Indictment Monday?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Where do you people get your news from that a simple charge is so confusing? Makes you wonder if they are confusing you on purpose.

He is charged with 34 counts of falsifying business records. This is a very straightforward and not at all unique charge. The proof is clear that he has falsified the records. The harder part to prove is the intent, and that is what they are trying to do at the trial (the actual falsifying is clear and not disputed for the most part).

They’re willingly confused.

Personally, if my party kept collectively nominating someone with that kind of criminal history, I’d reconsider some life choices.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

The prosecution is presenting evidence of legal activity and arguing it is illegal. None of this 'conspiracy' is in the grand jury indictment- just falsification of business records a misdemeanor. This case should have been thrown out, and any conviction will be overturned on appeal faster than Harvey Weinstein's.

So? Then they retry Trump just like Weinstein is being retried.

The prosecution knows that any possible conviction will be overturned on appeal.
The judge knows that any possible conviction will be overturned on appeal.
They don't care. They just want to get a conviction - it doesn't matter if it is overturned because any appeal will happen AFTER the election.
Their goal is to get a conviction BEFORE the election so Biden can run on that.

Hopefully, the jury is paying attention - especially the two attorneys who presumably know the law. It should be obvious to them that there was no law broken.

1) You understand that trump has delayed all of his cases. they could have all been heard before the election season started. The timing his on him and his attorneys.
2) There were obviously laws broken if you are actually looking at the evidence - the paper trail. You don't even need to rely on the testimony.
3) the reason they broke the law to cover this up is obvious in Daniel's testimony today. Had this all come out before people started voting, Hillary would have won.

[Anonymous]

Stormy Daniels testified that Trump invirted her to dinner.

There was no dinner.

Stormy wanted to leave.

Trump stood between Stormy and the exit

Trump told Stormy that her career depended on her having sex with him.

He didn't use a condom.

Was this considered a consensual liason?

[Anonymous]

Maybe Trumpy has meningovascular neurosyphillis.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Stormy Daniels testified that Trump invirted her to dinner.

There was no dinner.

Stormy wanted to leave.

Trump stood between Stormy and the exit

Trump told Stormy that her career depended on her having sex with him.

He didn't use a condom.

Was this considered a consensual liason?

Nope. She may have given in, but she was coerced.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Stormy Daniels testified that Trump invirted her to dinner.

There was no dinner.

Stormy wanted to leave.

Trump stood between Stormy and the exit

Trump told Stormy that her career depended on her having sex with him.

He didn't use a condom.

Was this considered a consensual liason?

She spoke of it at the time that she didn’t want to have sex with him though she didn’t regard it as rape. I remember thinking how sad it was that so many women end up having coerced sex/being raped and to protect themselves mentally they spin as consensual, even though they wouldn’t have chosen to.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Stormy Daniels testified that Trump invirted her to dinner.

There was no dinner.

Stormy wanted to leave.

Trump stood between Stormy and the exit

Trump told Stormy that her career depended on her having sex with him.

He didn't use a condom.

Was this considered a consensual liason?

Trump is so repulsive.
What a tawdry spectacle Trump has brought on my country.

[Anonymous]

As the defense moves for a mistrial, recall, Stormy already told all of this on national television.

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/stormy-daniels-describes-her-alleged-affair-with-donald-trump-60-minutes-interview/

The idea that this is new information is simply a lie by the defense.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:As the defense moves for a mistrial, recall, Stormy already told all of this on national television.

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/stormy-daniels-describes-her-alleged-affair-with-donald-trump-60-minutes-interview/

The idea that this is new information is simply a lie by the defense.

But they want to delay things. And muddy the waters.

Her testimony was very damaging to Trump.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:As the defense moves for a mistrial, recall, Stormy already told all of this on national television.

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/stormy-daniels-describes-her-alleged-affair-with-donald-trump-60-minutes-interview/

The idea that this is new information is simply a lie by the defense.

But they want to delay things. And muddy the waters.

Her testimony was very damaging to Trump.

I don’t feel like chasing down an article that has actual quotes; which one did you read?

[Anonymous]

I'm sure Merchan had a hard time not laughing when Blanche moved for a mistrial.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:As the defense moves for a mistrial, recall, Stormy already told all of this on national television.

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/stormy-daniels-describes-her-alleged-affair-with-donald-trump-60-minutes-interview/

The idea that this is new information is simply a lie by the defense.

Trump denies he had an affair/sex/whatever with Stormy. This s not even important to the case but this shows Trump is lying destroying his credibility with the jurors.

Does not matter SCOTUS will have the last say and declare him innocent. They will some how claim jurisdiction over the case and over turn it. It’s not like anyone could do anything. They do not even have to have a relevant reason to take the case. They can just take it. No one can over rule them.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Stormy Daniels testified that Trump invirted her to dinner.

There was no dinner.

Stormy wanted to leave.

Trump stood between Stormy and the exit

Trump told Stormy that her career depended on her having sex with him.

He didn't use a condom.

Was this considered a consensual liason?

Nope. She may have given in, but she was coerced.

It was not consensual

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:As the defense moves for a mistrial, recall, Stormy already told all of this on national television.

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/stormy-daniels-describes-her-alleged-affair-with-donald-trump-60-minutes-interview/

The idea that this is new information is simply a lie by the defense.

Trump denies he had an affair/sex/whatever with Stormy. This s not even important to the case but this shows Trump is lying destroying his credibility with the jurors.

Does not matter SCOTUS will have the last say and declare him innocent. They will some how claim jurisdiction over the case and over turn it. It’s not like anyone could do anything. They do not even have to have a relevant reason to take the case. They can just take it. No one can over rule them.

SCOTUS doesn't have review of a NY State proceeding.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Stormy Daniels is about to be called in New York, who sought to sell her story on Trump and received payment for a NDA. It is not clear what she offers beyond salacious details to embarrass Trump. The NDA is not in dispute...

Regarding salacious details meant to embarrass, I just want to remind everyone that nobody on the right was too bothered when Ken Starr extracted salacious details about Bill Clinton’s sexual encounters with Monica Lewinsky, and then published them in a book.