Exactly. If he were doing anything else but testilieing against Donald Trump, you would never cite him as a source of the truth.
Eh . . . You’re drifting off topic, sir. There are plenty of threads on which to obsess about Trump in general. This is about the Manhattan case.
Pecker publishes lies for a living. He is testifying under threat of prosecution. Did you believe him also when he said that Late Justice Scalia had been murdered by a $2,000 a night hooker? That Hillary Clinton deleted emails from lesbian lovers?
If the case is so strong, why not lead off with witnesses who are not tainted, especially not tainted due to lying to the whole country?
Then what do you need Cohen for? Just show the emails and the bank records. I wouldn’t want Cohen within a mile of my case if I thought I could win it.
The prosecution, not Trump, has the burden of proof. So far the only evidence you have suggested is that two professional liars say so, and the rhetorical question of what else could it be?
Even if it was reimbursement for the NDA, that’s not illegal, and calling payments to one’s lawyer to reimburse a legal expense he paid “legal fees” is a crime only in an overactive imagination.
Trump was under no obligation to enter into a ledger or check stub “paying back my lawyer for paying the NDA fee to keep the lying porn performer from publishing lies about me.”
Or he could have let the lawyer advance the money and then reimburse him, which is perfectly legal.
The “campaign contribution” idea is luducrious convoluted logic. That’s why Bragg hid it for so long. When I made this thread it was still not announced. That’s why y’all were stumped,
Oh yeah! I remember how well your side took Roe being rescinded. Yep, that was the decision and you never went after the justices for it!
I never said this case was rigged. I said and say, this a fake case brought mainly to confine Trump during the campaign season and force him to listen to paid liars smear him.
In fact, I think it is the opposite of rigged. They don’t expect a conviction.
Let me ask this: why do you doubt Trumps guilt in this case?
Who says? If he was the only witness you are right I wouldn't. He however isn't. Not even close. Nor does the case just rely on his testimony. He taped Trump, there's email chains. Checks, etc. etc.Exactly. If he were doing anything else but testilieing against Donald Trump, you would never cite him as a source of the truth.
Yes it is. Like it or not, Trump's previous run- ins with the law. Including run-ins that resulted in CONVICTIONS and sanctions in both the falsifying of business records and campaign finance violations are relevant. It's hilarious that that is a concept you recognize for Cohen AND Pecker but not for Trump.. . . You’re drifting off topic, sir. There are plenty of threads on which to obsess about Trump in general. This is about the Manhattan case.
They had Pecker, Cohen's banker, Pecker's lawyer and Hope Hicks. What's the "taint" of the last 3. What would compell them to perjure themselves?If the case is so strong, why not lead off with witnesses who are not tainted, especially not tainted due to lying to the whole country?
Cohen is the central figure. In order to NOT be considered untrustworthy his account needs to be corroborated. That's what's happening right now.Then what do you need Cohen for? Just show the emails and the bank records. I wouldn’t want Cohen within a mile of my case if I thought I could win it.
Sure he is. If done to help his election bid. Something that testimony is showing was the purpose of the payments. That's the crime. If he would have reported the payment he wouldn't be in this mess.Trump was under no obligation to enter into a ledger or check stub “paying back my lawyer for paying the NDA fee to keep the lying porn performer from publishing lies about me.”
Neither legal, nor credible. It was put on the books as a legal retainer while it was a reimbursement. Cohen took a home equity loan to provide the funds.Or he could have let the lawyer advance the money and then reimburse him, which is perfectly legal.
As I said there's not a lawyer in the world that would put himself on the hook for a loan in order to spot a billionaire client.
As I pointed out before this "logic" is very similar to the logic when they charged John Edwards.The “campaign contribution” idea is luducrious convoluted logic.
Begging the question again I see. In any case, does that mean you will accept the jury verdict whatever it is?I never said this case was rigged. I said and say, this a fake case brought mainly to confine Trump during the campaign season and force him to listen to paid liars smear him.
In fact, I think it is the opposite of rigged. They don’t expect a conviction.
I don't doubt Trump's guilt at all. I doubt that the elements of the case are enough to overcome the beyond reasonable doubt standard required to convict and uphold the ruling on appeal. Both for legal and political reasons. Less so on the jury trial as the case is being presented, but on appeal I honestly don't know. Not so much because of the weakness of the case and more from the unprecedented nature of it. Considering the status of the accused.Let me ask this: why do you doubt Trumps guilt in this case?