. Got it. You like screwing with ML.DiabloWags said:oski003 said:DiabloWags said:oski003 said:DiabloWags said:
Trump has just walked into the court building in lower Manhattan and is now officially UNDER ARREST.
He is now an arrested felon.
He now has a rap sheet.
He is not a felon. Do you boiled onion brains spouting a firehose of falsehoods even know what a felon is?
Hahaahahahhaaaaaaa!
Keep reaching son.
Nice try.
Looks like I "triggered" one of Bearinsider's biggest Trump fans!
My apologies.
lolololololo!
I am rather curious how this plays out. Please try to stick to the facts as opposed to spouting emotional falsehoods.
I'm not an Attorney, but I think that this indictment brought by DA Bragg is very "weak".
Now please excuse me, it's a gorgeous day outside and I'm gonna take the Porsche out for lunch.
Unlike some here (Movielover) whose life appears to revolve around Donald Trump, I have better things to do with my day. Sure looks like he's on track to better his 25 posts of yesterday.
LOCK HIM UP !!!
50,625 Views |
782 Replies |
Last: 2 mo ago by concordtom
"General problems: Cohen and Daniels are horrific witnesses."
That is what a lot of mobsters behind bars said about Jimmy "the Weasel" Fratianno and Sammy "the Bull" Gravano, both murderers cutting deals to testify BUT both with firsthand knowledge of dirty deeds.
tRump's problem is that Stormy and Cohen are eyewitnesses and the first thought in the mind of a juror isn't "Gee, this witness is a d bag," but rather, "Oh yeah, tRump would do that for sure."
Add to that the fact that tRump is too stupid to take the witness stand and memorize a script and because he has deep seated psychological issues, he would go all Col. Jessup on the stand once the prosecutor cornered him and p@issed him off.
I do wish they had proceeded against him on the classified documents matter and Georgia election shenanigans first.
I doubt he will ever be convicted of anything because of the fact tRump knows a guy who knows a guy that will make a death threat to the family of at least one juror and there's your hung jury.
One can only hope that the next time we see a caravan of Suburbans that it is the funeral procession of that 300 pound pustule on the way to a toxic dump site.
That is what a lot of mobsters behind bars said about Jimmy "the Weasel" Fratianno and Sammy "the Bull" Gravano, both murderers cutting deals to testify BUT both with firsthand knowledge of dirty deeds.
tRump's problem is that Stormy and Cohen are eyewitnesses and the first thought in the mind of a juror isn't "Gee, this witness is a d bag," but rather, "Oh yeah, tRump would do that for sure."
Add to that the fact that tRump is too stupid to take the witness stand and memorize a script and because he has deep seated psychological issues, he would go all Col. Jessup on the stand once the prosecutor cornered him and p@issed him off.
I do wish they had proceeded against him on the classified documents matter and Georgia election shenanigans first.
I doubt he will ever be convicted of anything because of the fact tRump knows a guy who knows a guy that will make a death threat to the family of at least one juror and there's your hung jury.
One can only hope that the next time we see a caravan of Suburbans that it is the funeral procession of that 300 pound pustule on the way to a toxic dump site.
Cancel my subscription to the Resurrection
Send my credentials to the House of Detention
I got some friends inside
Send my credentials to the House of Detention
I got some friends inside
DiabloWags said:oski003 said:DiabloWags said:oski003 said:DiabloWags said:
Trump has just walked into the court building in lower Manhattan and is now officially UNDER ARREST.
He is now an arrested felon.
He now has a rap sheet.
He is not a felon. Do you boiled onion brains spouting a firehose of falsehoods even know what a felon is?
Hahaahahahhaaaaaaa!
Keep reaching son.
Nice try.
Looks like I "triggered" one of Bearinsider's biggest Trump fans!
My apologies.
lolololololo!
I am rather curious how this plays out. Please try to stick to the facts as opposed to spouting emotional falsehoods.
I'm not an Attorney, but I think that this indictment brought by DA Bragg is very "weak".
Now please excuse me, it's a gorgeous day outside and I'm gonna take the Porsche out for lunch.
Unlike some here (Movielover) whose life appears to revolve around Donald Trump, I have better things to do with my day. Sure looks like he's on track to better his 25 posts of yesterday.
This is so pathetic on many fronts.
You admit it is a weak indictment but celebrate it. There is no clearer example of your lack of principle or the lengths to which the far left will go to obtain and retain political power.
And then you criticize another poster for posting 25 times on this website. You have 19 posts on this website today as of 2:12 PM, most of which celebrate the weak indictment. Truly remarkable.
Today is a bad day for the country. We have an indictment that no one can convincingly defend on its legal merits. Even many extreme partisan dems can't get behind it. Trump will eventually win. He will be strengthened in the short run for sure - possibly the long run. The country will be subjected to (and distracted by) endless and unwarranted attention to Trump while ignoring more pressing issues, like the economy, the rise of China (and corresponding attack on the dollar), and Ukraine. And of course, eventually a partisan republican prosecutor will respond with an equally bad indictment.
Anyone celebrating today is putting party and politics ahead of country.
tequila4kapp said:
If you bring charges against a President or former President you really need to have the goods. No overreaches.
Let's break it down:
Trump made 3 hush payments. This is not illegal, in and of itself.
Falsifying business documentation related to the payments could be illegal.
1. This crime has a specific intent requirement (to defraud, IIRC).
2. Statute of limitations is 2 years. The alleged events are 7 (?) years old.
To get around the statute of limitations problem the DA has to prove the underlying documentation issues were done in furtherance of a 2nd crime. This upgrades the misdemeanor to a NY state felony which has a longer statute of limitation. The DA spoke to - but did not include in the charging documents - three "other" crimes:
1. Payments were hidden in violation of NY state election laws.
PROBLEM: a) Trump was a federal candidate. Federal election laws clearly preempt state election laws. b) the DA has to prove Trump knew it was a crime to hide the payments (doubtful) and had the necessary criminal intent required under the statute (possible but not easy)
2. Federal election laws.
PROBLEM: the feds looked into these very facts and did not charge him criminally (DOJ) or civilly (FEC)
3. Tax evasion.
PROBLEM: Trump reportedly didn't take a deduction for the payments so a tax violation isn't obvious.
General problems: Cohen and Daniels are horrific witnesses.
Maybe there are creative legal arguments the DA can make to proceed on the state and fed election law stuff. Maybe there's more juice to the tax stuff. But generally this is stupidly weak…weak enough that Trump haters everywhere should be disappointed or upset this is what was charged.
Good summary.
