Reply to Indictment Monday?

Forum Index » Political Discussion

Reply to "Indictment Monday?"

Subject:

Emoticons





More smilies

Text Color: Font: Close Marks

[quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous]When will the head of the FEC testify that this case didn't warrant even a fine? Oh yeah... Judge didn't allow this witness to testify - rigged![/quote]

Yeah,  Each day brings mounting appeal issues.  Judge doesn't care.  His goal is to get a conviction prior to the election. An appeal overturning this circus would happen AFTER the election.  
As I heard someone say - the bucket is now overflowing with grounds for appeal.

[twitter]https://twitter.com/ByronYork/status/1787600814044787063[/twitter][/quote]

Ah yes, he will definitely win an appeal by arguing that the judge should have allowed a witness to testify even though he has no personal knowledge of any of the facts in the case.[/quote]

People who testified to FEC violations are Michael Cohen and David Pecker of AMI, but Trump was not allowed to have Bradley Smith talk about it.
Biggest appeal issue is FEC violations are not in the grand jury indictment.
 [/quote]

Just stop. You are hopelessly dense. You do not understand anything about the law or the charges. [/quote]

Just for clarity, because most of us don't understand a lot about the law or the charges--but the charges are falsifying business records. Cohen paid Stormy $130k. Trump paid him $420k. Of that, $290k would be compensation to Cohen for work done (NEC 1099? Misc 1099?). But the $130k was included in the books as legal expenses? Which is falsification?

If that's the case, then FEC would not be needed, right? But it is important to prove that nothing about this related to business expenses. [/quote]

Options

	Disable HTML in this message
	Disable BB Code in this message
	Disable smilies in this message

Review message

Search Recent Topics Hottest Topics