…you should have no doubt if you followed the Trump trial in NY. They didn’t even try to hide it.

I have no idea why they are wasting time on a trial!

The bloody MAGA ARSEHOLE has been a criminal all his life!

The poor criminal has to face the music....I think I hear the world's smallest violin playing a sad song.

Care about Trump or hate him…you should be ashamed of your country. If not, there in lies the problem. This trial was a sham…they didn’t even try to hide that fact.

Even if he is acquitted or the jury hangs, the trial was worth it to just to make the bastard sit there and have his lies, deceit and immoral conduct force fed him. And I would not be betting my life savings he will be acquitted or the jury will hang. You commit the crime, you may beat the rap but you aren’t going to beat the ride.

What I am ashamed of is that the presumptive GOP nominee for POTUS tried to steal an election, then will be nominated again by his party. That is something to be ashamed of....

Why are some of you ashamed of this happening??

YOU, yes, YOU, as voters are guilty of it!

The shame is his pet Judge slow-walking his espionage trial in Florida for compromising sensitive national security and intelligence information, any one page of which would send an enlisted soldier to prison for ten years.

Lane must have had a big ol' glass of Kool Aid for breakfast today.

quote:

Originally posted by Jefffive:
The shame is his pet Judge slow-walking his espionage trial in Florida for compromising sensitive national security and intelligence information, any one page of which would send an enlisted soldier to prison for ten years.

Unless you’re Joe, the Big Guy and his super secure garage and the Chinese storage at Penn Biden Center. Ironic, isn’t it that Biden gets a DOJ pass for being old and senile and his supporters seem to forget that immediately. They don’t even want the American public to see Joe’s interviews on tape. What’s with that?

It surely isn’t intellectual honesty to not treat the hose and gander equally.

“Show me the man and I’ll find the crime.” Beria

quote:

Originally posted by JudgeG:

quote:

Originally posted by Jefffive:
The shame is his pet Judge slow-walking his espionage trial in Florida for compromising sensitive national security and intelligence information, any one page of which would send an enlisted soldier to prison for ten years.

Unless you’re Joe, the Big Guy. Ironic, isn’t it that Biden gets a DOJ pass for being old and senile and his supporters seem to forget immediately.

When President Biden was made aware that marked documents were among his records he immediately notified the proper agencies and surrendered them, he did not engage in a shell game to hide hundreds of them, delete video footage showing his efforts to avoid surrendering them nor involve lawyers in lying about having complied with grand jury subpoenas for them.

Yep, the old “I gave back what I wrongfully stole and I forgot I stole it because I’m old and cognitively impaired” defense. Oh yeah, and… “the DOJ works for me”.

It is damn near impossible to deny that there’s a two tiered justice system that’s allowed (and even encouraged here on AR) because Trump is so hated (rightfully or wrongfully). The tiers are justified and the weaponization of the justice system is okay because the ends justify the means.

Payback for that will be a MF, I’m afraid.

Almost forgot… Hillary got a pass for innumerable felonies because “No reasonable prosecutor would prosecute” Just coincidentally, it was the day after the AG clandestinely met on the tarmac with Bubba Bill to discuss grandchildren. Give me a break.

quote:

Originally posted by ledvm:
Care about Trump or hate him…you should be ashamed of your country. If not, there in lies the problem. This trial was a sham…they didn’t even try to hide that fact.

You're the one that ought to be ashamed. For supporting the asshat.

I guess FOX is beating the "lawfare" drum today based on what I see here from the brain-washed trumptard masses.

"Judge", it's clear that reading and comprehending is beyond you but get somebody to read this to you and see if you can spot the difference...

Link

quote:

Originally posted by MJines:
Even if he is acquitted or the jury hangs, the trial was worth it to just to make the bastard sit there and have his lies, deceit and immoral conduct force fed him.

That^^^would pretty much be the definition of “lawfare.”

And I would not be betting my life savings he will be acquitted or the jury will hang. You commit the crime,

Just exactly what crime would that be?

you may beat the rap but you aren’t going to beat the ride.

Jines

Crime . . . falsifying business records. Even you should be able to understand that. Legal fees are for legal work, legal fees are not hush money paid to your porn star mistress.

quote:

Originally posted by MJines:
Even if he is acquitted or the jury hangs, the trial was worth it to just to make the bastard sit there and have his lies, deceit and immoral conduct force fed him. ... You commit the crime, you may beat the rap but you aren’t going to beat the ride.