The fact that the indictment did not specifically allege the specifics of the second crime (i.e., what law was violated) is potentially a fatal flaw. And even if there was a violation of federal law (which the feds concluded there was not), the state attorney has no authority to enforce it.
There's a curious omission in the Donald Trump indictment and statement of facts -
— Techno Fog (@Techno_Fog) April 4, 2023
The specific federal law Trump violated. pic.twitter.com/bsM32x4jhn
Here is CNN with a complete destruction of the indictment by a guy who is about as anti trump as they come (Elie Honig)
CNN panelists are unimpressed with the case DA Alvin Bragg has presented.
— Nicholas Fondacaro (@NickFondacaro) April 4, 2023
Former US Attorney Elie Honig says he can't see how Trump allegedly committed a felony and he doesn't understand how state campaign laws apply to a federal election. He also scoffs at the tax fraud claim. pic.twitter.com/MtVL2htu0j
There are a lot of unverified assumptions baked in here. The DOJ passed on prosecution at the request of Bill Barr and the DOJ asked Cy Vance to stand down so the DOJ could handle it. I would say that when the attorney general corruptly prevents prosecution of his boss (and asks the local prosecutor to stand down), that shouldn't be used to support an assertion that no crime has been committed.tequila4kapp said:
If you bring charges against a President or former President you really need to have the goods. No overreaches.
Let's break it down:
Trump made 3 hush payments. This is not illegal, in and of itself.
Falsifying business documentation related to the payments could be illegal.
1. This crime has a specific intent requirement (to defraud, IIRC).
2. Statute of limitations is 2 years. The alleged events are 7 (?) years old.
To get around the statute of limitations problem the DA has to prove the underlying documentation issues were done in furtherance of a 2nd crime. This upgrades the misdemeanor to a NY state felony which has a longer statute of limitation. The DA spoke to - but did not include in the charging documents - three "other" crimes:
1. Payments were hidden in violation of NY state election laws.
PROBLEM: a) Trump was a federal candidate. Federal election laws clearly preempt state election laws. b) the DA has to prove Trump knew it was a crime to hide the payments (doubtful) and had the necessary criminal intent required under the statute (possible but not easy)
2. Federal election laws.
PROBLEM: the feds looked into these very facts and did not charge him criminally (DOJ) or civilly (FEC)
3. Tax evasion.
PROBLEM: Trump reportedly didn't take a deduction for the payments so a tax violation isn't obvious.
General problems: Cohen and Daniels are horrific witnesses.
Maybe there are creative legal arguments the DA can make to proceed on the state and fed election law stuff. Maybe there's more juice to the tax stuff. But generally this is stupidly weak…weak enough that Trump haters everywhere should be disappointed or upset this is what was charged.
You're also assuming that the evidence is limited to the words of Cohen and Daniels. Also, hard to ignore that Cohen wasn't just a random criminal who had evidence here - he was Trump's right hand man for over a decade and he went to jail because he helped Trump with the crime that Trump is defending.
The statement of facts is pretty detailed and shows indefensible conduct by Trump. I'm pretty tired of people complaining about someone being charged with obvious crimes based on some standard that the crimes aren't serious enough or that the criminal was able to avoid prosecution for a few years in part due to corruption and in part due to dumb luck (that he happened to win election).
I love that all of the Trump defenders have made these strong claims that Trump was only orchestrating this scheme to pay off his mistress for personal reasons and that it had nothing to do with the election. There is literally no basis for that, other than those people having good will for Trump, but Bragg seems to have evidence to the contrary which, if provable, would show that Trump did in fact do these things in order to help with his campaign. And, for what it's worth, that's the most plausible reason and doesn't require the sort of leap of faith that you would need in order to believe he was trying to protect Melania.
Quote:
The Defendant directed Lawyer A to delay making a payment to Woman 2 as long as possible. He instructed Lawyer A that if they could delay the payment until after the election, they could avoid paying altogether, because at that point it would not matter if the story became public. As reflected in emails and text messages between and among Lawyer A, Lawyer B, and the AMI Editor-in-Chief, Lawyer A attempted to delay making payment as long as possible
If Trump is innocent, he'll beat the rap and Bragg will look bad. If Trump is guilty, he should be convicted.
Unit2Sucks said:
If Trump is innocent, he'll beat the rap and Bragg will look bad. If Trump is guilty, he should be convicted.
More like, "if trump is innocent, he will move on to defend himself in the next court case aimed at nailing him. If trump is guilty, he will move on to defend himself in the next court case aimed at nailing him."
We call that "chain prosecution".
Typical obfuscation on your part.Unit2Sucks said:There are a lot of unverified assumptions baked in here. The DOJ passed on prosecution at the request of Bill Barr and the DOJ asked Cy Vance to stand down so the DOJ could handle it. I would say that when the attorney general corruptly prevents prosecution of his boss (and asks the local prosecutor to stand down), that shouldn't be used to support an assertion that no crime has been committed.tequila4kapp said:
If you bring charges against a President or former President you really need to have the goods. No overreaches.
Let's break it down:
Trump made 3 hush payments. This is not illegal, in and of itself.
Falsifying business documentation related to the payments could be illegal.
1. This crime has a specific intent requirement (to defraud, IIRC).
2. Statute of limitations is 2 years. The alleged events are 7 (?) years old.
To get around the statute of limitations problem the DA has to prove the underlying documentation issues were done in furtherance of a 2nd crime. This upgrades the misdemeanor to a NY state felony which has a longer statute of limitation. The DA spoke to - but did not include in the charging documents - three "other" crimes:
1. Payments were hidden in violation of NY state election laws.
PROBLEM: a) Trump was a federal candidate. Federal election laws clearly preempt state election laws. b) the DA has to prove Trump knew it was a crime to hide the payments (doubtful) and had the necessary criminal intent required under the statute (possible but not easy)
2. Federal election laws.
PROBLEM: the feds looked into these very facts and did not charge him criminally (DOJ) or civilly (FEC)
3. Tax evasion.
PROBLEM: Trump reportedly didn't take a deduction for the payments so a tax violation isn't obvious.
General problems: Cohen and Daniels are horrific witnesses.
Maybe there are creative legal arguments the DA can make to proceed on the state and fed election law stuff. Maybe there's more juice to the tax stuff. But generally this is stupidly weak…weak enough that Trump haters everywhere should be disappointed or upset this is what was charged.
You're also assuming that the evidence is limited to the words of Cohen and Daniels. Also, hard to ignore that Cohen wasn't just a random criminal who had evidence here - he was Trump's right hand man for over a decade and he went to jail because he helped Trump with the crime that Trump is defending.
