Jump to content

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


Cairn Horn88

Recommended Posts

11 minutes ago, tx 3 putt said:

Top 3 day ever to be an American ❤️❤️❤️

Doesn't even make a sniff of the list in my opinion. Until I hear "guilty" and see his actually in prison, it's just another thing to not get too excited about. This guy has a history of beating the rap.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, TwiceHorn said:

 

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.

Understandably, the Edwards case keeps coming up as it appears to be the only close proxy to TFG’s current indictment. I think it’s important to note a couple of facts related to that trial:

1. The donors who provided the hush money to Edward’s campaign weren’t available to testify why they provided the money. One donor was excused due to being 101 years old at the trial while the other donor had passed away.

2. The prosecution’s main witness has serious credibility issues as he used some of the donations for his own personal purposes essentially embezzling some of the hush money.

As mentioned earlier, hopefully the prosecution has some documents to back up intent.

  • Hook 'Em 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, hornmpa96 said:

Understandably, the Edwards case keeps coming up as it appears to be the only close proxy to TFG’s current indictment. I think it’s important to note a couple of facts related to that trial:

1. The donors who provided the hush money to Edward’s campaign weren’t available to testify why they provided the money. One donor was excused due to being 101 years old at the trial while the other donor had passed away.

2. The prosecution’s main witness has serious credibility issues as he used some of the donations for his own personal purposes essentially embezzling some of the hush money.

As mentioned earlier, hopefully the prosecution has some documents to back up intent.

It does go to show why the feds may have been reluctant to bring this case as a federal election law case.  They don't like bringing cases they don't win.  Puts a dent in their 90+% conviction rate.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Rooting around for the indictment, saw this.  Pretty amusing: https://www.mcsweeneys.net/articles/trump-indictment-quiz

1. What happened in 2006?
A. Donald Trump met porn actress Stormy Daniels at a charity golf tournament.

B. Stormy and Trump allegedly had sex in his Lake Tahoe hotel room.

C. Melania Trump gave birth to Barron.

D. During an appearance on the Howard Stern Show, Stern joked that Donald Trump was a sexual predator, and Trump replied, “That’s true.”

E. Trump told the co-hosts of The View, “I’ve said that if Ivanka weren’t my daughter, perhaps I’d be dating her.”

F. All of the above, although I wish I were making even one of them up.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, tx 3 putt said:

The chick next to him is a damn good lawyer or the person who changes his diapers, because she doesn’t pass the trump ‘looks’ test 

On ABC, they're talking about how Tacopina is a mouthpiece, but Blanche and the fug chick are the paper warriors for the various written motions sure to come.

And look at that somber fucker with his mouth shut.  Glorious.

Edited by TwiceHorn
Link to comment
Share on other sites



×
×
  • Create New...