Hey, Mike,
In you infinite, unbiased, and pure opinion, what part, what SINGLE WORD of Stormy's "testimony" showed a SINGLE scintilla of proof about Trump directing accounting entries?

Nuttin -- I mean, i get it, you have TDS, and you are cool with that --
'

What a hoot.
Joe, according to the Special Prosecutor, broke the law but was too old and forgetful to be convicted. Huh?
Can you honestly deny the facts presented by the SP. He still hasn’t returned the classified documents at the Penn Biden center, incidentally, funded by the Chinese government.
Then explain how one escapes criminal liability due to cognitive decline but is qualified to run the presidency. 2 tiers is the only explanation .
BTW, I never said Trump didn’t break the law, also.

. . . maybe you missed that Stormy was not the only prosecution witness. Her testimony was not to establish that false entries were made, that was the job of other witnesses.

I am happy to let the jurors decide. They heard the evidence. They can judge the credibility of the witnesses. Let them decide based on the law given them by the judge. I’ll accept that. On the flip side it is the Trump sycophants that absolutely will not accept any result other than acquittal. Who’s being close minded?

quote:

Originally posted by ledvm:
…you should have no doubt if you followed the Trump trial in NY. They didn’t even try to hide it.

You should know better. Did you sit through the trial, listen to and weigh the evidence, like the jury will be asked to do?

If not, what are your hearsay sources?

The jury will decide whether to believe the key witnesses on issues relevant to guilt. If the verdict is an outright acquittal, the prosecution will be embarrassed. Why not trust the jury to get it right?

quote:

Originally posted by JudgeG:
What a hoot.
Joe, according to the Special Prosecutor, broke the law but was too old and forgetful to be convicted. Huh?
Can you honestly deny the facts presented by the SP. He still hasn’t returned the classified documents at the Penn Biden center, incidentally, funded by the Chinese government.
Then explain how one escapes criminal liability due to cognitive decline but is qualified to run the presidency. 2 tiers is the only explanation .
BTW, I never said Trump didn’t break the law, also.

Read the first two sentences of Hur's report, stupid:

quote:

We conclude that no criminal charges are warranted in this matter.1 We would reach the same conclusion even if Department of Justice policy did not foreclose criminal charges against a sitting president.

quote:

Originally posted by ledvm:
Care about Trump or hate him…you should be ashamed of your country. If not, there in lies the problem. This trial was a sham…they didn’t even try to hide that fact.

This was a prosecution by the City of New York. I feel no shame on behalf of my country. The country, the Democrats, or Trump haters generally were not responsible for this prosecution.

Decisions to prosecute, or not prosecute, are often partly political, especially where DAs are elected. You're just complaining about it now because your Great Leader is the defendant.

I never cease to be amazed by the cult members' loyalty. No matter what he does, no matter how many lies he tells, no matter how many laws he violates....they rush to his defense. Cult.

Buffoon. Idiot. Liar. Philanderer. Cheats on his wife, can't open his mouth without lying.

But, he is their orange jesus.

It is bizarre.

quote:

Originally posted by ledvm:

quote:

Originally posted by MJines:
Even if he is acquitted or the jury hangs, the trial was worth it to just to make the bastard sit there and have his lies, deceit and immoral conduct force fed him.

That^^^would pretty much be the definition of “lawfare.”

And I would not be betting my life savings he will be acquitted or the jury will hang. You commit the crime,

Just exactly what crime would that be?

you may beat the rap but you aren’t going to beat the ride.

Jines

Lane....trump cheats on his wife.

How does that play in to your beliefs?

quote:

Originally posted by ledvm:
…you should have no doubt if you followed the Trump trial in NY. They didn’t even try to hide it.

Or....

https://www.newsweek.com/trump...deadly-force-1903247

https://www.foxnews.com/politi...orce-mar-a-lago-raid

https://www.independentsentine...the-mar-a-lago-raid/

3 sources cited

quote:

Originally posted by MJines:
. . . maybe you missed that Stormy was... {a} prosecution witness.

there, i fixed it for you - What part of her testimony "proved" the case? Last time i checked, legitimate trials don't have "color commentators"


You realize you are defending a salacious porn star testifying in a pretty dry technical accounting case, right?

I guess you support Nacho Camacho for president?

Absolutely hilarious those of you defending the orange turd.