The statement of facts is pretty detailed and shows indefensible conduct by Trump. I'm pretty tired of people complaining about someone being charged with obvious crimes based on some standard that the crimes aren't serious enough or that the criminal was able to avoid prosecution for a few years in part due to corruption and in part due to dumb luck (that he happened to win election).
I love that all of the Trump defenders have made these strong claims that Trump was only orchestrating this scheme to pay off his mistress for personal reasons and that it had nothing to do with the election. There is literally no basis for that, other than those people having good will for Trump, but Bragg seems to have evidence to the contrary which, if provable, would show that Trump did in fact do these things in order to help with his campaign. And, for what it's worth, that's the most plausible reason and doesn't require the sort of leap of faith that you would need in order to believe he was trying to protect Melania.Quote:
The Defendant directed Lawyer A to delay making a payment to Woman 2 as long as possible. He instructed Lawyer A that if they could delay the payment until after the election, they could avoid paying altogether, because at that point it would not matter if the story became public. As reflected in emails and text messages between and among Lawyer A, Lawyer B, and the AMI Editor-in-Chief, Lawyer A attempted to delay making payment as long as possible
If Trump is innocent, he'll beat the rap and Bragg will look bad. If Trump is guilty, he should be convicted.
1. Biden's DOJ also passed on the election law case. The FEC passed on the case when Biden was president. https://nypost.com/2021/05/07/trump-calls-stormy-daniels-claims-fake-news-as-fec-drops-case/
Biden's DOJ certainly could have indicted Trump for the stormy payments - notably the special counsel was appointed but declined to pursue these claims as well.
In terms of your "asked to stand down" claim please provide me any authority for the proposition that a state DA like Bragg has any jurisdiction to investigate federal election law violations. I'll wait - and its going to be a long wait because there is none. Complete federal preemption of the federal election claims. The feds announced they weren't pursuing charges in 2021 - why did Bragg/Vance did not charge until today (hint: because they knew it was a loser case).
2. Even if clams made in the indictment statement of "facts" are "indefensible" that does not make them illegal. And of course that's the corrupt DA's point - slime Trump (which is not hard) and bring a bogus case in a venue where 90% of the voters hate Trump.
Not all bad conduct is illegal. You are conflating the two because you are as partisan as Bragg. If bad behavior were a chargeable crime, there are lots of dems who would be under indictment (starting with HRC and several members of the Biden family). But that is banana republic/authoritarian behavior that the US did not engage in until today.
3. Under applicable Federal election law and DOJ guidance, the standard is not whether the payments had "nothing to do" with the campaign. Even if there was a mixed motive (which is the likely explanation) and mixed consequence (helping him both personally and his campaign), it is not criminal. And to be clear, NY state election law is irrelevant - doesn't apply to Trumps federal election.
4. Funny you want to characterize Cohen as the key witness. The guy convicted of perjury and financial/tax fraud crimes unrelated to Trump. No competent/honest prosecutor would ever bring a case that significantly relied upon testimony from that guy. And before you claim "Cohen plead guilty to federal campaign violations", read this and respond to the authoritative analysis therein.
https://www.nationalreview.com/2023/04/no-cohens-guilty-plea-does-not-prove-trump-committed-campaign-finance-crimes/?utm_source=recirc-desktop&utm_medium=homepage&utm_campaign=right-rail&utm_content=featured-writers&utm_term=fourth
5. Nice strawman. No one is complaining "about someone being charged with obvious crimes based on some standard that the crimes aren't serious enough or that the criminal was able to avoid prosecution for a few years in part due to corruption and in part due to dumb luck"
The claim here is that there are no chargeable state crimes - certainly not a felony. To suggest the crimes are "obvious" is just laughable given all that has happened here - Fed declining case, Vance declining case, Bragg declining to prosecute then changing his mind when he's the subject of partisan political pressure.
And if the crimes were "obvious", Bragg would not be resorting to novel and bizarre legal theories that are universally criticized and mocked. Even viewed in the favor most favorable to Bragg, there is no world were these crimes are "obvious."
concordtom said:Unit2Sucks said:
If Trump is innocent, he'll beat the rap and Bragg will look bad. If Trump is guilty, he should be convicted.
More like, "if trump is innocent, he will move on to defend himself in the next court case aimed at nailing him. If trump is guilty, he will move on to defend himself in the next court case aimed at nailing him."
We call that "chain prosecution".
The words "tRump" and "innocent" in the same sentence is incongruous. His entire life he has not only been guilty as charged but guilty when not charged.
BREAKING: New York Police have listed Trump’s weight as 270 pounds.
— Travis Allen (Biden Fan) (@TravisAllen02) April 4, 2023
*I'm sure that tRump dropped a couple of C notes on the booking officer to fudge 30 lbs off his weight…but even 270 at 5'10' and with no muscle mass is a load.
Cancel my subscription to the Resurrection
Send my credentials to the House of Detention
I got some friends inside
Send my credentials to the House of Detention
I got some friends inside
Just to be clear - can you go on record and tell us whether you think Trump broke any laws? Did he commit any felonies?BearGoggles said:Typical obfuscation on your part.Unit2Sucks said:There are a lot of unverified assumptions baked in here. The DOJ passed on prosecution at the request of Bill Barr and the DOJ asked Cy Vance to stand down so the DOJ could handle it. I would say that when the attorney general corruptly prevents prosecution of his boss (and asks the local prosecutor to stand down), that shouldn't be used to support an assertion that no crime has been committed.tequila4kapp said:
If you bring charges against a President or former President you really need to have the goods. No overreaches.
Let's break it down:
Trump made 3 hush payments. This is not illegal, in and of itself.
Falsifying business documentation related to the payments could be illegal.
1. This crime has a specific intent requirement (to defraud, IIRC).
2. Statute of limitations is 2 years. The alleged events are 7 (?) years old.
To get around the statute of limitations problem the DA has to prove the underlying documentation issues were done in furtherance of a 2nd crime. This upgrades the misdemeanor to a NY state felony which has a longer statute of limitation. The DA spoke to - but did not include in the charging documents - three "other" crimes:
1. Payments were hidden in violation of NY state election laws.
PROBLEM: a) Trump was a federal candidate. Federal election laws clearly preempt state election laws. b) the DA has to prove Trump knew it was a crime to hide the payments (doubtful) and had the necessary criminal intent required under the statute (possible but not easy)
2. Federal election laws.
PROBLEM: the feds looked into these very facts and did not charge him criminally (DOJ) or civilly (FEC)
3. Tax evasion.
PROBLEM: Trump reportedly didn't take a deduction for the payments so a tax violation isn't obvious.
General problems: Cohen and Daniels are horrific witnesses.
