Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty

[Your Mom 4868]

Maybe his argument will be, “Paying off porn stars is something my trailer trash base actually applauds. Therefore by trying to keep it quiet Cohen was harming my campaign, not helping it.”   

[South Austin 52686]

1 minute ago, Beau Vine said:

Are you one of Trump's lawyers?

His posts seem cogent and somewhat intelligent, so probably not.

[Beau Vine 54838]

 

[South Austin 52686]

That's awesome.

[Sawbonz 27777]

1 minute ago, Your Mom said:

Maybe his argument will be, “Paying off porn stars is something my trailer trash base actually applauds. Therefore by trying to keep it quiet Cohen was harming my campaign, not helping it.”   

[tbone_ 14255]

I’m saying what is publicly known is enough for a reasonable person to convict him

I 100% agree with you it’s obvious as fuck. But I don’t think trials work this way.

My bet is he weasels out because the DA can’t really prove the intent to help the election. My gut tells me the DA is over zealous and caught up I trying to make a name for himself and doesn’t have a strong enough case.

Which is the best case for Trump. They tried to persecute me but I am too strong for them!

Would love to be wrong about all of that.

Let the clown show commence.

[BrazilHorn 6651]

Do they have to prove that payments took place or that the payments happened in order to influence election?

As noted above I’m not sure Trump supporters care about him hooking up with porn star. 
 

[TwiceHorn 31678]

1 hour ago, Sawbonz said:

Are we really back to the defendant has to state “one of my motivations to make this payment was to benefit my campaign” in order to find him guilty?

Anyone with an IQ above that of a turnip can plainly see protecting the campaign was not just a reason but by far the main reason for the payment. Anyone excepting attorneys, apparently 

Well, there's this whole thing called proof beyond a reasonable doubt.  You can hope that 12 jurors have an iq above that of a turnip and will go along with your inference.  But you have to have some bit of evidence somewhere in the trial record tending to show that a or the motivation for doing this was to benefit the campaign/candidate, or the jury verdict may not stand.  

And the defendant could easily argue, as argued here frequently, that the allegations were immaterial to the campaign but he wanted to avoid personal/familial embarrassment.  Get one juror to doubt that the campaign was the beneficiary, boom acquittal.

[brown water 3780]

11 minutes ago, Sawbonz said:

I got my days mixed up but chuckled that 45 was getting arraigned on 4/5. Even better it’s 4/4. 

[Neonmoon 38130]

46 minutes ago, scottsins said:

That’s all correct. My question is how “in-kind campaign contribution” is defined under the applicable statute. Is there any language that speaks to “primary purpose”, etc.?

https://www.elections.ny.gov/CFContributionLimits.html

https://ethics.ny.gov/gifts

New York State Election Law § 14-114(1)

Quote

an in-kind contribution is defined as any non-monetary contribution made for the purpose of influencing an election, including but not limited to goods, services, or the use of property. In-kind contributions are subject to the same contribution limits and reporting requirements as monetary contributions.

 

[AnTiM 1678]

Stick the "dict" in him and get it on.

 

[Red Five 41066]

4 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

And the defendant could easily argue, as argued here frequently, that the allegations were immaterial to the campaign but he wanted to avoid personal/familial embarrassment. 

Considering that the payment was made a few weeks before the 2016 Presidential election, in which he was locked in something close to a dead heat, wouldn't that be a bit of a tough sell? "Oh, the campaign? Well gee, I guess that was a few weeks before the election when I paid that porn star hush money to be quiet. Man what a weird coincidence." 

[Celery Man 21026]

There is absolute nothingness in the mind of a turnip. Republicans are much stupider than that.

Edited April 4, 2023 by Celery Man

[Francisco 2.0 32432]

13 minutes ago, BrazilHorn said:

 

As noted above I’m not sure Trump supporters care about him hooking up with porn star. 
 

 

Care?

Hell, they celebrate it.

"By God, my man Trump fucked a pornstar!  High fives all around!"

"Any man that can fuck a pornstar has my vote forever!"

"I'd watch the tape of Trump fucking a pornstar all day long!"

"That's what kind of President we need!  Someone that isn't afraid of being a man!"

 

 

 

 

[tx 3 putt 77921]

7 hours ago, pyrohornIII said:

He's full on playing the martyr role.  

 
he’s speaking in the park afterwards 😂😂😂

 

George santos had been spotted 😂😂😂😂😂😂

[Sawbonz 27777]

21 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

Well, there's this whole thing called proof beyond a reasonable doubt

Reasonable doubt standard is not zero doubt. I stand by my previous posts. Any juror voting not to convict, just based on what is publicly known, has an agenda. They would gang the jury even if he gets on the stand and says “of course I did it”  This of course is absent any exculpatory evidence presented at trial. 

 

26 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

And the defendant could easily argue, as argued here frequently, that the allegations were immaterial to the campaign but he wanted to avoid personal/familial embarrassment

Again remind us of the crimes Cohen pleaded guilty to

[Goredho 17510]

12 minutes ago, Francisco 2.0 said:

“I'd watch the tape of Trump fucking a pornstar all day long!"

