The Trump "Hush Money" Trial starts today
-
@taiwan_girl said in The Trump "Hush Money" Trial starts today:
But if it is that bad and there was all this evdience, they were talking about impeachment. From my understand, you dont need the senate to do that.
Mayorkas was impeached. The Senate refused a trial because the charges were unfounded.
@George-K said in The Trump "Hush Money" Trial starts today:
@taiwan_girl said in The Trump "Hush Money" Trial starts today:
But if it is that bad and there was all this evdience, they were talking about impeachment. From my understand, you dont need the senate to do that.
Mayorkas was impeached. The Senate refused a trial because the charges were unfounded.
Why havent they brought impeachment against President Biden?
-
Heard one judge say that the prosecution really put the brakes on some of the Louisiana whore's testimony, after she started to infer the sex was not completely voluntary. There was a legal term used (which I can't remember) that meant that if Daniels was testifying she was raped, the trial could be immediately dismissed.
Also, I noticed the prosecution had subpoenaed McDougal, but decided not to put her on the stand.
-
Sounds to me that the defense has a good case for appeal based on the Weinstein verdict. Lots of prejudicial testimony from Clifford and Pecker.
"Trump's an asshole."
Yup, now tell me what that has to do with the actual charge.
"Now look here, you Baltic gas passer... " - Mik, 6/14/08
The saying, "Lite is just one damn thing after another," is a gross understatement. The damn things overlap.
-
Sounds to me that the defense has a good case for appeal based on the Weinstein verdict. Lots of prejudicial testimony from Clifford and Pecker.
"Trump's an asshole."
Yup, now tell me what that has to do with the actual charge.
@George-K said in The Trump "Hush Money" Trial starts today:
Sounds to me that the defense has a good case for appeal based on the Weinstein verdict. Lots of prejudicial testimony from Clifford and Pecker.
"Trump's an asshole."
Yup, now tell me what that has to do with the actual charge.
An accounting error bootstrapped into a felony? After we've entered into fantasy world, relevancy is whatever the Bragg Boys tell the judge it is.
-
Sounds to me that the defense has a good case for appeal based on the Weinstein verdict. Lots of prejudicial testimony from Clifford and Pecker.
"Trump's an asshole."
Yup, now tell me what that has to do with the actual charge.
@George-K said in The Trump "Hush Money" Trial starts today:
Yup, now tell me what that has to do with the actual charge.
Yup.
Occasionally impolite, that is the basis for most of the case against Mr. Trump.
And, of course, the morbidity thing. Sadly, fat people still have no Constitutional Rights.
-
I don't see how this can even be tried without the Federal charge.
The Brad
-
I don't see how this can even be tried without the Federal charge.
@LuFins-Dad said in The Trump "Hush Money" Trial starts today:
I don't see how this can even be tried without the Federal charge.
We should ask a president of the FEC if he has any idea if election laws were broken...
"Now look here, you Baltic gas passer... " - Mik, 6/14/08
The saying, "Lite is just one damn thing after another," is a gross understatement. The damn things overlap.
-
@jon-nyc said in The Trump "Hush Money" Trial starts today:
This is in fact a bogus case. As I said from the beginning I wish it hadn’t been brought.
The Georgia case is falling apart due to prosecutorial misconduct. That leaves the Florida documents case, and there are serious evidentiary problems with how the FBI handled the documents and how the evidence was presented to the press, the public, and presented in prosecution.
-
@LuFins-Dad said in The Trump "Hush Money" Trial starts today:
I don't see how this can even be tried without the Federal charge.
We should ask a president of the FEC if he has any idea if election laws were broken...
@George-K said in The Trump "Hush Money" Trial starts today:
@LuFins-Dad said in The Trump "Hush Money" Trial starts today:
I don't see how this can even be tried without the Federal charge.
We should ask a president of the FEC if he has any idea if election laws were broken...
Oh. My. Giddy. Aunt.
-
You folks really need to get over the question of whether a federal election law has been broken.
The established answer is simply "yes." Michael Cohen pleaded guilty and served jail time for it -- the federal crime has already been established.
This NY state "hush money trial" now is just trying to establish a connection between Trump "falsifying business records" and the federal crime for which Cohen served jail time.
-
You folks really need to get over the question of whether a federal election law has been broken.
The established answer is simply "yes." Michael Cohen pleaded guilty and served jail time for it -- the federal crime has already been established.
This NY state "hush money trial" now is just trying to establish a connection between Trump "falsifying business records" and the federal crime for which Cohen served jail time.
@Axtremus said in The Trump "Hush Money" Trial starts today:
You folks really need to get over the question of whether a federal election law has been broken.
The established answer is simply "yes." Michael Cohen pleaded guilty and served jail time for it -- the federal crime has already been established.
This NY state "hush money trial" now is just trying to establish a connection between Trump "falsifying business records" and the federal crime for which Cohen served jail time.