Maybe there are creative legal arguments the DA can make to proceed on the state and fed election law stuff. Maybe there's more juice to the tax stuff. But generally this is stupidly weak…weak enough that Trump haters everywhere should be disappointed or upset this is what was charged.
You're also assuming that the evidence is limited to the words of Cohen and Daniels. Also, hard to ignore that Cohen wasn't just a random criminal who had evidence here - he was Trump's right hand man for over a decade and he went to jail because he helped Trump with the crime that Trump is defending.
The statement of facts is pretty detailed and shows indefensible conduct by Trump. I'm pretty tired of people complaining about someone being charged with obvious crimes based on some standard that the crimes aren't serious enough or that the criminal was able to avoid prosecution for a few years in part due to corruption and in part due to dumb luck (that he happened to win election).
I love that all of the Trump defenders have made these strong claims that Trump was only orchestrating this scheme to pay off his mistress for personal reasons and that it had nothing to do with the election. There is literally no basis for that, other than those people having good will for Trump, but Bragg seems to have evidence to the contrary which, if provable, would show that Trump did in fact do these things in order to help with his campaign. And, for what it's worth, that's the most plausible reason and doesn't require the sort of leap of faith that you would need in order to believe he was trying to protect Melania.Quote:
The Defendant directed Lawyer A to delay making a payment to Woman 2 as long as possible. He instructed Lawyer A that if they could delay the payment until after the election, they could avoid paying altogether, because at that point it would not matter if the story became public. As reflected in emails and text messages between and among Lawyer A, Lawyer B, and the AMI Editor-in-Chief, Lawyer A attempted to delay making payment as long as possible
If Trump is innocent, he'll beat the rap and Bragg will look bad. If Trump is guilty, he should be convicted.
1. Biden's DOJ also passed on the election law case. The FEC passed on the case when Biden was president. https://nypost.com/2021/05/07/trump-calls-stormy-daniels-claims-fake-news-as-fec-drops-case/
Biden's DOJ certainly could have indicted Trump for the stormy payments - notably the special counsel was appointed but declined to pursue these claims as well.
In terms of your "asked to stand down" claim please provide me any authority for the proposition that a state DA like Bragg has any jurisdiction to investigate federal election law violations. I'll wait - and its going to be a long wait because there is none. Complete federal preemption of the federal election claims. The feds announced they weren't pursuing charges in 2021 - why did Bragg/Vance did not charge until today (hint: because they knew it was a loser case).
2. Even if clams made in the indictment statement of "facts" are "indefensible" that does not make them illegal. And of course that's the corrupt DA's point - slime Trump (which is not hard) and bring a bogus case in a venue where 90% of the voters hate Trump.
Not all bad conduct is illegal. You are conflating the two because you are as partisan as Bragg. If bad behavior were a chargeable crime, there are lots of dems who would be under indictment (starting with HRC and several members of the Biden family). But that is banana republic/authoritarian behavior that the US did not engage in until today.
3. Under applicable Federal election law and DOJ guidance, the standard is not whether the payments had "nothing to do" with the campaign. Even if there was a mixed motive (which is the likely explanation) and mixed consequence (helping him both personally and his campaign), it is not criminal. And to be clear, NY state election law is irrelevant - doesn't apply to Trumps federal election.
4. Funny you want to characterize Cohen as the key witness. The guy convicted of perjury and financial/tax fraud crimes unrelated to Trump. No competent/honest prosecutor would ever bring a case that significantly relied upon testimony from that guy. And before you claim "Cohen plead guilty to federal campaign violations", read this and respond to the authoritative analysis therein.
https://www.nationalreview.com/2023/04/no-cohens-guilty-plea-does-not-prove-trump-committed-campaign-finance-crimes/?utm_source=recirc-desktop&utm_medium=homepage&utm_campaign=right-rail&utm_content=featured-writers&utm_term=fourth
5. Nice strawman. No one is complaining "about someone being charged with obvious crimes based on some standard that the crimes aren't serious enough or that the criminal was able to avoid prosecution for a few years in part due to corruption and in part due to dumb luck"
The claim here is that there are no chargeable state crimes - certainly not a felony. To suggest the crimes are "obvious" is just laughable given all that has happened here - Fed declining case, Vance declining case, Bragg declining to prosecute then changing his mind when he's the subject of partisan political pressure.
And if the crimes were "obvious", Bragg would not be resorting to novel and bizarre legal theories that are universally criticized and mocked. Even viewed in the favor most favorable to Bragg, there is no world were these crimes are "obvious."
Do you actually think that Trump is innocent or are you claiming that the crimes can't be proven or are you claiming that Bragg shouldn't be the one to bring charges?
What is your actual opinion on the behavior that Bragg has identified as illegal?
As far as strawmen go, you've created quite a few. I didn't call Cohen the key witness and in fact made the opposite case. People like you are working hard to minimize this case and make unsupported claims to defend Trump. You've been doing so from the get go. It's pretty clear that Bragg isn't relying solely on testimony from Cohen or Daniels.
Also, can you show support for your assertion that there was no crime based on the fact that the FEC chose not to move forward? From everything I've seen, the FEC chose not to pursue the claims because 2 Trump appointees opposed it. Do you feel like that's a solid basis for proclaiming his innocence?
The extent to which Trump supporters like BG bend over backwards to proclaim his innocence, including by amplifying the corrupt defenses of people he appointed to defend him, is embarrassing.
As Judge Napolitano and Ivy League attorney Susan Estrich said, 'If his name were Donald Estrich or Donald Napolitano, he wouldn't be charged... it's a misdemeanor at best,... possiby settled with a fine.'
A felony has a 5-year SOL, but these acts happened 6.5 years ago?
A felony has a 5-year SOL, but these acts happened 6.5 years ago?
This is New York, there won't be a fair trial. It would be like trying an Obama crime at a Klan rally.
On point, @greta . I would hope if this somehow survives a motion to dismiss, the defense would seek a bill of particulars to lock in the DA on those details so they can’t be “fluid” at any trial.
— Charles Calenda (@CharlesCalenda) April 4, 2023
One unproven crime. He reimbursed hush money from his own private accounts. This DA says it should have been paid from his campaign funds and coded that way. So they charge him with 34 felonies? Crazy.
— Carey Forrest Reister (@seaforrest) April 4, 2023
Donald Trump during his arraignment. Courtroom sketch by 🎨 Jane Rosenberg pic.twitter.com/DdfXkHhnUA
— Reuters Pictures (@reuterspictures) April 4, 2023
Cancel my subscription to the Resurrection
Send my credentials to the House of Detention
I got some friends inside
Send my credentials to the House of Detention
I got some friends inside
I can't see Greta Van Susteren without thinking about this Led Zep derivative band that 'taint* bad at all:
*…and we all know what taint is don't we?
