Who is politicizing trump's trial?

[IDIOCRACY]

No, it doesn't. Trump is whining about the thing that he and his surrogates do every day. Trump thinks there should be special allowances just for him.

You cowardly avoided the point. There was no insurrection, this thread belongs in the rubber room.

 

[IDIOCRACY]

Prove it.

Prove it MagicMushroom, prove there was an insurrection. Surely someone would have been charged by now.

PROVE IT

 

[IDIOCRACY]

prove they are not.

the founders knew what an insurrection was. shays rebellion, the whiskey rebellion, even the treason of a vice president were not dragged out in court long enough for the principles to escape justice or, heaven forbid, reassume office.

You're a pussy, and not a good one. You ask your opponents to prove something doesn't exist. Only a leftist could dream that BS up.

 

[MagicMike]

Prove it MagicMushroom, prove there was an insurrection. Surely someone would have been charged by now.

PROVE IT

 

[progressive hunter]

Unfortunately, it's because of assholes like Tim Pool, who try so hard to be relevant, who will contribute civil war in this country should it break out as a result of this case.

 

[d0gbreath]

So you do advocate that standard. When we find out Hairgel Newsom had an affair ten years ago, you fully support sending him to prison.

I'm for sending everyone to prison. You too.

Yet your supposition about Newsom carries no weight. He's had no 10 year old affair that I know of, but more importantly; there's no cover up. The cover up would be the crime.

 

[Faun]

Who is?

 

[Rawley]

I'm for sending everyone to prison. You too.

Yet your supposition about Newsom carries no weight. He's had no 10 year old affair that I know of, but more importantly; there's no cover up. The cover up would be the crime.

You don't know about it because he's been covering it up. According to your standard, when it becomes public, he needs to go to prison.

 

[Catsnmeters]

I'm still waiting to hear what the crime was.

Trump knows what it is and that is what matters.

 

[BULLDOG]

You cowardly avoided the point. There was no insurrection, this thread belongs in the rubber room.

You're hallucinating again.

 

[ThisIsMe]

It describes his crime. Show me where a statement of facts has to provide a statute number for underlying crimes?

Ok, what statute are they charging it against? Bragg describes transactions between cohen and trump but doesn’t reallly specify the crimes. NDAs are not illegal, paying your lawyer for his services in setting up an nda is not illegal. Recording the transaction as a business expense in an internal ledger isn’t an attempt to defraud.

 

[Faun]

Ok, what statute are they charging it against? Bragg describes transactions between cohen and trump but doesn’t reallly specify the crimes. NDAs are not illegal, paying your lawyer for his services in setting up an nda is not illegal. Recording the transaction as a business expense in an internal ledger isn’t an attempt to defraud.

It fucking says what crime it is ... it says Cohen's payment to Stormy Daniels was illegal. We know it's illegal since he was convicted and incarcerated for it, among other crimes. And paying your private lawyer for committing a crime for you is not a "legal service."

 

[ThisIsMe]

It fucking says what crime it is ... it says Cohen's payment to Stormy Daniels was illegal. We know it's illegal since he was convicted and incarcerated for it, among other crimes. And paying your private lawyer for committing a crime for you is not a "legal service."

But it doesn’t…it makes reference to paying cohen, but it doesn’t even address the crimes he committed. All the SOF does is talk about some arrangements between Trump and cohen.

The SOF talks a lot about different allegations, but falls short of mentioning any crime. I posted a link from the doj earlier that state, in order to indict someone, the indictment needs to have clear and concise information relating to the crimes, so the defendant has no doubt as to the nature of the charges. Braggs indictment makes no reference to the crime used to boost the charges, so we have to rely on the SOF, which also includes no criminal statutes. It basically boils down to “this is the charge, based on this other document, that refers to actions taken by another person.

That’s not clear at all, according to how it’s supposed to be

Also, much of braggs indictment hinges on cohens testimony…who has been convicted of lying to Congress and stealing from Trump.

 

[Faun]

But it doesn’t…it makes reference to paying cohen, but it doesn’t even address the crimes he committed. All the SOF does is talk about some arrangements between Trump and cohen.

The SOF talks a lot about different allegations, but falls short of mentioning any crime. I posted a link from the doj earlier that state, in order to indict someone, the indictment needs to have clear and concise information relating to the crimes, so the defendant has no doubt as to the nature of the charges. Braggs indictment makes no reference to the crime used to boost the charges, so we have to rely on the SOF, which also includes no criminal statutes. It basically boils down to “this is the charge, based on this other document, that refers to actions taken by another person.

That’s not clear at all, according to how it’s supposed to be

Also, much of braggs indictment hinges on cohens testimony…who has been convicted of lying to Congress and stealing from Trump.

It clearly spells out the crimes. The only explanation for you to think it doesn't is you didn't actually read it.

 

[OKTexas]

Prove it.

Have you bothered to read the thread moron? de not so was introduced by the xiden campaign's director of communications.

Biden camp brings in De Niro to go after Trump at the site of his trial​

Joe Biden and his political operation have largely ignored Donald Trump’s trial for months. Now, with just days to go before a verdict is released, it’s dispatched Robert De Niro and some other campaign surrogates to the New York City courtroom to draw attention to the threat they say Trump poses to the country.

https://www.politico.com/news/2024/05/28/biden-campaign-robert-de-niro-trump-trial-courthouse-00160139

Any more questions ya commie freak?