 

 

 

 

[Francisco 2.0 32432]

5 minutes ago, tx 3 putt said:

 
he’s speaking in the park afterwards 😂😂😂

 

George santos had been spotted 😂😂😂😂😂😂

 

So, it's come to this.  Trump holding a campaign rally after his indictment and another fraudster shows up.  Oh, and Marge.

I can only hope it would end like this:

 

 

 

[tx 3 putt 77921]

If I’m Paying to bang a porn star, it’s Alexis Texas 

I had to get that off my chest 

[TwiceHorn 31678]

1 hour ago, jimmyjazz said:

What would Trump have to say in text etc. in order to reveal intent to benefit the campaign?  "She needs to stay quiet or it's going to hurt our chances in the election?"

Must it be that clearcut?  As @Sawbonz says, it's pretty damn obvious.

Well, it's obvious from circumstances, so it's circumstantial evidence:  he was campaigning at the time, the revelations were potentially embarrassing and detrimental to the campaign, and the allegations were mostly silenced by this course of action.

On the one hand, how you counter that circumstantial evidence is a bit of a puzzler.  One pretty good way to do it would be to put Trump on the stand and have him say, "I didn't care about the campaign, I knew it wouldn't make any difference to my base, but I was concerned about Melania and Barron, and my other kids."  Or, he could say "I had no idea what Cohen and Packer and others were up to on this, they didn't ask me or tell me about it until after the fact."  That probably isn't going to happen.  You can attempt to create similar arguments/evidence from other witnesses, or just argue that there is some doubt as to precisely what was Trump's motivation here.

On the other hand, you'd like to shore this circumstantial evidence up with some more direct evidence of the intent, both to assure "doubtful" jurors and to build a record that can withstand a directed verdict and appeal.  That could take the form of statements by Trump to Packer, Cohen or anyone else, or any emails or documents.  I think by a combination of Trump being a troglodyte and also an experienced criminal and civil wrongdoer, he keeps as much out of writing as possible (is you taking notes on a criminal fucking conspiracy?).

If it is not clear cut, there's a risk of jurors finding a reasonable doubt or of the trial court granting a directed verdict of insufficient evidence or an appeals court reversing the jury verdict for the same reason.

The same sort of circumstantial evidence indicated that John Edwards paid off Rielle Hunter, but a jury declined to convict.  So this is not theoretical. https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/trump-hush-money-case-compared-democrat-john-edwards/story?id=98053273  And John Edwards didn't have the benefit of being a known total piece of shit like Trump.  He would have had a harder time arguing that these allegations didn't hurt him as a candidate.

Edited April 4, 2023 by TwiceHorn

[Sawbonz 27777]

^^^who in the Edwards case pleaded guilty to violating tax and campaign laws? I don’t recall 

Edited April 4, 2023 by Sawbonz

[YGIFS 19453]

If anybody follows the Good Liars or Jordan Klepper, please post their tweets on here.  I don’t have an account but I love their stuff.  They don’t post it to YouTube until days later, but can’t wait to see their experience in Manhattan today 

 

also, what time is the fundraiser rally?

[SimonBolivar 10961]

Do we have a time for today's activities to get started?

['stache 21900]

13 minutes ago, tx 3 putt said:

If I’m Paying to bang a porn star, it’s Alexis Texas 

I had to get that off my chest 

Clearly got something off, lol.

[TheStoicPaisano 9940]

9 minutes ago, YGIFS said:

 

also, what time is the fundraiser rally?

1030.

Collect Pond Park.

Pond is apt for Sporkfoot and Pissboy Posobiec.

[Pato del Muerto 52858]

23 minutes ago, tx 3 putt said:

If I’m Paying to bang a porn star, it’s Alexis Texas 

I had to get that off my chest 

I’m leaning Autumn Falls. With Nia Nacci as her sous chef, should one be budgeted for. 

[Horn Dog 10027]

What about the tax angle.  Since he classified the hush money payment as “legal expenses” I assume he wrote those off as a business expense and thus committed state and federal tax fraud.  Is that being tacked on ?

[tx 3 putt 77921]

Guess the surly poster ?

 

[The Dog 44180]

 

[SimonBolivar 10961]

2 minutes ago, The Dog said:

 

[Francisco 2.0 32432]

5 minutes ago, The Dog said:

 

 

Lulz.  Staten Island.

Not too many years ago, Trump would have avoided Staten Island like the plague. Now, he's begging to go there vs. staying in his once beloved Manhattan.

[Pescado_Rojo 19453]

5 minutes ago, longhornmatt said:

Have they unsealed the indictment yet? Are we even sure this is all about Stormy Daniels stuff?  Or is that just Trump trying to plant the seed that it’s only about paying a porn star so he can win the PR battle, and then a compliant (right wing) and/or dumb sensationalist (left wing) media reinforcing the narrative for him?