*…and we all know what taint is don't we?
Cancel my subscription to the Resurrection
Send my credentials to the House of Detention
I got some friends inside
Send my credentials to the House of Detention
I got some friends inside
No.
movielover said:
No.
Well, it taint [ ] and it taint [ ].
The good news today for tRumpists is that their standard bearer in the apocalyptic battle between Good vs Evil looked of sound mind and body at the counsel's table:
*Provided you can get passed the fact his groomer rubbed a balloon on his head.
Cancel my subscription to the Resurrection
Send my credentials to the House of Detention
I got some friends inside
Send my credentials to the House of Detention
I got some friends inside
The Orange Man did not look happy today!
"Cults don't end well. They really don't."
Unit2Sucks said:Just to be clear - can you go on record and tell us whether you think Trump broke any laws? Did he commit any felonies?BearGoggles said:Typical obfuscation on your part.Unit2Sucks said:There are a lot of unverified assumptions baked in here. The DOJ passed on prosecution at the request of Bill Barr and the DOJ asked Cy Vance to stand down so the DOJ could handle it. I would say that when the attorney general corruptly prevents prosecution of his boss (and asks the local prosecutor to stand down), that shouldn't be used to support an assertion that no crime has been committed.tequila4kapp said:
If you bring charges against a President or former President you really need to have the goods. No overreaches.
Let's break it down:
Trump made 3 hush payments. This is not illegal, in and of itself.
Falsifying business documentation related to the payments could be illegal.
1. This crime has a specific intent requirement (to defraud, IIRC).
2. Statute of limitations is 2 years. The alleged events are 7 (?) years old.
To get around the statute of limitations problem the DA has to prove the underlying documentation issues were done in furtherance of a 2nd crime. This upgrades the misdemeanor to a NY state felony which has a longer statute of limitation. The DA spoke to - but did not include in the charging documents - three "other" crimes:
1. Payments were hidden in violation of NY state election laws.
PROBLEM: a) Trump was a federal candidate. Federal election laws clearly preempt state election laws. b) the DA has to prove Trump knew it was a crime to hide the payments (doubtful) and had the necessary criminal intent required under the statute (possible but not easy)
2. Federal election laws.
PROBLEM: the feds looked into these very facts and did not charge him criminally (DOJ) or civilly (FEC)
3. Tax evasion.
PROBLEM: Trump reportedly didn't take a deduction for the payments so a tax violation isn't obvious.
General problems: Cohen and Daniels are horrific witnesses.
Maybe there are creative legal arguments the DA can make to proceed on the state and fed election law stuff. Maybe there's more juice to the tax stuff. But generally this is stupidly weak…weak enough that Trump haters everywhere should be disappointed or upset this is what was charged.
You're also assuming that the evidence is limited to the words of Cohen and Daniels. Also, hard to ignore that Cohen wasn't just a random criminal who had evidence here - he was Trump's right hand man for over a decade and he went to jail because he helped Trump with the crime that Trump is defending.
The statement of facts is pretty detailed and shows indefensible conduct by Trump. I'm pretty tired of people complaining about someone being charged with obvious crimes based on some standard that the crimes aren't serious enough or that the criminal was able to avoid prosecution for a few years in part due to corruption and in part due to dumb luck (that he happened to win election).
I love that all of the Trump defenders have made these strong claims that Trump was only orchestrating this scheme to pay off his mistress for personal reasons and that it had nothing to do with the election. There is literally no basis for that, other than those people having good will for Trump, but Bragg seems to have evidence to the contrary which, if provable, would show that Trump did in fact do these things in order to help with his campaign. And, for what it's worth, that's the most plausible reason and doesn't require the sort of leap of faith that you would need in order to believe he was trying to protect Melania.Quote:
The Defendant directed Lawyer A to delay making a payment to Woman 2 as long as possible. He instructed Lawyer A that if they could delay the payment until after the election, they could avoid paying altogether, because at that point it would not matter if the story became public. As reflected in emails and text messages between and among Lawyer A, Lawyer B, and the AMI Editor-in-Chief, Lawyer A attempted to delay making payment as long as possible
If Trump is innocent, he'll beat the rap and Bragg will look bad. If Trump is guilty, he should be convicted.
1. Biden's DOJ also passed on the election law case. The FEC passed on the case when Biden was president. https://nypost.com/2021/05/07/trump-calls-stormy-daniels-claims-fake-news-as-fec-drops-case/
Biden's DOJ certainly could have indicted Trump for the stormy payments - notably the special counsel was appointed but declined to pursue these claims as well.
In terms of your "asked to stand down" claim please provide me any authority for the proposition that a state DA like Bragg has any jurisdiction to investigate federal election law violations. I'll wait - and its going to be a long wait because there is none. Complete federal preemption of the federal election claims. The feds announced they weren't pursuing charges in 2021 - why did Bragg/Vance did not charge until today (hint: because they knew it was a loser case).
2. Even if clams made in the indictment statement of "facts" are "indefensible" that does not make them illegal. And of course that's the corrupt DA's point - slime Trump (which is not hard) and bring a bogus case in a venue where 90% of the voters hate Trump.
Not all bad conduct is illegal. You are conflating the two because you are as partisan as Bragg. If bad behavior were a chargeable crime, there are lots of dems who would be under indictment (starting with HRC and several members of the Biden family). But that is banana republic/authoritarian behavior that the US did not engage in until today.
3. Under applicable Federal election law and DOJ guidance, the standard is not whether the payments had "nothing to do" with the campaign. Even if there was a mixed motive (which is the likely explanation) and mixed consequence (helping him both personally and his campaign), it is not criminal. And to be clear, NY state election law is irrelevant - doesn't apply to Trumps federal election.
4. Funny you want to characterize Cohen as the key witness. The guy convicted of perjury and financial/tax fraud crimes unrelated to Trump. No competent/honest prosecutor would ever bring a case that significantly relied upon testimony from that guy. And before you claim "Cohen plead guilty to federal campaign violations", read this and respond to the authoritative analysis therein.
https://www.nationalreview.com/2023/04/no-cohens-guilty-plea-does-not-prove-trump-committed-campaign-finance-crimes/?utm_source=recirc-desktop&utm_medium=homepage&utm_campaign=right-rail&utm_content=featured-writers&utm_term=fourth
5. Nice strawman. No one is complaining "about someone being charged with obvious crimes based on some standard that the crimes aren't serious enough or that the criminal was able to avoid prosecution for a few years in part due to corruption and in part due to dumb luck"
The claim here is that there are no chargeable state crimes - certainly not a felony. To suggest the crimes are "obvious" is just laughable given all that has happened here - Fed declining case, Vance declining case, Bragg declining to prosecute then changing his mind when he's the subject of partisan political pressure.