.

 

[ThisIsMe]

It clearly spells out the crimes. The only explanation for you to think it doesn't is you didn't actually read it.

I read it, not a single criminal statute is listed in the SOF. The indictment requires that trump intended to defraud while committing or covering up another crime. This means that Bragg has to cite that criminal statute that Trump is accused of covering up. Aside from the whole cohen deal, the SOF talks about the catch and kill scheme, and says it violated campaign finance laws, but doesn’t actually say what law he violated. Same
With cohen, it says that Trump paid cohen.


Look, I get it, cohen plead guilty to campaign finance violations, and the SOF mentions that, but cohen also said that Trump didn’t know anything about the payments. Then he said that Trump did…so…which is it?

Bragg is charging TRUMP with a misdemeanor that is supposed to be supported by other crimes, you’d think Bragg would have to, by the laws of creating indictments, make sure that the crimes statutes he’s referring to would be listed…somewhere.

Such as “Trump made a false business entry to cover cohens crime, which is in violation of 18 USC….whatever. “. Not “Trump made false business entries to cover for a crime that cohen plead guilty to”

Also, you still have fi get past the “intent to defraud” part of it, which is listed in the law that Bragg cited. Kind of hard to prove intent to defraud when it was internal business records that nobody was ever intended to see.

 

[Clipper]

Robert DeNiro And two of the cops who were attacked at the insurrection spoke before a crowd of reporters in front of the courthouse where trump's trial is being held. Fox and the rest of right-wing media went apoplectic complaining that Biden was politicizing the trial. Perhaps they didn't notice that trump regularly makes political statements outside his trial every day. Trump has also had a string of VP hopefuls and family members who openly made political statements admitting they were there to emphasize trump's political standing.

MSN

You mean Fox didn't mention Trump's red tie asseaters who showed up whining like a bunch of little bitches?

Or how about Trump sending out emails begging for cash from the sucker's?

 

[OKTexas]

LOLOLOL

How the fuck was that an NDA, rightard? What was she not allowed to disclose?

https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2018/03/07/591431710/stormy-daniels-files-suit-claims-nda-invalid-because-trump-didnt-sign-at-the-xxx

.

 

[OKTexas]

Repeating a Qanon conspiracy theory doesn't make it a known fact.

See post 155, I don't think politico is a right wing org. Here's another link for ya commie.

Robert De Niro, as Biden Surrogate, Says Trump ‘Absolutely’ Should Go to Jail

Seeking to troll Donald Trump outside his Manhattan trial, the Biden campaign held a news conference with the actor and two former Capitol Police officers. Mr. De Niro veered off script.

www.nytimes.com

I refuse to pay the slimes, so I can't quote them.

.

 

[Faun]

I read it, not a single criminal statute is listed in the SOF. The indictment requires that trump intended to defraud while committing or covering up another crime. This means that Bragg has to cite that criminal statute that Trump is accused of covering up. Aside from the whole cohen deal, the SOF talks about the catch and kill scheme, and says it violated campaign finance laws, but doesn’t actually say what law he violated. Same
With cohen, it says that Trump paid cohen.


Look, I get it, cohen plead guilty to campaign finance violations, and the SOF mentions that, but cohen also said that Trump didn’t know anything about the payments. Then he said that Trump did…so…which is it?

Bragg is charging TRUMP with a misdemeanor that is supposed to be supported by other crimes, you’d think Bragg would have to, by the laws of creating indictments, make sure that the crimes statutes he’s referring to would be listed…somewhere.

Such as “Trump made a false business entry to cover cohens crime, which is in violation of 18 USC….whatever. “. Not “Trump made false business entries to cover for a crime that cohen plead guilty to”

Also, you still have fi get past the “intent to defraud” part of it, which is listed in the law that Bragg cited. Kind of hard to prove intent to defraud when it was internal business records that nobody was ever intended to see.

Again... it doesn't matter it doesn't specify statute numbers. It's not an indictment. It still states what the underlying crimes were. Thd part you didn't read...

In a second instance, AMI paid $150,000 to a woman who alleged she had a sexual relationship with TRUMP. When TRUMP explicitly directed a lawyer who then worked for the Trump Organization as TRUMP’s Special Counsel (“Special Counsel”) to reimburse AMI in cash, the Special Counsel indicated to TRUMP that the payment should be made via a shell company and not by cash. AMI ultimately declined to accept reimbursement after consulting their counsel. AMI, which later admitted its conduct was unlawful in an agreement with federal prosecutors, made false entries in its business records concerning the true purpose of the $150,000 payment.

In a third instance – 12 days before the presidential general election – the Special Counsel wired $130,000 to an attorney for an adult film actress. The Special Counsel, who has since pleaded guilty and served time in prison for making the illegal campaign contribution, made the payment through a shell corporation funded through a bank in Manhattan.​

His intent to commit fraud was conspiring to promote or prevent the election of any person to a public office by unlawful means and which conspiracy is acted upon (§ 17-152)