Dershowitz Says Trump Will Lose In NY

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

However, that 'intent'-thingy is a thing as, very likely, the above will testify.
Chilliconfuzed misses the point of course.

What a total Scumbag, like Cohen, says was Trump’s intent is not only irrelevant, it’s objectionable. Witnesses cannot properly state their opinions and conjectures especially about things like the state of mind of another.
As offered earlier:
  • "New York appellate courts have held in a long series of cases that intent to defraud includes circumstances in which a defendant acts “for the purpose of frustrating the state’s power” to “faithfully carry out its own law.” To the extent Mr. Trump was covering up campaign contributions that violated New York law, that seems to be exactly what he did."
So, tho I ain't a lawyer, I could see an argument going this way:
  • Witness Pecker said he paid this money to these folks so they wouldn't hurt the election.
  • Witness Cohen said he paid this money to these gals so they wouldn't hurt the election.
Prosecutor: Who asked you to pay this money? Don Trump did? OK, thank you.
Prosecutor: Did he say why he wanted you to pay this money? OK, He said it would harm his election chances. OK, thank you.
Prosecutor: Oh by the way, did he ever mention it was his intent to keep the revelation of these serial infidelities away from his current wife? He never did, OK, thank you.

So, you see, good poster BackAgain.....the above is my imagination, but......but if this thing goes to trial, intent will be a thing, in this prosecution thing.

I ain't a lawyer.....but I think it will be a thing
*.
You are wrong. If (big if) scumbag Cohen claims that Trump ever said what his intent was, that might be admissible. But I don’t think that you’re baseless speculation has any validity. If Trump supposedly told Cohen to pay in cash, that direction may be admissible. But if Trump never said “my reason to payoff the honks to assist my re-election prospects,” which only the most gullible would believe he ever verbalized, then the jury ain’t likely to be getting ANY evidence of Trump’s “intent.”

And your avatar (which still doesn’t even exist) doesn’t have any opinions at all. Even if you had an avatar, what you’re actually saying is what your own opinion is.
 
Alan Dershowitz, the former Trump lawyer, says nobody can get Trump off in the New York criminal case.
Alan says he wouldn't help the guy because he only helps a client one time. I guess that's Alan's way of saying he, himself, is a crappy attorney.

"During an interview with right-wing host Charlie Kirk on Wednesday, Dershowitz revealed that he would decline to represent Trump following Tuesday's arraignment in New York City"

"Well, I have a policy of only representing somebody once," he explained. "I don't think I could get this case dismissed so easily. I don't think that if you had the best lawyers in the history of the world, Abraham Lincoln and John Marshall, a New York City judge would dismiss this case because that New York City judge's life would be over."

Maybe MAGA Macho Man should chime in after that OP of his last Sunday where he posited Alan as the man.
In reality, Alan Dershowitz is all mouth and a perverted old shell of a pathetic useless man.

The reason Trump is hysterically raving about a district attorney being an "Animal!" and a "Psychopath!" rather than attempting to refute, in a sane, coherent, adult, and substantive manner, the charges concerning his paying off bimbos with whom he rutted behind the back of a pregnant trophy wife and claiming it as a business expense, may be that he has dispassionately assessed his realistic prospects in court, but, in any event, the hurdles get higher and his big, fat arse he has to haul over them is as heavy as ever.

What he might try is admitting to his skanky ways, pleading ignorance, and insisting that he was relying entirely upon "Fixer" Cohen's legal advice.


Trump's team is way more worried about the
Mar-a-Lago classified documents case
and the Georgia elections investigation

Screen Shot 2023-02-21 at 3.34.42 PM.png
 
The reason Trump is hysterically raving about a district attorney being an "Animal!" and a "Psychopath!" rather than attempting to refute, in a sane, coherent, adult, and substantive manner, the charges concerning his paying off bimbos with whom he rutted behind the back of a pregnant trophy wife and claiming it as a business expense, may be that he has dispassionately assessed his realistic prospects in court, but, in any event, the hurdles get higher and his big, fat arse he has to haul over them is as heavy as ever.

What he might try is admitting to his skanky ways, pleading ignorance, and insisting that he was relying entirely upon "Fixer" Cohen's legal advice.


He's a mental case. He hates everything.
 
He's a mental case. He hates everything.
His hysterical media melt-down, no doubt, entices nutty folks to lavish money upon him and threaten officers of the law and their families, but does nothing to contest the charges against him in court.