And if the crimes were "obvious", Bragg would not be resorting to novel and bizarre legal theories that are universally criticized and mocked. Even viewed in the favor most favorable to Bragg, there is no world were these crimes are "obvious."
Do you actually think that Trump is innocent or are you claiming that the crimes can't be proven or are you claiming that Bragg shouldn't be the one to bring charges?
What is your actual opinion on the behavior that Bragg has identified as illegal?
As far as strawmen go, you've created quite a few. I didn't call Cohen the key witness and in fact made the opposite case. People like you are working hard to minimize this case and make unsupported claims to defend Trump. You've been doing so from the get go. It's pretty clear that Bragg isn't relying solely on testimony from Cohen or Daniels.
Also, can you show support for your assertion that there was no crime based on the fact that the FEC chose not to move forward? From everything I've seen, the FEC chose not to pursue the claims because 2 Trump appointees opposed it. Do you feel like that's a solid basis for proclaiming his innocence?
The extent to which Trump supporters like BG bend over backwards to proclaim his innocence, including by amplifying the corrupt defenses of people he appointed to defend him, is embarrassing.
I will answer you, but you need to be clear in what you're asking. Are you asking if I think he broke any laws as alleged in the Bragg indictment?
It's okay, there's still the Georgia investigation and the theft of secret documents. My supply of popcorn is nearby and ready.
DiabloWags said:
The Orange Man did not look happy today!
The last time I saw a defendant in court look like an extra in a Fellini film like tRump did was…
Cancel my subscription to the Resurrection
Send my credentials to the House of Detention
I got some friends inside
Send my credentials to the House of Detention
I got some friends inside
GoOskie said:
It's okay, there's still the Georgia investigation and the theft of secret documents. My supply of popcorn is nearby and ready.
The obstruction of justice case in Mar-a-Lago is looking worse by the day for the Orange Man. But I must admit that I was not impressed by Bragg today and even bet a woman I know (who hates Trump as much as I do) $500 that a jury does not convict Trump.
Bragg must prove intent.
"Cults don't end well. They really don't."
Sorry, this is a fair question because Trump is alleged to have broken many laws.BearGoggles said:Unit2Sucks said:Just to be clear - can you go on record and tell us whether you think Trump broke any laws? Did he commit any felonies?BearGoggles said:Typical obfuscation on your part.Unit2Sucks said:There are a lot of unverified assumptions baked in here. The DOJ passed on prosecution at the request of Bill Barr and the DOJ asked Cy Vance to stand down so the DOJ could handle it. I would say that when the attorney general corruptly prevents prosecution of his boss (and asks the local prosecutor to stand down), that shouldn't be used to support an assertion that no crime has been committed.tequila4kapp said:
If you bring charges against a President or former President you really need to have the goods. No overreaches.
Let's break it down:
Trump made 3 hush payments. This is not illegal, in and of itself.
Falsifying business documentation related to the payments could be illegal.
1. This crime has a specific intent requirement (to defraud, IIRC).
2. Statute of limitations is 2 years. The alleged events are 7 (?) years old.
To get around the statute of limitations problem the DA has to prove the underlying documentation issues were done in furtherance of a 2nd crime. This upgrades the misdemeanor to a NY state felony which has a longer statute of limitation. The DA spoke to - but did not include in the charging documents - three "other" crimes:
1. Payments were hidden in violation of NY state election laws.
PROBLEM: a) Trump was a federal candidate. Federal election laws clearly preempt state election laws. b) the DA has to prove Trump knew it was a crime to hide the payments (doubtful) and had the necessary criminal intent required under the statute (possible but not easy)
2. Federal election laws.
PROBLEM: the feds looked into these very facts and did not charge him criminally (DOJ) or civilly (FEC)
3. Tax evasion.
PROBLEM: Trump reportedly didn't take a deduction for the payments so a tax violation isn't obvious.
General problems: Cohen and Daniels are horrific witnesses.
Maybe there are creative legal arguments the DA can make to proceed on the state and fed election law stuff. Maybe there's more juice to the tax stuff. But generally this is stupidly weak…weak enough that Trump haters everywhere should be disappointed or upset this is what was charged.
You're also assuming that the evidence is limited to the words of Cohen and Daniels. Also, hard to ignore that Cohen wasn't just a random criminal who had evidence here - he was Trump's right hand man for over a decade and he went to jail because he helped Trump with the crime that Trump is defending.
The statement of facts is pretty detailed and shows indefensible conduct by Trump. I'm pretty tired of people complaining about someone being charged with obvious crimes based on some standard that the crimes aren't serious enough or that the criminal was able to avoid prosecution for a few years in part due to corruption and in part due to dumb luck (that he happened to win election).
I love that all of the Trump defenders have made these strong claims that Trump was only orchestrating this scheme to pay off his mistress for personal reasons and that it had nothing to do with the election. There is literally no basis for that, other than those people having good will for Trump, but Bragg seems to have evidence to the contrary which, if provable, would show that Trump did in fact do these things in order to help with his campaign. And, for what it's worth, that's the most plausible reason and doesn't require the sort of leap of faith that you would need in order to believe he was trying to protect Melania.Quote:
The Defendant directed Lawyer A to delay making a payment to Woman 2 as long as possible. He instructed Lawyer A that if they could delay the payment until after the election, they could avoid paying altogether, because at that point it would not matter if the story became public. As reflected in emails and text messages between and among Lawyer A, Lawyer B, and the AMI Editor-in-Chief, Lawyer A attempted to delay making payment as long as possible
If Trump is innocent, he'll beat the rap and Bragg will look bad. If Trump is guilty, he should be convicted.
1. Biden's DOJ also passed on the election law case. The FEC passed on the case when Biden was president. https://nypost.com/2021/05/07/trump-calls-stormy-daniels-claims-fake-news-as-fec-drops-case/
Biden's DOJ certainly could have indicted Trump for the stormy payments - notably the special counsel was appointed but declined to pursue these claims as well.
In terms of your "asked to stand down" claim please provide me any authority for the proposition that a state DA like Bragg has any jurisdiction to investigate federal election law violations. I'll wait - and its going to be a long wait because there is none. Complete federal preemption of the federal election claims. The feds announced they weren't pursuing charges in 2021 - why did Bragg/Vance did not charge until today (hint: because they knew it was a loser case).
