Indictment Monday?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The prosecutors have stated that their primary crime they are alleging as the 'another crime' is NY law promot[ing] or prevent[ing] the election of any person to a public office by unlawful means.

What are the unlawful means, and how does this crime cause that crime?
Falsification of business records had no impact on the election, as they were booked after the election, as were any FEC reports.

It didn't have to, there just has to be intent

That is pretty vague. How can one intend to steal an election by filing false business expenses the next year?

The coverup is part of the crime. Were you born yesterday?

There is no crime.

Just because Trump says that does not make it true.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The prosecutors have stated that their primary crime they are alleging as the 'another crime' is NY law promot[ing] or prevent[ing] the election of any person to a public office by unlawful means.

What are the unlawful means, and how does this crime cause that crime?
Falsification of business records had no impact on the election, as they were booked after the election, as were any FEC reports.

It didn't have to, there just has to be intent

That is pretty vague. How can one intend to steal an election by filing false business expenses the next year?

The coverup is part of the crime. Were you born yesterday?

There is no crime.

Just because Trump says that does not make it true.

It's not just Trump saying it.

What *specifically* is the crime, and what evidence has been presented to prove it?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The prosecutors have stated that their primary crime they are alleging as the 'another crime' is NY law promot[ing] or prevent[ing] the election of any person to a public office by unlawful means.

What are the unlawful means, and how does this crime cause that crime?
Falsification of business records had no impact on the election, as they were booked after the election, as were any FEC reports.

It didn't have to, there just has to be intent

That is pretty vague. How can one intend to steal an election by filing false business expenses the next year?

The coverup is part of the crime. Were you born yesterday?

There is no crime.

Just because Trump says that does not make it true.

It's not just Trump saying it.

What *specifically* is the crime, and what evidence has been presented to prove it?

Do you eat lead or something?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The prosecutors have stated that their primary crime they are alleging as the 'another crime' is NY law promot[ing] or prevent[ing] the election of any person to a public office by unlawful means.

What are the unlawful means, and how does this crime cause that crime?
Falsification of business records had no impact on the election, as they were booked after the election, as were any FEC reports.

It didn't have to, there just has to be intent

That is pretty vague. How can one intend to steal an election by filing false business expenses the next year?

The coverup is part of the crime. Were you born yesterday?

There is no crime.

Just because Trump says that does not make it true.

It's not just Trump saying it.

What *specifically* is the crime, and what evidence has been presented to prove it?

Do you eat lead or something?

Are you unable to answer the question?

[Anonymous]

Bill Maher brings the receipts and blows up Stormy.

https://twitter.com/CitizenFreePres/status/1789260922042650988

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The prosecutors have stated that their primary crime they are alleging as the 'another crime' is NY law promot[ing] or prevent[ing] the election of any person to a public office by unlawful means.

What are the unlawful means, and how does this crime cause that crime?
Falsification of business records had no impact on the election, as they were booked after the election, as were any FEC reports.

It didn't have to, there just has to be intent

That is pretty vague. How can one intend to steal an election by filing false business expenses the next year?

The coverup is part of the crime. Were you born yesterday?

There is no crime.

Just because Trump says that does not make it true.

It's not just Trump saying it.

What *specifically* is the crime, and what evidence has been presented to prove it?

Do you eat lead or something?

Are you unable to answer the question?

A number of people have patiently answered your question over the last dozen pages or so, hence my question to you.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The prosecutors have stated that their primary crime they are alleging as the 'another crime' is NY law promot[ing] or prevent[ing] the election of any person to a public office by unlawful means.

What are the unlawful means, and how does this crime cause that crime?
Falsification of business records had no impact on the election, as they were booked after the election, as were any FEC reports.

It didn't have to, there just has to be intent

That is pretty vague. How can one intend to steal an election by filing false business expenses the next year?

The coverup is part of the crime. Were you born yesterday?

There is no crime.

Just because Trump says that does not make it true.

It's not just Trump saying it.

What *specifically* is the crime, and what evidence has been presented to prove it?

Do you eat lead or something?

Are you unable to answer the question?

A number of people have patiently answered your question over the last dozen pages or so, hence my question to you.

PP asked what the *specific* crime was and the answer is that there wasn’t one. The speculation in the article is that the judge may allow members of the jury to select a “crime” and it is all the more confusing because Trump was never charged with any of those possible crimes and certainly never convicted.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The prosecutors have stated that their primary crime they are alleging as the 'another crime' is NY law promot[ing] or prevent[ing] the election of any person to a public office by unlawful means.

What are the unlawful means, and how does this crime cause that crime?
Falsification of business records had no impact on the election, as they were booked after the election, as were any FEC reports.

It didn't have to, there just has to be intent

That is pretty vague. How can one intend to steal an election by filing false business expenses the next year?

The coverup is part of the crime. Were you born yesterday?

There is no crime.

Just because Trump says that does not make it true.

It's not just Trump saying it.

What *specifically* is the crime, and what evidence has been presented to prove it?

