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


Recommended Posts

Posted
1 minute ago, TwiceHorn said:

Reporting 34 counts of falsifying business records in the first degree, all felonies.

I'm reading at least one of the charges is conspiracy, which seems to ramp things up even further - again, from what I am reading

Posted (edited)

I'm not sure how important a conspiracy really is.

People always think it's worse than the underlying crime and it never is.  It's the same as the underlying crime and can be harder to prove.  It does allow for conviction of an offense that didn't actually occur, and that's about it.

Edited by TwiceHorn
  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted
Just now, TwiceHorn said:

I'm not sure how important a conspiracy really is.

People always think it's worse than the underlying crime and it never is.  It's the same as the underlying crime and can be harder to prove.


everything will be hard to charge on the case 

Posted

A talking head points out:

11 reimbursement checks to Cohen

1 invoice per check

1 ledger entry per check.

That's 33 falsified business records.

Then a final count of consipracy to falsify business records.  So, maybe Trump didn't falsify any records, but he conspired with Cohen and others to falsify the above records.

Posted
2 minutes ago, Captainant said:

Boris Epstein being in court with trump today is pretty notable. No idea why he's here

Hopefully, it means he has a say in his defense, because he's a fucking assclown.

Posted
Just now, Beau Vine said:

 

If true (and that's a big IF coming from brietbart via Donnie Cokehead), then the judge should recuse himself and hand this off to another judge.  Is it a legal ground for recusal?  Not sure.  But why give Team MAGA something to bitch about beyond the general bullshit far left lib label?

Posted
Just now, South Austin said:

If true (and that's a big IF coming from brietbart via Donnie Cokehead), then the judge should recuse himself and hand this off to another judge.  Is it a legal ground for recusal?  Not sure.  But why give Team MAGA something to bitch about beyond the general bullshit far left lib label?

Well, Merchan is a Democrat, ran as one, presumably is a party member, etc.  I don't think that's grounds for recusal.

Certainly isn't for Clarence.

There is some thought that the Chief Judge should reassign.

  • Hook 'Em 8
Posted
1 minute ago, TwiceHorn said:

Hopefully, it means he has a say in his defense, because he's a fucking assclown.

He also had some of his shit seized by Jan6 investigator warrants. Just really fucking weird to see the streams crossing already. 

Gonna be interesting once they adjourn for today, seems like they've been in court for nearly 75 minutes now

Posted
Just now, TwiceHorn said:

Well, Merchan is a Democrat, ran as one, presumably is a party member, etc.  I don't think that's grounds for recusal.

Certainly isn't for Clarence.

There is some thought that the Chief Judge should reassign.

Sure, I don't think sharing party affiliation with the defendant's political opponent in 2020 should be grounds for refusal.  But if his daughter worked for the campaign of that opponent and that campaign is sort of the subject of the offenses in the indictment, then the optics are worse.  Again, legal grounds for recusal under New York law?  I don't know.  But I think it would be a good idea to avoid any low-hanging fruit for the defendant and his legions of mouth breathers.

Posted (edited)
5 minutes ago, South Austin said:

Sure, I don't think sharing party affiliation with the defendant's political opponent in 2020 should be grounds for refusal.  But if his daughter worked for the campaign of that opponent and that campaign is sort of the subject of the offenses in the indictment, then the optics are worse.  Again, legal grounds for recusal under New York law?  I don't know.  But I think it would be a good idea to avoid any low-hanging fruit for the defendant and his legions of mouth breathers.

I don't think it would be, and I get your point.  But the Legion of Dumb is going to bitch no matter what.  Now if the judge were related to Stormy (like say her "step-brother"), had produced one of her fine films, or had left a review of one of said films on Rotten Tomatoes or the like, it might be a little closer of a question. 

Edited by dcbc
  • Hook 'Em 2
Posted
1 minute ago, dcbc said:

Now if the judge were related to Stormy, had produced one of her fine films, or had left a review of one of said films on Rotten Tomatoes or the like, it might be a little closer of a question. 

I don't think being a critic of fine film is grounds for refusal.

Posted
1 minute ago, South Austin said:

Sure, I don't think sharing party affiliation with the defendant's political opponent in 2020 should be grounds for refusal.  But if his daughter worked for the campaign of that opponent and that campaign is sort of the subject of the offenses in the indictment, then the optics are worse.  Again, legal grounds for recusal under New York law?  I don't know.  But I think it would be a good idea to avoid any low-hanging fruit for the defendant and his legions of mouth breathers.

isn't the indictment re: paying off Stormy? that was 2016 when he ran against Clinton, not Biden.

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted
40 minutes ago, GhostOfTomJoad said:

There's a closeup shot of Trump with an eye zit growing out of his right eyelid. Reminded me Chris Elliott in There's Something About Mary.

Too much makeup 

Posted
4 minutes ago, South Austin said:

I don't think being a critic of fine film is grounds for refusal.

She doesn't know what "refusal" means.

Posted
14 minutes ago, bluto said:

Can’t wait for magaFox to talk about how important it is to protect the judge in this case 

Tucker is going to be outside this guys house in a hood 

Posted

Apparently a great deal of discussion about a protective order pertaining at least to discovery/evidence and social media.

They may wait until he spews some shit before going for an outright gag order.

Posted
3 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

Apparently a great deal of discussion about a protective order pertaining at least to discovery/evidence and social media.

They may wait until he spews some shit before going for an outright gag order.

My innuendo meter just red lined.

  • Haha 3


×
×
  • Create New...