2. Even if clams made in the indictment statement of "facts" are "indefensible" that does not make them illegal. And of course that's the corrupt DA's point - slime Trump (which is not hard) and bring a bogus case in a venue where 90% of the voters hate Trump.
Not all bad conduct is illegal. You are conflating the two because you are as partisan as Bragg. If bad behavior were a chargeable crime, there are lots of dems who would be under indictment (starting with HRC and several members of the Biden family). But that is banana republic/authoritarian behavior that the US did not engage in until today.
3. Under applicable Federal election law and DOJ guidance, the standard is not whether the payments had "nothing to do" with the campaign. Even if there was a mixed motive (which is the likely explanation) and mixed consequence (helping him both personally and his campaign), it is not criminal. And to be clear, NY state election law is irrelevant - doesn't apply to Trumps federal election.
4. Funny you want to characterize Cohen as the key witness. The guy convicted of perjury and financial/tax fraud crimes unrelated to Trump. No competent/honest prosecutor would ever bring a case that significantly relied upon testimony from that guy. And before you claim "Cohen plead guilty to federal campaign violations", read this and respond to the authoritative analysis therein.
https://www.nationalreview.com/2023/04/no-cohens-guilty-plea-does-not-prove-trump-committed-campaign-finance-crimes/?utm_source=recirc-desktop&utm_medium=homepage&utm_campaign=right-rail&utm_content=featured-writers&utm_term=fourth
5. Nice strawman. No one is complaining "about someone being charged with obvious crimes based on some standard that the crimes aren't serious enough or that the criminal was able to avoid prosecution for a few years in part due to corruption and in part due to dumb luck"
The claim here is that there are no chargeable state crimes - certainly not a felony. To suggest the crimes are "obvious" is just laughable given all that has happened here - Fed declining case, Vance declining case, Bragg declining to prosecute then changing his mind when he's the subject of partisan political pressure.
And if the crimes were "obvious", Bragg would not be resorting to novel and bizarre legal theories that are universally criticized and mocked. Even viewed in the favor most favorable to Bragg, there is no world were these crimes are "obvious."
Do you actually think that Trump is innocent or are you claiming that the crimes can't be proven or are you claiming that Bragg shouldn't be the one to bring charges?
What is your actual opinion on the behavior that Bragg has identified as illegal?
As far as strawmen go, you've created quite a few. I didn't call Cohen the key witness and in fact made the opposite case. People like you are working hard to minimize this case and make unsupported claims to defend Trump. You've been doing so from the get go. It's pretty clear that Bragg isn't relying solely on testimony from Cohen or Daniels.
Also, can you show support for your assertion that there was no crime based on the fact that the FEC chose not to move forward? From everything I've seen, the FEC chose not to pursue the claims because 2 Trump appointees opposed it. Do you feel like that's a solid basis for proclaiming his innocence?
The extent to which Trump supporters like BG bend over backwards to proclaim his innocence, including by amplifying the corrupt defenses of people he appointed to defend him, is embarrassing.
I will answer you, but you need to be clear in what you're asking. Are you asking if I think he broke any laws as alleged in the Bragg indictment?
Yes, I am asking you if you believe Trump is innocent of the charges alleged in Bragg's indictment. But moreover,I am really asking you to separate a lot of the alleged affirmative defenses (eg statute of limitations (which you haven't alleged) or the fact that other people didn't charge him with these crimes) because you seem to be saying that Trump cannot be found guilty of the crimes for a variety of reasons, not that Trump did not or could not have committed the alleged crimes.
MinotStateBeav said:
This is New York, there won't be a fair trial. It would be like trying an Obama crime at a Klan rally.
Are you suggesting Trump will be burned at the stake, or hanged from a tree?
I'm down with that!
I don't know if this is a strong case or not. But I don't understand the complaints I'm seeing here.
1. I don't know that Bidens DOJ looked at and passed on this case as claimed. Conflating the feckless and impotent FEC with the Biden DOJ seems dishonest to me.
2. Elections for Federal offices are still governed by state law. Did we learn nothing from all of Trump's judicial losses from the 2020 election?
3. If you dishonestly book a personal expense as a business expense and lower your profit, isn't that tax fraud?
1. I don't know that Bidens DOJ looked at and passed on this case as claimed. Conflating the feckless and impotent FEC with the Biden DOJ seems dishonest to me.
2. Elections for Federal offices are still governed by state law. Did we learn nothing from all of Trump's judicial losses from the 2020 election?
3. If you dishonestly book a personal expense as a business expense and lower your profit, isn't that tax fraud?
American Vermin
GoOskie said:
It's okay, there's still the Georgia investigation and the theft of secret documents. My supply of popcorn is nearby and ready.
Hey! Don't forget about the E Jean Carroll case where Trump is apparently going to have to testify. In 3 weeks!
We will need a new thread for that case!
I hope!
You recall this accusation, right?
They knew each other socially in 1990 and bumped into each other in a department store. He flirted and suggested she try on some lingerie. She obliged (which is insane to me, but whatever, not a crime). He then pushed on her into the dressing room, loosened his trousers, and raped her standing up.
Well then!
Apparently she has his semen on clothing. Sound familiar? But the judge has ruled out any DNA evidence in the case, so Trump didn't have to submit any.
The statute of limitations ran out long ago, but NY passed a law allowing a clearing of old Me Too accusations since they were ignored in the olden days. Accusers have something like 18 months(?) to bring forth their cases. Therefore, hello to this case - which IS happening before you can say "Hawaii".
tRump said, "I would have never believed this could happen in America."
…said the man that never passes up an opportunity to say one of his political enemies should be locked up.
…said the man that never passes up an opportunity to say one of his political enemies should be locked up.
Cancel my subscription to the Resurrection
Send my credentials to the House of Detention
I got some friends inside
Send my credentials to the House of Detention
I got some friends inside
bearister said:
tRump said, "I would have never believed this could happen in America."
…said the man that never passes up an opportunity to say one of his political enemies should be locked up.
Nobody should ever forget that trump took out a full page ad asking to kill black teens, who were later completely exonerated!
Racist A-Hole!!!
bearister said:
*Provided you can get passed the fact his groomer rubbed a balloon on his head.
Maybe when he's taken in as prisoner #59375104 they will shave his head as a safety measure so that he doesn't cut his own hair, weave a noose from it, and hang himself with it in a desperate act of depression.
Nah, better let him give it a try!
(I think there's enough swirl up there to do the job.)
concordtom said:
The statute of limitations ran out long ago, but NY passed a law allowing a clearing of old Me Too accusations since they were ignored in the olden days. Accusers have something like 18 months(?) to bring forth their cases. Therefore, hello to this case - which IS happening before you can say "Hawaii".
