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.
@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?
-
@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?
@Axtremus said in The Trump "Hush Money" Trial starts today:
@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?
The basis of this trial is an escalator charge. A misdemeanor that becomes a felony if committed while committing a secondary crime. An analogy might be a use of an illegal gun while committing a robbery. Having an illegal gun? Bad. Committing a robbery? Bad. Commit a robbery with an illegal weapon? Exponentially worse than the either of the individual weapons.
This case is like the. Trying to convict him for using the gun in a robbery when he’s not been charged for a robbery.
The Brad
-
@Axtremus said in The Trump "Hush Money" Trial starts today:
@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?
The basis of this trial is an escalator charge. A misdemeanor that becomes a felony if committed while committing a secondary crime. An analogy might be a use of an illegal gun while committing a robbery. Having an illegal gun? Bad. Committing a robbery? Bad. Commit a robbery with an illegal weapon? Exponentially worse than the either of the individual weapons.
This case is like the. Trying to convict him for using the gun in a robbery when he’s not been charged for a robbery.
@LuFins-Dad said in The Trump "Hush Money" Trial starts today:
Trying to convict him for using the gun in a robbery when he’s not been charged for a robbery.
Using the gun/robbery analogy, this case is like trying Trump for trying to get rid of the gun after Cohen used the gun to commit a robbery.
-
Actually what you seem to want is a world where Trump can do what he wants with impunity.
And you ain’t gonna get it.
@jon-nyc said in The Trump "Hush Money" Trial starts today:
Actually what you seem to want is a world where Trump can do what he wants with impunity.
And you ain’t gonna get it.
No, I want a fair justice system, not the Just-us system.
You're not a stupid man. You know Trump's prosecution is timed and choreographed with help from the current White House.
-
I know he’s shown a complete disregard for norms and the law unprecedented among presidents in the past.
If we can’t punish him for it, our legal system is broken.
"You never know what worse luck your bad luck has saved you from."
-Cormac McCarthy -
Then why wasn't he indicted years ago?
Why do we have multiple indictments in multiple locations during the election year?
Why do we have Federal prosecutors resigning to work on a state case?
Why do we have state prosecutors and White House attorneys working together on these prosecutions?
Why do we have Federal agents falsifying evidence?
Do the ends justify the means?
-
I know he’s shown a complete disregard for norms and the law unprecedented among presidents in the past.
If we can’t punish him for it, our legal system is broken.
@jon-nyc said in The Trump "Hush Money" Trial starts today:
I know he’s shown a complete disregard for norms and the law unprecedented among presidents in the past.
If we can’t punish him for it, our legal system is broken.
You were the one that pointed out there wasn’t a case here.
-
Stormy Daniels' husband revealed there is a strong likelihood the couple will flee the U.S. if former president Donald Trump is found not guilty in his hush money trial, RadarOnline.com has learned.
Barrett Blade spoke out about the ongoing proceedings and said that Daniels prepared herself for the criticism she has faced on a massive scale, noting people have been trying to "slut-shame" her for years.
"It doesn't affect me unless it affects her," he told CNN's Erin Burnett.
Blade, a fellow adult performer, said there is a "good chance" that he and Daniels will leave America if Trump is acquitted in his Manhattan criminal trial.
"Either way, I don't think it gets better for her. I think if it's not guilty, we got to decide what to do. Good chance we'll probably vacate this country," he shared during the interview.
"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.
-
Stormy Daniels' husband revealed there is a strong likelihood the couple will flee the U.S. if former president Donald Trump is found not guilty in his hush money trial, RadarOnline.com has learned.
Barrett Blade spoke out about the ongoing proceedings and said that Daniels prepared herself for the criticism she has faced on a massive scale, noting people have been trying to "slut-shame" her for years.
"It doesn't affect me unless it affects her," he told CNN's Erin Burnett.
Blade, a fellow adult performer, said there is a "good chance" that he and Daniels will leave America if Trump is acquitted in his Manhattan criminal trial.
"Either way, I don't think it gets better for her. I think if it's not guilty, we got to decide what to do. Good chance we'll probably vacate this country," he shared during the interview.
@George-K said in The Trump "Hush Money" Trial starts today:
Stormy Daniels' husband revealed there is a strong likelihood the couple will flee the U.S. if former president Donald Trump is found not guilty in his hush money trial,
It seems like before every US President election, there is some (minor) celebrity or another saying that they will move from the US if XX is elected. Never seems to happen.
-
@George-K said in The Trump "Hush Money" Trial starts today:
Stormy Daniels' husband revealed there is a strong likelihood the couple will flee the U.S. if former president Donald Trump is found not guilty in his hush money trial,
It seems like before every US President election, there is some (minor) celebrity or another saying that they will move from the US if XX is elected. Never seems to happen.
I think Stephen Seagal moved to Russia to be close to his beloved Tsar.
️