34 felonies is a lot.  I find it hard to believe that is all about Stormy Daniels.  That was like one agreement and one failure to report - not seeing how you get to 34 separate “falsifying business records” felonies on that alone.  

It seems more likely that the business/tax fraud shit they convicted his CFO of participating in will also have to be at issue, which would explain why Trump wants to make it all about Stormy Daniels.

yea, it would be amazing if they hit him with 33 State Jail felonies and #34 was the NY State version of RICO. (OCCA?)

[Red Five 41066]

Talking shit repeatedly about the judge's family seems like a pretty bad idea. 

[tx 3 putt 77921]

 

[Mdhorn 6093]

Can the judge issue a gag order on Trump, to make it to 35+ felonies?  

[speed817 19569]

3 minutes ago, Mdhorn said:

Can the judge issue a gag order on Trump, to make it to 35+ felonies?  

Deny bail please!

[tbone_ 14255]

Talking shit repeatedly about the judge's family seems like a pretty bad idea. 

Why? Endless diarrhea of the mouth and talking shit about anyone and everyone anytime anywhere and at all times has served him pretty well so far.

[Francisco 2.0 32432]

5 minutes ago, Red Five said:

Talking shit repeatedly about the judge's family seems like a pretty bad idea. 

For you or I.  For Trump, this is SOP.  To date, it has never harmed him.  

 

 

[tx 3 putt 77921]

 

[WhatTheBuck 28825]

1 hour ago, BrazilHorn said:

Do they have to prove that payments took place or that the payments happened in order to influence election?

As noted above I’m not sure Trump supporters care about him hooking up with porn star. 
 

They don’t care about him trying to influence the election, either. He could shoot someone on 5th Ave. and they wouldn’t care. 

[TwiceHorn 31678]

12 minutes ago, Sawbonz said:

Reasonable doubt standard is not zero doubt. I stand by my previous posts. Any juror voting not to convict, just based on what is publicly known, has an agenda. They would gang the jury even if he gets on the stand and says “of course I did it”  This of course is absent any exculpatory evidence presented at trial. 

 

Again remind us of the crimes Cohen pleaded guilty to

I am personally of the opinion that they could have left off the campaign violation from Cohen's "indictment" entirely and secured the same plea agreement.

They won't be able to argue that in front of the jury, so just forget all about that.

[WhatTheBuck 28825]

1 hour ago, brown water said:

I got my days mixed up but chuckled that 45 was getting arraigned on 4/5. Even better it’s 4/4. 

It’s also the 55th anniversary of Martin Luther King Jr’s assassination for whatever that’s worth. 

[TwiceHorn 31678]

39 minutes ago, Sawbonz said:

^^^who in the Edwards case pleaded guilty to violating tax and campaign laws? I don’t recall 

Just ignore that.  It has absolutely zero utility in this prosecution.  None.  Nada. Zip. Nothing.  Jack shit.

[Your Mom 4868]

3 minutes ago, tx 3 putt said:

 

Santos has to part of some elaborate scheme to long game the GOP right?  
 

[TwiceHorn 31678]

7 minutes ago, Francisco 2.0 said:

For you or I.  For Trump, this is SOP.  To date, it has never harmed him.  

 

 

And this is a different arena from any Trump has ever been in before.  He will have far less ability to dictate/corrupt the narrative.

[TwiceHorn 31678]

26 minutes ago, longhornmatt said:

Have they unsealed the indictment yet? Are we even sure this is all about Stormy Daniels stuff?  Or is that just Trump trying to plant the seed that it’s only about paying a porn star so he can win the PR battle, and then a compliant (right wing) and/or dumb sensationalist (left wing) media reinforcing the narrative for him?

34 felonies is a lot.  I find it hard to believe that is all about Stormy Daniels.  That was like one agreement and one failure to report - not seeing how you get to 34 separate “falsifying business records” felonies on that alone.  

It seems more likely that the business/tax fraud shit they convicted his CFO of participating in will also have to be at issue, which would explain why Trump wants to make it all about Stormy Daniels.

My best guess it that there are 34 falsified documents, each of which supports a separate count.  

[tbone_ 14255]

What’s the story with this Blanche guy that resigned his job at some big shot firm to take this case?

[SimonBolivar 10961]

1 minute ago, TwiceHorn said:

And this is a different arena from any Trump has ever been in before.  He will have far less ability to dictate/corrupt the narrative.

[PSH] We'll see [/PSH]

[TexasEd 8142]

12 hours ago, YGIFS said:

Is an "in-kind" blowjob tax deductible then?  Asking for a friend. 

You’re giving blow jobs for tax write offs?  You do you. 

[Francisco 2.0 32432]

3 minutes ago, tbone_ said:

What’s the story with this Blanche guy that resigned his job at some big shot firm to take this case?

 

Some big, strapping man with tears in his eyes came up to him and said "Sir, you have to represent President Trump!  It's up to you to save the country!"