Yes, the Jean Carroll trial starts April 25th.
Carroll brought that lawsuit against Trump last November, after New York passed the Adult Survivors Act, which allows adults alleging sexual assault to bring civil claims years after the attack.
"Cults don't end well. They really don't."
dajo9 said:
I don't know if this is a strong case or not. But I don't understand the complaints I'm seeing here.
1. I don't know that Bidens DOJ looked at and passed on this case as claimed. Conflating the feckless and impotent FEC with the Biden DOJ seems dishonest to me.
2. Elections for Federal offices are still governed by state law. Did we learn nothing from all of Trump's judicial losses from the 2020 election?
3. If you dishonestly book a personal expense as a business expense and lower your profit, isn't that tax fraud?
Not to mention that if a Republican is elected POTUS they can pardon tRump of any Federal crime BUT NOT A STATE CRIME.*
*If memory serves, can't tRump still pull a self pardon out of his swag bag that he buried in there while still POTUS (but inapplicable to state crimes).
Cancel my subscription to the Resurrection
Send my credentials to the House of Detention
I got some friends inside
Send my credentials to the House of Detention
I got some friends inside
DiabloWags said:
Yes, the Jean Carroll trial starts April 25th.
Carroll brought that lawsuit against Trump last November, after New York passed the Adult Survivors Act, which allows adults alleging sexual assault to bring civil claims years after the attack.
Yes! Thank you!
It should be very entertaining, because she's not shy in telling her story.
Key for us will be whether she confirms the mushroom shape!
Donald's defense will be that he never penetrated, and she will explain that, "yes, mushrooms don't fit inside me."
Hey, don't flag me for being vulgar! This is all the public discourse of our President of the United States! What a classy guy!!!
I do believe she said his penetration was with his fingers!
Anyways, it'll be a popcorn party!!!
DiabloWags said:concordtom said:
The statute of limitations ran out long ago, but NY passed a law allowing a clearing of old Me Too accusations since they were ignored in the olden days. Accusers have something like 18 months(?) to bring forth their cases. Therefore, hello to this case - which IS happening before you can say "Hawaii".
Yes, the Jean Carroll trial starts April 25th.
Carroll brought that lawsuit against Trump last November, after New York passed the Adult Survivors Act, which allows adults alleging sexual assault to bring civil claims years after the attack.
California lifted the bar of the statute of limitations (for civil cases only; Cal Supreme Court ruled it unconstitutional to lift bar for criminal cases) for the one year,2003, resulting in the Diocese of Oakland paying out $56M(close to half insurance money). Gavin created a new two year window (2020-2022) to file statute barred cases, resulting in the filing of 330 new cases, almost all against the same pre-2003 players. Diocese threatening bankruptcy. No Bo-diddling events at my parish, St. Paschal's, even though some players passed through there when I was altar boying in mid 60's.
Cancel my subscription to the Resurrection
Send my credentials to the House of Detention
I got some friends inside
Send my credentials to the House of Detention
I got some friends inside
Like the things ML posts here on these boards, this man believes that there are secrets on Pelosi's laptop. Secrets. As in no one knows them. But HE knows them. He is holding onto truths that no one else has access to or has been suppressed from everyone and yet he gained access. What are the secrets? Oh, he can't say. He is also keeping the secret. There's always an unconfirmed conspiracy or "fact" floating out there in the land of make believe that never appears but absolutely confirms the MAGA belief system and all its tangled disconnected cult thinking.Unit2Sucks said:
I wonder if any of our boiled onion brain friends were among the small handful of Trump supporters for their criminal idol?Just a ton more anti-Trump protestors outside the park. Despite an all-caps call for his supporters to protest before his arrest, Trump supporters are getting deeply outnumbered by people in support of his arrest in lower Manhattan today. pic.twitter.com/z8BQ5ynaBV
— Ben Collins (@oneunderscore__) April 4, 2023
This is hilarious and could be any of a handful of current or former posters.Rather than being funny, this breaks my heart because most of us have someone that could identify as this man. I love this young reporter’s approach. Factual, but not condescending. pic.twitter.com/9z3483W3sz
— Melissa Good Trouble ♥️🌊🌻🇺🇦 (@Meltart) April 2, 2023
concordtom said:GoOskie said:
It's okay, there's still the Georgia investigation and the theft of secret documents. My supply of popcorn is nearby and ready.
Hey! Don't forget about the E Jean Carroll case where Trump is apparently going to have to testify. In 3 weeks!
We will need a new thread for that case!
I hope!
You recall this accusation, right?
They knew each other socially in 1990 and bumped into each other in a department store. He flirted and suggested she try on some lingerie. She obliged (which is insane to me, but whatever, not a crime). He then pushed on her into the dressing room, loosened his trousers, and raped her standing up.
Well then!
Apparently she has his semen on clothing. Sound familiar? But the judge has ruled out any DNA evidence in the case, so Trump didn't have to submit any.
The statute of limitations ran out long ago, but NY passed a law allowing a clearing of old Me Too accusations since they were ignored in the olden days. Accusers have something like 18 months(?) to bring forth their cases. Therefore, hello to this case - which IS happening before you can say "Hawaii".
I just watched two tapes of this woman, who President Trump says he doesn't even know. In both interviews by Liberal hosts, they lead her interview.
With Alisyn Camerota of CNN, she repeatedly refuses to even use the word 'rape', says it was a 'fight'. Says the alleged encounter was 'very, very, very, VERY brief'... but alternately says it was 15 minutes.
Camerota: "He raped you?" " Reply, "I have difficulty with that word."
I've never seen a survivor discuss rape with laughter and smiles.
No witness, no film, no evidence, the dressing room was open, nobody around, and the accusation surfaces when she had a book to peddle.
She also says: "I think most people think rape is
sexy."
Is "She's not my type" battery and defamation?
Her 2019 memoir title, "What Do We Need Men For?"
Here's what Trump says about the norms of being a famous man: "They let you do it. You can do anything. Grab 'em by the p@ussy."
Donald Trump sexual misconduct allegations - Wikipedia
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donald_Trump_sexual_misconduct_allegations
Donald Trump sexual misconduct allegations - Wikipedia
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donald_Trump_sexual_misconduct_allegations
Cancel my subscription to the Resurrection
Send my credentials to the House of Detention
I got some friends inside
Send my credentials to the House of Detention
I got some friends inside
Featured Stories
See All
Bears Defeat Cardinal To Take Season Series
by Cal Athletics
The Rodcast: Cal Portal
by Rod Benson
Five Impact Freshmen
by Bear Insider