I asked my accountant, he won't let me take hookers as a tax deduction.

quote:

Originally posted by Steve Ahrenberg:

quote:

Originally posted by ledvm:
…you should have no doubt if you followed the Trump trial in NY. They didn’t even try to hide it.

Or....

https://www.newsweek.com/trump...deadly-force-1903247

https://www.foxnews.com/politi...orce-mar-a-lago-raid

https://www.independentsentine...the-mar-a-lago-raid/

3 sources cited

So what? It's probably just SOP stuff anyway? It's like a weapon, better to have it and not need it than to need it and not have it.

BTW was the stuff loaded onto a NJ bound plane copies of the classified items?

quote:

Absolutely hilarious those of you defending the orange turd.

Not the word I would use. Sick, pathetic, brainless, etc. All of them. Without morals or character. Brown shirts at a minimum.

quote:

Originally posted by jeffeosso:

quote:

Originally posted by MJines:
. . . maybe you missed that Stormy was... {a} prosecution witness.

there, i fixed it for you - What part of her testimony "proved" the case? Last time i checked, legitimate trials don't have "color commentators"


You realize you are defending a salacious porn star testifying in a pretty dry technical accounting case, right?

I guess you support Nacho Camacho for president?

I presume (hopefully) that you are intentionally pretending to be obtuse. Let me posit a variety of reasons the prosecution would call Stormy as a witness.

- Trump has denied having the affair with Stormy. Perhaps they put her on the stand to prove the affair, to provide a motive for payment and to paint Trump as a liar.

- Perhaps they called her to bolster the testimony of Pecker (pun intended) and Cohen regarding the true purpose of the payment.

- Perhaps they called her to bolster the testimony of Hicks about how concerned the campaign was about the harm that her going public might have had weeks before the election in light of the Access Hollywood video and the other allegations of women that allegedly had affairs with Trump.

The prosecution has to weave the testimony into a tapestry for the jury. How do you do that when the contention is that falsified business records pertain to a hush money payment to someone, if you do not have that someone testify.

Surely (hopefully) you can appreciated the foregoing and were just trying to stir the pot. As for me defending a porn star, I am not the one that elected to bang a porn star while my wife was at home with my kid then paid the porn star off to shut her up on the eve of the election . . . then falsify business records claiming that the hush money payment was “legal fees”. That was the Orange Jesus.

“Lawfare" is a legitimate word and concept, and has a specific definition.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lawfare

Trump has been using Lawfare all his life, and succeeding at it.

As I recall, it was Fox News who started using the term in relation to indictments for Trump's alleged crimes. It fits the flipped/spun narrative well for the old Farter Martyr.

It's really a gross projection on Trump supporters' part and Trump. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...hological_projection

IOW, psychological BS, on a magnitude the scale of Fox News' reach.

The reality is that everything about Trump(ism) is a direct conflict with the rule of law; Founding Principles. That's the lawfare.

quote:

Originally posted by MJines:

quote:

Originally posted by jeffeosso:

quote:

Originally posted by MJines:
. . . maybe you missed that Stormy was... {a} prosecution witness.

there, i fixed it for you - What part of her testimony "proved" the case? Last time i checked, legitimate trials don't have "color commentators"


You realize you are defending a salacious porn star testifying in a pretty dry technical accounting case, right?

I guess you support Nacho Camacho for president?

- Trump has denied having the affair with Stormy. Perhaps they put her on the stand to prove the affair, to provide a motive for payment and to paint Trump as a liar.

and yet this has NOTHING to do with accounting entries, does it?

quote:

Originally posted by MJines:

- Perhaps they called her to bolster the testimony of Pecker (pun intended) and Cohen regarding the true purpose of the payment.

and the judge allowed salacious testimony, without scintilla of relevant data to the "charges"

quote:

Originally posted by MJines:

- Perhaps they called her to bolster the testimony of Hicks about how concerned the campaign was about the harm that her going public might have had weeks before the election in light of the Access Hollywood video and the other allegations of women that allegedly had affairs with Trump.

Except they didn't even remotely ask her of data she has ZERO knowledge of -- Heck, not even Cohen presented this data

quote:

Originally posted by MJines:

The prosecution has to weave the testimony into a tapestry for the jury.