Do you eat lead or something?

Are you unable to answer the question?

A number of people have patiently answered your question over the last dozen pages or so, hence my question to you.

PP asked what the *specific* crime was and the answer is that there wasn’t one. The speculation in the article is that the judge may allow members of the jury to select a “crime” and it is all the more confusing because Trump was never charged with any of those possible crimes and certainly never convicted.

This is the case that was allowed to go to trial. If there’s no crime or he’s innocent, he’ll ultimately be acquitted. Unfortunately, a corrupt and incompetent judge in Florida is doing everything possible to delay the case where he clearly acted criminally and was an obvious threat to national security. He’s one of the bad guys, and hopefully the judiciary and ultimately the American people hold him accountable.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The prosecutors have stated that their primary crime they are alleging as the 'another crime' is NY law promot[ing] or prevent[ing] the election of any person to a public office by unlawful means.

What are the unlawful means, and how does this crime cause that crime?
Falsification of business records had no impact on the election, as they were booked after the election, as were any FEC reports.

It didn't have to, there just has to be intent

That is pretty vague. How can one intend to steal an election by filing false business expenses the next year?

The coverup is part of the crime. Were you born yesterday?

There is no crime.

Just because Trump says that does not make it true.

It's not just Trump saying it.

What *specifically* is the crime, and what evidence has been presented to prove it?

Do you eat lead or something?

Are you unable to answer the question?

A number of people have patiently answered your question over the last dozen pages or so, hence my question to you.

PP asked what the *specific* crime was and the answer is that there wasn’t one. The speculation in the article is that the judge may allow members of the jury to select a “crime” and it is all the more confusing because Trump was never charged with any of those possible crimes and certainly never convicted.

This is the case that was allowed to go to trial. If there’s no crime or he’s innocent, he’ll ultimately be acquitted. Unfortunately, a corrupt and incompetent judge in Florida is doing everything possible to delay the case where he clearly acted criminally and was an obvious threat to national security. He’s one of the bad guys, and hopefully the judiciary and ultimately the American people hold him accountable.

Complete non sequitur, but we can go with it. The judge in Florida is delaying the case to deal with pretrial motions and the fact that Jack Smith admitted that they tampered with evidence.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The prosecutors have stated that their primary crime they are alleging as the 'another crime' is NY law promot[ing] or prevent[ing] the election of any person to a public office by unlawful means.

What are the unlawful means, and how does this crime cause that crime?
Falsification of business records had no impact on the election, as they were booked after the election, as were any FEC reports.

It didn't have to, there just has to be intent

That is pretty vague. How can one intend to steal an election by filing false business expenses the next year?

The coverup is part of the crime. Were you born yesterday?

There is no crime.

Just because Trump says that does not make it true.

It's not just Trump saying it.

What *specifically* is the crime, and what evidence has been presented to prove it?

The Trump org filed and reported this as a legal expense. It wasn’t a legal expense. It was a payoff to a porn star two weeks after Access Hollywood that helped him win the election, fraudulently disguised as a legal expense.

The proof is in the documentary evidence presented by the prosecution and affirmed by people like Hope Hicks and the custodial witnesses.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The prosecutors have stated that their primary crime they are alleging as the 'another crime' is NY law promot[ing] or prevent[ing] the election of any person to a public office by unlawful means.

What are the unlawful means, and how does this crime cause that crime?
Falsification of business records had no impact on the election, as they were booked after the election, as were any FEC reports.

It didn't have to, there just has to be intent

That is pretty vague. How can one intend to steal an election by filing false business expenses the next year?

The coverup is part of the crime. Were you born yesterday?

There is no crime.

Just because Trump says that does not make it true.

It's not just Trump saying it.

What *specifically* is the crime, and what evidence has been presented to prove it?

Do you eat lead or something?

Are you unable to answer the question?

A number of people have patiently answered your question over the last dozen pages or so, hence my question to you.

PP asked what the *specific* crime was and the answer is that there wasn’t one. The speculation in the article is that the judge may allow members of the jury to select a “crime” and it is all the more confusing because Trump was never charged with any of those possible crimes and certainly never convicted.

The speculation in the article is just that, speculation. There are specific crimes captioned in the legal proceeding. The AG will present the facts of the case (about one week left) and then at closing arguments, they tie the actions of what was presented, to the specific laws captioned in the filings.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The prosecutors have stated that their primary crime they are alleging as the 'another crime' is NY law promot[ing] or prevent[ing] the election of any person to a public office by unlawful means.

What are the unlawful means, and how does this crime cause that crime?
Falsification of business records had no impact on the election, as they were booked after the election, as were any FEC reports.

It didn't have to, there just has to be intent

That is pretty vague. How can one intend to steal an election by filing false business expenses the next year?

The coverup is part of the crime. Were you born yesterday?

There is no crime.

Just because Trump says that does not make it true.

It's not just Trump saying it.

What *specifically* is the crime, and what evidence has been presented to prove it?

