Indictment Monday?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:For election purposes, I don’t even think a conviction would have a negative impact on Trump.

Oh, I think there are some who are barely able to hang on to their identity as a Republican. If an actual jury of his peers finds him guilty? That’s a step too far, as so many other things have been a step too far for other former Republican voters. Anyone’s shelf can break.

Now do I think that’s a significant number of voters? I do not. But I think it’s real, certainly.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:For election purposes, I don’t even think a conviction would have a negative impact on Trump.

Keep drinking that Kool-Aid.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:For election purposes, I don’t even think a conviction would have a negative impact on Trump.

Keep drinking that Kool-Aid.

You really think there any republicans left with any moral compass? I’ve seen no evidence of that in the last 8 years.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:For election purposes, I don’t even think a conviction would have a negative impact on Trump.

Oh, I think there are some who are barely able to hang on to their identity as a Republican. If an actual jury of his peers finds him guilty? That’s a step too far, as so many other things have been a step too far for other former Republican voters. Anyone’s shelf can break.

Now do I think that’s a significant number of voters? I do not. But I think it’s real, certainly.

I think there is a significant number of voters who draw the line at a convicted felon for president. If there is anyone with a functioning brain in the leaders of the Republican party they should revert to a "smoked filled room" picked candidate. They will still lose but it is a way the GOP can hope to rebuild.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:For election purposes, I don’t even think a conviction would have a negative impact on Trump.

Oh, I think there are some who are barely able to hang on to their identity as a Republican. If an actual jury of his peers finds him guilty? That’s a step too far, as so many other things have been a step too far for other former Republican voters. Anyone’s shelf can break.

Now do I think that’s a significant number of voters? I do not. But I think it’s real, certainly.

I think there is a significant number of voters who draw the line at a convicted felon for president. If there is anyone with a functioning brain in the leaders of the Republican party they should revert to a "smoked filled room" picked candidate. They will still lose but it is a way the GOP can hope to rebuild.

Once the right wing propaganda machine has a couple months to work them, they will run right over that line. The effort has already started with trying to de-legimitize the entire process (biased judge, democrat prosecutor, biased jury pool, etc.).

[Anonymous]

Oh dear, latest Trump witness collapses the case that should never have been brought. Testified Trump had nothing to do with classification as a legal expense.
Thus there could have been no intent towards hiding a crime.

[Anonymous]

Rut Ruh

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:Rut Ruh

In January 2018.

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Rut Ruh

In January 2018.

Ever notice that Trump is making absolutely no effort to deny the evidence being presented by the prosecution? His only play - ever - is to discredit the prosecution by whatever means necessary, up to and including lying.

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Rut Ruh

In January 2018.

Flood the in zone with sh**.

~Steve Bannon

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Oh dear, latest Trump witness collapses the case that should never have been brought. Testified Trump had nothing to do with classification as a legal expense.
Thus there could have been no intent towards hiding a crime.

Um no. The witness said they got a legal invoice for payment on a "retainer" from Cohen so they logged it as a legal expense. Of course, the reason that they got the legal invoice for the non-existent "retainer" is that Weisselberg, Cohen and Trump cooked up the scheme to hide the payments as legal expenses. Just because they didn't tell the low level accountants about their scheme isn't proof of anything.

[Anonymous]

Is there a news source on this that is done by lawyers and not slanted? I don’t care enough to read the transcripts, but the reporting had two different versions of testimony.

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Rut Ruh

In January 2018.

Pay to play is a Democrat demand... Meanwhile the FEC and DoJ didn't think the evidence was warranted of an indictment.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Rut Ruh

In January 2018.

Pay to play is a Democrat demand... Meanwhile the FEC and DoJ didn't think the evidence was warranted of an indictment.

DOJ indicted cohen for this very scheme. They didn’t indict Trump because… he was the sitting president.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Oh dear, latest Trump witness collapses the case that should never have been brought. Testified Trump had nothing to do with classification as a legal expense.
Thus there could have been no intent towards hiding a crime.

You need to read the complete article instead of selecting what you are praying exonerates Don the corrupt!