Mike, really? a porn star that has ZERO knowledge of the accounting practices of which trump is charged with

quote:

Originally posted by MJines:

How do you do that when the contention is that falsified business records pertain to a hush money payment to someone, if you do not have that someone testify.

you get a couple CFA and CPA on the stand, along with and FEC expert, and present DATA -

quote:

Originally posted by MJines:

Surely (hopefully) you can appreciated the foregoing and were just trying to stir the pot.

you have our respective roles inverted

quote:

Originally posted by MJines:
As for me defending a porn star, I am not the one that elected to bang a porn star

I certainly didn't help elect this idiot -

quote:

Originally posted by MJines:
while my wife was at home with my kid then paid the porn star off to shut her up on the eve of the election

salacious comment with ZERO bearing on the case.. just like her testimony

quote:

Originally posted by MJines:
. . . then falsify business records claiming that the hush money payment was “legal fees”.

you know the WEIRD part? The prosecution didn't call a witness or hostile witness that could have said "trump directed this to be coded as such" -- oh, wait, SoL expired on the charges

quote:

Originally posted by MJines:
That was the Orange Jesus.

I prefer Dorito Jesus, but sure...

Dang, Mike -- you are supporting having a porn star rant on about an UNPROVEN (i do assume it happened, btw) event, without a shred of evidence -- though, to be honest, she at least remembered the date and location... but apparently neither of those are required to ascribe culpability ...


Your TDS is showing .. i don't like the guy either, but I am not an officer of the court... just an humble (chuckle) MBA and Technologist .. formulas and rules and decent conduct are pretty easy for me... how about you?

last time i checked, the judge actually doesn't allow "everyone that wanted to say something" to do so... or allowed them on the stand ...

just a friggin JOKE

. . . maybe my hopes were unfounded.

There's a piece of this puzzle that seems to be missing.

Why didn't Trump file a civil suit on Daniels for breach of the non-disclosure agreement?

Same for Cohen - perhaps attorney-client privilege?

Humm, maybe that would show evidence to be used against him.

I don't recall a non-disclosure agreement being presented as evidence. NDAs were Trump's thing.

McDougal's story was captured by Pecker, who bought exclusive rights and didn't intend to publish it in the first place. Trump paid for that. How was it booked?

Seems to me that this NY doings is a cluster-phuck of Trump surrounding himself with NY sleaze.

Surly, a NY jury will know it when they see it, for what it is.

Here's an explanation:

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news...990806619d214a&ei=31

Judge Merchan 'Tipped His Hand' on Key Issue: Attorney
Story by Alia Shoaib • 3h • 2 min read

(excerpt)

The defense contends that the payment was made to protect Trump and his wife, Melania Trump, from embarrassment.

(It's how the payment was booked, with Trump's knowledge, that matters. The defense apparently concedes the payment was in fact made on Trump's behalf.)

(following the link in the article "defense contends":

https://www.newsweek.com/donal...-examination-1901278

(excerpt)

"Cohen is either a morally reformed Trump fixer trying to atone for his past sins, or is a vindictive former employee out for revenge. Or some combination of the two. His testimony that his job was to lie and bully people for Trump fits both scenarios,"

====================================================

No doubt, Cohen as Trump's fixer and bully was his hired Lawfare expert.

quote:

Originally posted by Mike Mitchell:

quote:

Originally posted by ledvm:

quote:

Originally posted by MJines:
Even if he is acquitted or the jury hangs, the trial was worth it to just to make the bastard sit there and have his lies, deceit and immoral conduct force fed him.

That^^^would pretty much be the definition of “lawfare.”

And I would not be betting my life savings he will be acquitted or the jury will hang. You commit the crime,

Just exactly what crime would that be?

you may beat the rap but you aren’t going to beat the ride.

Jines

Lane....trump cheats on his wife.

How does that play in to your beliefs?

It plays nicely into his beliefs. As Lane demonstrates repeatedly, today's Christians can rationalize anything.

quote:

Originally posted by jeffeosso:

quote:

Originally posted by MJines:

quote:

Originally posted by jeffeosso:

quote:

Originally posted by MJines:
. . . maybe you missed that Stormy was... {a} prosecution witness.

there, i fixed it for you - What part of her testimony "proved" the case? Last time i checked, legitimate trials don't have "color commentators"


You realize you are defending a salacious porn star testifying in a pretty dry technical accounting case, right?

I guess you support Nacho Camacho for president?

