Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
It depends. If the person who represented himself as "Mickey Mouse" did it to protect his identity (for a legitimate reason), it could be perfectly admissible. The person's identity would be revealed to the jury (and the defense) and redacted from the public record.Fictional characters have no credibility, as a matter of law. The judge would not allow it. He would not allow it before the jury.
Breaking laws is what the trials will determine, and he is going to trial.Trump didn't break any laws. If anything, it was his lawyer that broke the law. You cannot be convicted of a felony for following legal advice from your lawyer.
It's not like he was taking money from the Ukrainians and the Chinese like Biden.
That is also irrelevant, because no one is trying to enforce the NDA.
The fact of it's existence is not in dispute by either side. It's actually one of the cornerstones of the prosecution's case. That NDA was the basis for the campaign finance conviction, hello?
Well, if they put Mickey on the stand and he says he signed the motherfucker then it is an admission.So a statement claiming they saw Trump committing a crime, signed "Mickey Mouse" would sway a jury?
Stormy also said that statement was made under duress.It depends. If the person who represented himself as "Mickey Mouse" did it to protect his identity (for a legitimate reason), it could be perfectly admissible. The person's identity would be revealed to the jury (and the defense) and redacted from the public record.
You seem to be arguing things that are not disputed- why is that?
It's bullshit.You have it backwards. This is my favorite post on it.
And if Mickey Mouse said the statement was made under duress?Well, if they put Mickey on the stand and he says he signed the motherfucker then it is an admission.
The existence of an NDA is an admission of guilt. It's one of the reasons Stormy Daniels lost her lawsuit against Trump.That is also irrelevant, because no one is trying to enforce the NDA.
The fact of it's existence is not in dispute by either side. It's actually one of the cornerstones of the prosecution's case. That NDA was the basis for the campaign finance conviction, hello?
Still have that imprint of Trump's ass on your face? People are talking.How about you suck a dick....
Absolutely not. Trump relied on the position of the presidency to protect him from any criminal action against him. He knew if he could delay any criminal trials for four years, would give him another chance of criminal immunity. Which would also run out the statute of limitations.It's bullshit.
The idea that Trump would have never thought of running for a second term if they had not been looking to indict him is silly beyond belief.
He could claim that, but it would have to prove he was under duress.And if Mickey Mouse said the statement was made under duress?
David Dennison (aka Trump) never signed the agreement.The existence of an NDA is an admission of guilt. It's one of the reasons Stormy Daniels lost her lawsuit against Trump.
If she signed an NDA, then she went back on her word which is actionable in court.
The statute of limitations has already run out on these fake crimes. The statute of limitations in NY is 2 years for misdemeanors and 5 years for felonies.Absolutely not. Trump relied on the position of the presidency to protect him from any criminal action against him. He knew if he could delay any criminal trials for four years, would give him another chance of criminal immunity. Which would also run out the statute of limitations.
www.newsweek.com
It wasn't an NDA. Show me a copy of the NDA, shitforbrains.David Dennison (aka Trump) never signed the agreement.
The NDA was null and void.
So you are what- overturning Cohen's conviction?The unsworn, un-notarized statement isn't admissible without the witness affirming to it in court.
Who cares? I already said, the jury's job is to determine the credibility of all evidence presented.Stormy also said that statement was made under duress.
Guilt of what? Protecting your reputation?The existence of an NDA is an admission of guilt. It's one of the reasons Stormy Daniels lost her lawsuit against Trump.
Yes, Trump could pursue a reimbursement, she violated the agreement.If she signed an NDA, then she went back on her word which is actionable in court.
Yes, there is an element of blackmail or extortion in that she was threatening to go public with the information, but that is a separate question. If she was offered payment for perjury, that is a serious crime.So is taking hush money in relation to an NDA. That's techically blackmail.
My understanding is he paid her for her story so she would keep her mouth shut, because Trump found out the Dems were offering her $750,000 to lie in court about Trump having a sexual relationship with her.
He'll just make a show out of it called, Orange is the new orange.Mud, you know me, somewhat. You know, I don't like the S.O.B.. Still, the asshole was a sitting President. I would not want to see him locked up, long term. It would bother me, not in the slightest if any sentence assigned if convicted, were commuted to house arrest at Mara Largo. Though, being forced to wear the prison jumpsuit during the house arrest would be a nice touch.
She's using an alias. She's not claiming to be a fictional character. Most actors in Hollywood were born with different names. (John Wayne for example) His real name was Marion Morrison......and if he signs something as John Wayne it's as legal as his real name.Fictional characters have no credibility, as a matter of law. The judge would not allow it. He would not allow it before the jury.
Put him in supermax just to be safe. He knows too many national secrets.It is good to see that some of our patriots in Congress are preparing for the future.
Many people have pointed out the various logistical challenges of putting our national orange menace in prison if and when he is finally convicted on any one (or more) of his numerous felony charges.
Now Bennie Thompson and other dems have come up with a solution.
Just treat him like anybody else once he's convicted.
BRILLIANT!
“It is regrettable that it has come to this, but this previously unthought-of scenario could become our reality,” the Mississippi lawmaker said. “Therefore, it is necessary for us to be prepared and update the law so the American people can be assured that protective status does not translate into special treatment —and that those who are sentenced to prison will indeed serve the time required of them.”
He named his bill the Denying Infinite Security and Government Resources Allocated toward Convicted and Extremely Dishonorable Former Protectees Act — or the DISGRACED Former Protectees Act.
You’re on your own: Dems want to send Trump to prison without Secret Service protection
Key Democrats revealed new legislation Friday that would strip former President Donald Trump of his Secret Service agents if he is convicted and sentenced to prison.www.washingtontimes.com