Do you eat lead or something?

Are you unable to answer the question?

A number of people have patiently answered your question over the last dozen pages or so, hence my question to you.

PP asked what the *specific* crime was and the answer is that there wasn’t one. The speculation in the article is that the judge may allow members of the jury to select a “crime” and it is all the more confusing because Trump was never charged with any of those possible crimes and certainly never convicted.

The speculation in the article is just that, speculation. There are specific crimes captioned in the legal proceeding. The AG will present the facts of the case (about one week left) and then at closing arguments, they tie the actions of what was presented, to the specific laws captioned in the filings.

Do you have a link to that pleading? I think that would be really helpful for this discussion.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Can we talk about the defense strategy on Stormy Daniels? It seems a bit bonkers.

First, they denied the meeting ever took place in opening statements, opening the door for her to testify. Legally, it doesn’t really matter to this case if she was telling the truth. So, I also don’t understand the aggressive cross examination of Daniels and the ho-hum cross of the other witnesses with far more damaging testimony.

The mistrial motions are also weird. Not only did they make sure she would testify, they didn’t object to a lot of things that they should have, and then claimed what she said was grounds for a mistrial.

Was all of it a plan to set up the mistrial claims? An ineffective assistance of counsel claim? Other than Trump being angry about Daniels, it doesn’t make sense. If they’re more concerned about the court of public opinion than the actual criminal court, how is that going to be good for the case? These are competent, experienced attorneys, making what seem to be huge strategy missteps.

They never denied the meeting took place, there are photos of the two of them together. What they denied in the opening argument was that any sex occurred. THAT is what opened the door for her testimony. As her story unfolded, what became apparent is that TRUMP didn't want those details to come out before the election, otherwise it would have sunk his campaign, as testified by Hope Hicks. In fact, she also affirmed that the GOP, after the Access Hollywood tape surfaced, was considering a different candidate at that late date. So yes, Trump was desperate to keep Stormy under wraps, and hence the deal to pay her off in October 2016. It was the follow on payments to Cohen - not legal fees, but reimbursements, that are the crime.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The prosecutors have stated that their primary crime they are alleging as the 'another crime' is NY law promot[ing] or prevent[ing] the election of any person to a public office by unlawful means.

What are the unlawful means, and how does this crime cause that crime?
Falsification of business records had no impact on the election, as they were booked after the election, as were any FEC reports.

It didn't have to, there just has to be intent

That is pretty vague. How can one intend to steal an election by filing false business expenses the next year?

The coverup is part of the crime. Were you born yesterday?

There is no crime.

Just because Trump says that does not make it true.

It's not just Trump saying it.

What *specifically* is the crime, and what evidence has been presented to prove it?

Do you eat lead or something?

Are you unable to answer the question?

A number of people have patiently answered your question over the last dozen pages or so, hence my question to you.

PP asked what the *specific* crime was and the answer is that there wasn’t one. The speculation in the article is that the judge may allow members of the jury to select a “crime” and it is all the more confusing because Trump was never charged with any of those possible crimes and certainly never convicted.

The speculation in the article is just that, speculation. There are specific crimes captioned in the legal proceeding. The AG will present the facts of the case (about one week left) and then at closing arguments, they tie the actions of what was presented, to the specific laws captioned in the filings.

So the defense doesn't find out until closing arguments what they are defending against? There is no federal crime, but the defense is not being allowed to argue that. There is no state law crime, the 17.152 because the illegal means could only plausibly refer back to the nonexistent federal crime.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The prosecutors have stated that their primary crime they are alleging as the 'another crime' is NY law promot[ing] or prevent[ing] the election of any person to a public office by unlawful means.

What are the unlawful means, and how does this crime cause that crime?
Falsification of business records had no impact on the election, as they were booked after the election, as were any FEC reports.

It didn't have to, there just has to be intent

That is pretty vague. How can one intend to steal an election by filing false business expenses the next year?

The coverup is part of the crime. Were you born yesterday?

There is no crime.

Just because Trump says that does not make it true.

It's not just Trump saying it.

What *specifically* is the crime, and what evidence has been presented to prove it?

Do you eat lead or something?

Are you unable to answer the question?

A number of people have patiently answered your question over the last dozen pages or so, hence my question to you.

PP asked what the *specific* crime was and the answer is that there wasn’t one. The speculation in the article is that the judge may allow members of the jury to select a “crime” and it is all the more confusing because Trump was never charged with any of those possible crimes and certainly never convicted.

The speculation in the article is just that, speculation. There are specific crimes captioned in the legal proceeding. The AG will present the facts of the case (about one week left) and then at closing arguments, they tie the actions of what was presented, to the specific laws captioned in the filings.

So the defense doesn't find out until closing arguments what they are defending against? There is no federal crime, but the defense is not being allowed to argue that. There is no state law crime, the 17.152 because the illegal means could only plausibly refer back to the nonexistent federal crime.

If that is your read, then you should be sharing your insight with the defense team, because that isn't what they are arguing.