- Trump has denied having the affair with Stormy. Perhaps they put her on the stand to prove the affair, to provide a motive for payment and to paint Trump as a liar.

and yet this has NOTHING to do with accounting entries, does it?

quote:

Originally posted by MJines:

- Perhaps they called her to bolster the testimony of Pecker (pun intended) and Cohen regarding the true purpose of the payment.

and the judge allowed salacious testimony, without scintilla of relevant data to the "charges"

quote:

Originally posted by MJines:

- Perhaps they called her to bolster the testimony of Hicks about how concerned the campaign was about the harm that her going public might have had weeks before the election in light of the Access Hollywood video and the other allegations of women that allegedly had affairs with Trump.

Except they didn't even remotely ask her of data she has ZERO knowledge of -- Heck, not even Cohen presented this data

quote:

Originally posted by MJines:

The prosecution has to weave the testimony into a tapestry for the jury.

Mike, really? a porn star that has ZERO knowledge of the accounting practices of which trump is charged with

quote:

Originally posted by MJines:

How do you do that when the contention is that falsified business records pertain to a hush money payment to someone, if you do not have that someone testify.

you get a couple CFA and CPA on the stand, along with and FEC expert, and present DATA -

quote:

Originally posted by MJines:

Surely (hopefully) you can appreciated the foregoing and were just trying to stir the pot.

you have our respective roles inverted

quote:

Originally posted by MJines:
As for me defending a porn star, I am not the one that elected to bang a porn star

I certainly didn't help elect this idiot -

quote:

Originally posted by MJines:
while my wife was at home with my kid then paid the porn star off to shut her up on the eve of the election

salacious comment with ZERO bearing on the case.. just like her testimony

quote:

Originally posted by MJines:
. . . then falsify business records claiming that the hush money payment was “legal fees”.

you know the WEIRD part? The prosecution didn't call a witness or hostile witness that could have said "trump directed this to be coded as such" -- oh, wait, SoL expired on the charges

quote:

Originally posted by MJines:
That was the Orange Jesus.

I prefer Dorito Jesus, but sure...

Dang, Mike -- you are supporting having a porn star rant on about an UNPROVEN (i do assume it happened, btw) event, without a shred of evidence -- though, to be honest, she at least remembered the date and location... but apparently neither of those are required to ascribe culpability ...


Your TDS is showing .. i don't like the guy either, but I am not an officer of the court... just an humble (chuckle) MBA and Technologist .. formulas and rules and decent conduct are pretty easy for me... how about you?

1) Daniel’s testimony is evidence. The jury will decide weight of her testimony and credibility.

2) Trump’s defense did not object to her descriptive testimony.

3) As the Judge explained, when the defense in opening statement attacked Daniel’s credibility, the prosecution was permitted to address that with her testimony of the sex. The defense opened the door.

4) I do fear the description was too much as to be prejudicial. However, the defense did not object.

5) The payment being made is not contested. The defense appears to have advanced two theories. 1) The payment was made so President Trump’s knowledge and consent. 2 In the alternative, the payment was not made to benefit the campaign, but to prevent domestic unpleasantness.

4) Hicks and Pecker’s testimonies are what the prosecution is relying on to advance the fact the payment was made to benefit the campaign. The jury is permitted to draw reasonable inferences from their testimony. What is a reasonable inference? In practice, it is what the appellate courts say. In theory/stated rule, it is any inference supported by sufficient evidence that would permit a reasonable juror to so conclude. That the appellate court would have chosen opposite is not sufficient to overturn.
They are also relying some on Cohen for this. Of you believe Cohen was order to make this payment, you can infer from the other testimonies that it was made to benefit the campaign.

As of today, President Trump is innocent. President Trump is protected by the right to remain silent, and his invocation of that right cannot be used by the jury.

quote:

Originally posted by RolandtheHeadless:

quote:

Originally posted by Mike Mitchell:

quote:

Originally posted by ledvm:

quote:

Originally posted by MJines:
Even if he is acquitted or the jury hangs, the trial was worth it to just to make the bastard sit there and have his lies, deceit and immoral conduct force fed him.

That^^^would pretty much be the definition of “lawfare.”

And I would not be betting my life savings he will be acquitted or the jury will hang. You commit the crime,

Just exactly what crime would that be?

you may beat the rap but you aren’t going to beat the ride.

Jines

Lane....trump cheats on his wife.

How does that play in to your beliefs?

It plays nicely into his beliefs. As Lane demonstrates repeatedly, today's Christians can rationalize anything.

Uh, no.
What does your son and daughter in law think?
What would your parents have thought?