How rational can they be when he spews blatant lies at them and they still quiver in bobble-head obeisance, oblivious to the blatant contradiction of braying about "open borders!" after Trump claims that he succeeded in building his "big, beautiful wall" (for which he forced Mexico to pay) to prevent illegal immigration:


Screen Shot 2023-03-19 at 8.13.37 PM.png

"You know, the wall is built.
We're doing record numbers at the wall...
We did a great job in the wall...
Remember, the wall, they said it could never be done.

One of the largest infrastructure projects we've ever had in this country...!"
[https://www.npr.org/2021/02/10/966396848/read-trumps-jan-6-speech-a-key-part-of-impeachment-trial]
 
No dummy, unlawful means is not the payment to Stormy, but the FRAUD commited when these payments were filed as bussiness expenses.

It's illegal to lie in financial filings and cheat on taxes. Did they not teach you that in law school?

Using an NDA is considered part of doing business.

And Bragg alleges that Trump while breaking no law here may have intended to do so at some future date. :auiqs.jpg:

Bragg is a buffoon.
 
Using an NDA is considered part of doing business.

And Bragg alleges that Trump while breaking no law here may have intended to do so at some future date. :auiqs.jpg:

Bragg is a buffoon.
Tromp's weird worshipers are very upset with the DA for charging their object of veneration whom they believe to be above the law.

Nevertheless, the court will be impervious to the vituperation spewed at Bragg, and the death threats aimed at him, the judge and their families.
 
The reason Trump is hysterically raving about a district attorney being an "Animal!" and a "Psychopath!" rather than attempting to refute, in a sane, coherent, adult, and substantive manner, the charges concerning his paying off bimbos with whom he rutted behind the back of a pregnant trophy wife and claiming it as a business expense, may be that he has dispassionately assessed his realistic prospects in court, but, in any event, the hurdles get higher and his big, fat arse he has to haul over them is as heavy as ever.

What he might try is admitting to his skanky ways, pleading ignorance, and insisting that he was relying entirely upon "Fixer" Cohen's legal advice.




 
Using an NDA is considered part of doing business
BS. Paying fuck dolls to keep quiet had nothing to do with Trump's bussiness, it had to do with his election.

Another fuck doll he paid off was released from her NDA right after election:
  • June 2016: AMI and Cohen, with $150,000 and an NDA, buy the silence of Karen McDougal, who allegedly had an extramarital affair with Trump while he was married.
  • November 2016: Trump wins the presidential election and releases the doorman and McDougal from their NDAs.

 
Is this a desperate attempt to diver from the thread's topic?

100186.gif

"Oh, yeah!
Well, whaddabout...?"
 
Tromp's weird worshipers are very upset with the DA for charging their object of veneration whom they believe to be above the law.

Nevertheless, the court will be impervious to the vituperation spewed at Bragg, and the death threats aimed at him, the judge and their families.
death threats, what a fucking idiot, follow the machine, do as you are told lmao
 
death threats, what a fucking idiot, follow the machine, do as you are told lmao
I support prosecution based upon evidence and recommended by a grand jury, with the accused having the right to challenge that evidence as is guaranteed under the American justice system, not hysterical tantrums and threats to district attorneys' and judges' families.

When any skanky politician does das schmutzige Ding with bimbos behind the backs of pregnant trophy wives to avoid yet another campaign scandal, and tries to declare the payoffs as business expenses, he should have the right to defend himself in court.
 
Alan Dershowitz, the former Trump lawyer, says nobody can get Trump off in the New York criminal case.
Alan says he wouldn't help the guy because he only helps a client one time. I guess that's Alan's way of saying he, himself, is a crappy attorney.

"During an interview with right-wing host Charlie Kirk on Wednesday, Dershowitz revealed that he would decline to represent Trump following Tuesday's arraignment in New York City"

"Well, I have a policy of only representing somebody once," he explained. "I don't think I could get this case dismissed so easily. I don't think that if you had the best lawyers in the history of the world, Abraham Lincoln and John Marshall, a New York City judge would dismiss this case because that New York City judge's life would be over."

Maybe MAGA Macho Man should chime in after that OP of his last Sunday where he posited Alan as the man.
In reality, Alan Dershowitz is all mouth and a perverted old shell of a pathetic useless man.

If you followed this closer you would know that he is referring to if it went to a jury. This case will NEVER get that far.
 

Forum List

Back
Top