Here’s what Cohen admitted:
Tax fraud
The criminal information supplied by federal prosecutors charges Cohen with evasion of personal income tax from 2012 through 2016.Number of counts: 5
Maximum prison sentence per count: 5 years
Maximum term of supervised release per count: 3 years
Maximum fine per count: $100,000, and a $100 “mandatory special assessment”Making false statements to a financial institution
Prosecutors charged Cohen with making false statements to a financial institution in connection with a credit decision from about February 2015 through about April 2016.Number of counts: 1
Maximum prison sentence per count: 30 years
Maximum term of supervised release per count: 5 years
Maximum fine per count: $1,000,000, and a $100 mandatory special assessmentUnlawful corporate contributions
Prosecutors charged Cohen with willfully causing an unlawful corporate contribution from about June 2016 through about October 2016.Number of counts: 1
Maximum prison sentence per count: 5 years
Maximum term of supervised release per count: 3 years
Maximum fine per count: $250,000, and a $100 mandatory special assessmentExcessive campaign contributions
Prosecutors charged Cohen with making an excessive campaign contribution on Oct. 27, 2016.Number of counts: 1
Maximum prison sentence per count: 5 years
Maximum term of supervised release per count: 3 years
Maximum fine per count: $250,000, and a $100 mandatory special assessment -
You folks really need to get over the question of whether a federal election law has been broken.
The established answer is simply "yes." Michael Cohen pleaded guilty and served jail time for it -- the federal crime has already been established.
This NY state "hush money trial" now is just trying to establish a connection between Trump "falsifying business records" and the federal crime for which Cohen served jail time.
@Axtremus said in The Trump "Hush Money" Trial starts today:
You folks really need to get over the question of whether a federal election law has been broken.
The established answer is simply "yes." Michael Cohen pleaded guilty and served jail time for it -- the federal crime has already been established.
This NY state "hush money trial" now is just trying to establish a connection between Trump "falsifying business records" and the federal crime for which Cohen served jail time.
You seem to be confusing Cohen with Trump. Cohen’s been convicted of a federal crime. Trump? No. In the US we have a concept of innocence until proven guilt. Trump has not been convicted, therefore is granted the presumption of innocence. These charges start with the assumption of guilt. That doesn’t fly in the US, and the legal precedent is against him being convicted on the Federal charges.
The Brad
-
@Axtremus said in The Trump "Hush Money" Trial starts today:
You folks really need to get over the question of whether a federal election law has been broken.
The established answer is simply "yes." Michael Cohen pleaded guilty and served jail time for it -- the federal crime has already been established.
This NY state "hush money trial" now is just trying to establish a connection between Trump "falsifying business records" and the federal crime for which Cohen served jail time.
You seem to be confusing Cohen with Trump. Cohen’s been convicted of a federal crime. Trump? No. In the US we have a concept of innocence until proven guilt. Trump has not been convicted, therefore is granted the presumption of innocence. These charges start with the assumption of guilt. That doesn’t fly in the US, and the legal precedent is against him being convicted on the Federal charges.
@LuFins-Dad said in The Trump "Hush Money" Trial starts today:
That doesn’t fly in the US, and the legal precedent is against him being convicted on the Federal charges.
One "analyst" claims that there doesn't have to be a federal crime, only the intent to commit such crime - in this case, establishing an NDA to influence an election - which occurred before the NDA was paid out.
-
@LuFins-Dad said in The Trump "Hush Money" Trial starts today:
That doesn’t fly in the US, and the legal precedent is against him being convicted on the Federal charges.
One "analyst" claims that there doesn't have to be a federal crime, only the intent to commit such crime - in this case, establishing an NDA to influence an election - which occurred before the NDA was paid out.
@George-K said in The Trump "Hush Money" Trial starts today:
@LuFins-Dad said in The Trump "Hush Money" Trial starts today:
That doesn’t fly in the US, and the legal precedent is against him being convicted on the Federal charges.
One "analyst" claims that there doesn't have to be a federal crime, only the intent to commit such crime - in this case, establishing an NDA to influence an election - which occurred before the NDA was paid out.
Great. Get the conviction and we’ll see what the Appellate Courts decide, both state then Federal.
-
@George-K said in The Trump "Hush Money" Trial starts today:
@LuFins-Dad said in The Trump "Hush Money" Trial starts today:
That doesn’t fly in the US, and the legal precedent is against him being convicted on the Federal charges.
One "analyst" claims that there doesn't have to be a federal crime, only the intent to commit such crime - in this case, establishing an NDA to influence an election - which occurred before the NDA was paid out.
Great. Get the conviction and we’ll see what the Appellate Courts decide, both state then Federal.
@LuFins-Dad said in The Trump "Hush Money" Trial starts today:
Get the conviction and we’ll see...
If only a Federal Election Commission honcho could explain what laws might have been broken...
-
@Axtremus said in The Trump "Hush Money" Trial starts today:
You folks really need to get over the question of whether a federal election law has been broken.
The established answer is simply "yes." Michael Cohen pleaded guilty and served jail time for it -- the federal crime has already been established.
This NY state "hush money trial" now is just trying to establish a connection between Trump "falsifying business records" and the federal crime for which Cohen served jail time.
You seem to be confusing Cohen with Trump. Cohen’s been convicted of a federal crime. Trump? No. In the US we have a concept of innocence until proven guilt. Trump has not been convicted, therefore is granted the presumption of innocence. These charges start with the assumption of guilt. That doesn’t fly in the US, and the legal precedent is against him being convicted on the Federal charges.
@LuFins-Dad said in The Trump "Hush Money" Trial starts today:
You seem to be confusing Cohen with Trump. Cohen’s been convicted of a federal crime. Trump? No.
In this "hush money case," Trump is being tried on whether he has falsified business records to cover up crime committed by Cohen.
Forget about Trump and Cohen for a moment, just think generally on public policy: Are you of the opinion that Person A cannot be tried on whether Person A has committed illegal acts for trying to cover up a crime committed by Person B? Do you want a legal/justice system where any one can act to cover up crimes committed by another person with no legal repercussion?
