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]1) [b]Trump and his supporters are not challenging the substance. They are challenging process. Which means, he did what he's accused of. Guilty people act in this manner.[/b]
2) I've yet to hear from Trump or ANY of his supporters why he shouldn't be indicted, on substantive terms. I don't want to hear about witch hunts, bias, etc. A Grand Jury has indicted him. Regardless of whether the initiation of proceeding was "politically motivated" (and I truly don't care at this point), they obviously found enough to charge him. So: why don't any of you care? 
3) Trump supporters can take your charges of political motivation and stick it where the sun doesn't shine. Trump bullied his way through life, legal proceedings, his presidency. You reap what you sow. Ya'll were the first ones to chant "lock her up" before the Trump v. Clinton election and then POOOF! magically forgot about all your hysterial allegations after the elections. The very definition of political motivation . . . The entire Comey thing and entire hysterical overreaction by Trump supports. So SUCK.IT.UP.[/quote]

Not true.  We are saying it is not a crime.  Big difference.  
I will wait to see the indictment to look at specific details, but if Bragg is hanging his hat on the whole hush money deal:
a. It is not illegal to pay hush money.  Most important thing.  
b. If he is claiming he did this because of the upcoming election - good luck with that.  He would have to prove intent.  Who is to say, if the money was paid, it was to protect him from having his wife learn about it.  And, if Michael Cohen is the witness to testify to this, well LOL.  He already testified that Trump was not aware he paid the money.  
c. If (b) is true, that is a federal offense, not a NY state offense.  And, federal officials declined to prosecute - likely because it wasn't a crime. 
d. If (b) is true - statute of limitations has expired.  [/quote]
It has never occurred to you that there could be corroborating evidence showing intent?[/quote]

It really doesn't matter.  There are multiple reasons, so trying to claim a campaign finance violation is weak, and this has already been shown with the John Edwards case.
Now this is a New York case, not federal, and they can't prosecute campaign finance violations.  They are trying to claim it was an illegitimate business expense, 
but companies pay these sorts of things all the time.  I would guess that every media outlet reporting on this indictment has made these payments and listed them as business expenses.[/quote]
Don't you get tired of posting the same thing on every message board, Boris?[/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