first, a MONUMENTAL historic first, bringing the high stakes of world attention upon him, stakes so high, which, if he loses, could ruin his career, could bring the wrath of Trump supporters upon his person, this idea that he would go through all of that, without a ton of evidence convincing him he has a strong chance of convincing a jury beyond a reasonable doubt, this idea that he would go through all of that defies credulity.

You think wrong.

 

If you are going to jump into another's conversation, click back a few replies to get the gist of the conversation, okay?

Okay, so I'll explain it to you, 'my point' which would have been clear had you done your homework.

Because @Kal'Stang said "what's wrong with voting for a felon?" (because Trump is probably going to be a felon) then went on to discuss how there are plenty of felons who 'turned their lives around', implying that Trump 'turned or will turn his life around' and so, why not vote for him?

My reply refuted that contention insofar as that the prospect of that is not likely with a guy who has committed insurrection, unlawful overturning of an election, disruption of the peaceful transfer of power, nevermind the fact he has never showed remorse for anything he has done in his life, not even asked God for forgiveness because, as he has claimed, 'never did anything wrong, he has no sins" and I won't mention he has videos claiming he is the chosen one, and comparing him to Jesus.

Guys like that do not 'turn their lives around'

Not ever.

Now to you get 'my point'?

Thank you.

One day it is going to occur to you that if you support Trump, you are on the wrong side of history.

 

Crib-Notes For The 'Trial Of The Century'

“Once someone determined Trump was so bad it was okay to lie about him, it set the precedent that the only thing that mattered was a subject’s politics.”

Federal and State prosecutors passed until Bragg decided to tilt at a windmill.

'the politicized Southern District of New York office of the DOJ and by then Manhattan DA Cyrus Vance, Jr. Both tried to construct some kind of case against President Trump on all this monkey business, but gave up because the payment of hush-money was itself not illegal between consenting parties and they could not torture the facts into a theory that would make it a crime.'

They may both be scum, but then Bragg yelled "hold my beer!"

'Joe Biden unleashes the dogs of lawfare on former president Trump so as to knock him off the political game-board for once and for all.'

'“JB’s” Attorney General, Merrick Garland, sends Deputy AG Matthew Colangelo to work in DA Alvin Bragg’s office, to construct some kind of case out of the Stormy Daniels / Michael Cohen debris.'

'The result is an improbable farrago of 34 counts of falsifying business records relating to the Stormy Daniels hush-money payments, converted from misdemeanors to felonies on the theory that the falsifications were intended to conceal other election law crimes, including “influencing the 2016 election.”'

'Mr. Trump thus becomes the proverbial ham sandwich that an ambitious DA can convince a grand jury to indict.'

'Now, Mr. Bragg has to persuade a trial jury to convict, in a courtroom presided over by one Judge Juan Merchan, Democratic Party activist and donor, whose daughter, Loren, has raised $93-million in campaign money for Democratic candidates in this November’s election. The Judge has refused to recuse himself.'

 

Yeah you funny get to make up fake changes and pretend that it's legitimate.

No law was broken.

 

Yeah and Tom Arnold totally has a tape if that and it's totally not fake it anything.

Lol

No it's the people accusing him of non crimes in a desperate attempt to sway the election.

You are utterly dripping with desperation

You have an odd fantasy.

 

null

 

Tom Arnold is not a witness for the NY hush money trial.

Lol.

What, you have no sense of humor? Tsk tsk.

Anyway.......

Congratulations!

Ladies and gentlemen, behold the text book example of a piss poor argument.

In fact, I'm having trouble finding an actual argument in your argument.

It doesn't appear to be more substantive than, 'I'm right and you're wrong'.

Please find a more substantive argument.

Because that ain't it.

Thank you.

 

Fake news. It's claimed that labeling the Stormy Daniels payment as "Legal Fees" rather than "Payments to a Porn Star In A Failed Attempt To Get Her To Keep Her Mouth Shut" which at most is a misdemeanor with an expired SOL is transmogrified into a "felony" because it was done to cover up a campaign finance violation, but Trump's not charged with any campaign finance violations. He labeled the transactions "Legal Fees" 34 times, that's your 34 'different' felonies. And how can you be this clueless about what a sham this case is, when we have been telling you this, for a year. I think you know full well it's a sham and that your ignorance is feigned.

He's not charged with campaign finance violations. You know why? Because he didn't use campaign funds to make the payments. You want to know why? Because it wasn't a campaign expense.

He's not charged with an unreported campaign expense, because it's not a campaign expense, and he didn't pay it with campaign funds.

Bragg's not a Federal Prosecutor. Federal Prosecutors already investigated this and did not see a federal law violation. And without a Federal law violation, "Hold My Beer!" Bragg has a misdemeanor with a long expired statute of limitations.

You're still wrong, and so is Bragg, even stipulating that this was a campaign expense, which should have been reported, reporting wasn't due until 2016 AFTER the election.

Wrong. No one has charged him with that. Do you realize that the jury is being seated, that the charging docs have been available for a year, you have been debating this for a year, and you seem to have no idea what the case even is.

Wrong again, he's not charged with that, you are just repeating terms you have heard that have nothing to do with the case at hand.

Wrong again, Trump grossed up the checks to Cohen to cover the taxes. Trump isn't charged with tax evasion.

Wrong again, there are no such charges.

The state prosecutor does NOT have the authority to prosecute federal campaign finance law violations. Federal Prosecutors do, and they have already investigated this, and passed.

Fake News, not charged with any of that.

You have no idea how any of this works. They cannot try him without clearly stating what crimes are being tried and he's being charged with none of those.

Actually, you aren't.

 

it's still not a crime to enter a non-disclosure agreement.

Why do you think that it is?

Yeah the whole it's not a crime argument is terrible.

And that doesn't stop prosecution in its tracks ever

 

Your premature verdict is blatantly biased.

As a patriot, I shall persist in respecting our legal system and certified democratic elections.

 

The trial is biased. They're making up fake crimes to accuse him of to have a kangaroo court style trial.

There shouldn't be an opportunity to get a verdict the people pressing these charges should have been laughed out of court.

The only reason they're not it's because of corruption and fear.

How can a patriot support a legal system that makes up its own crimes after the fact and charges people with them.

That's 10 horn dictator ****. If you were a patriot and give a **** about Justice you'd agree with me. And that's not because I'm some sort of magical Patriot that's because I'm correct.

I think the fear you feel is making you incapable of rationale.

 

It was a loan.

 

Yeah their star witness is a serial perjurer who has perjured himself in the last two cases involving Trump that he was a part of. Apparently, suborning perjury is the new hotness in NYC courts.

 

Explain how the "electorate" was "defrauded." This is just flatly untrue and doesn't make any sense whatsoever.

 

I'm not sure how you think your post was a valid response to mine. The point is what makes something a campaign expense versus a personal or business expense. You screeched about Trump not paying for the NDA out of his campaign account. But, if you understood the law, you would know that would have been illegal because you can't make the argument that paying off someone who is threatening to go public about an affair does not solely benefit a campaign. It benefits the individual and their businesses as well, which makes it illegal to make it a campaign expense. This is a very basic legal concept. Additionally, Bragg has no jurisdiction to prosecute federal campaign crimes. Your arguments fail on many levels and are systemic, amateurish legal analysis failures.