Danderman123

There is going to be a trial for the Arizona fake electors that will lay all of this out. Trump is an unindicted co-conspirator, so he allegedly participated in the recruitment.

A very childish response. First off, it's unlikely that Trump himself called the fake electors to recruit them, instead he relied on his mooks to do that. And the mooks are in legal trouble: Arizona grand jury indicts Meadows, Giuliani, other Trump allies for 2020 election interference While the names of the remaining seven defendants remain redacted, reporting suggests that among the indicted are Mark Meadows, Rudy Giuliani, Jenna Ellis, John Eastman, Christina Bob, Boris Epshteyn, and Mike Roman. Finally, someone is going to nail Boris Epshteyn. Ooh, Mike Roman is indicted, which means we are going to learn all about the prosecutor's love life.

In some states, the electors have confessed. Or their recruiters. But to be honest, there hasn't been a definitive accounting of the chain of command within the Trump campaign to facilitate the fake elector criming. That's the function of these upcoming trials. However, there are partial accounts: https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/donald-trump/wisconsin-fake-elector-settlement-offers-new-details-strategy-trump-la-rcna141820

You really don't know that Trump controls money flow at the RNC? Before you puff up and call me a liar, let me ask you: Would it be wrong for Trump to control finances at the RNC?

This trial will be a big surprise for you.

So far, the stock only has significant price increases while there is higher than normal volume of trading. On "normal" volume days, the stock drops. Or on slow days, too. So you could predict share price movement by watching early volume. Just a theory. But I suspect those who throw money at the stock to raise share price will start waiting until late afternoon rather than at the start of trading.

That's why there's a trial. With more to come. How about Trump's attorneys defending Trump for his violations of the gag order? Do you think they provided a good defense?

Live by the polls, die by the polls. As for Truth Social, how much have you lost? Trump hasn't made a dime off his Truth Social stock yet.

The statute I cited is not my opinion.

FOX claimed that the machines were hacked, not that they theoretically can be hacked. Do you think that Dominion voting machines were hacked to give Biden more votes in Georgia? Yes, I know you can't answer that. I am just illustrating that you are trolling.

Not necessary. Trump's felony charges hinge on there being an underlying crime. I cited the statute for the underlying crime. If the Prosecution used the word "fraud", they were using it in the layman's sense, not a legal sense. All the Prosecution has to prove is that Trump wrote checks labeled as "business expenses" or "legal expenses" to cover up the underlying crime. The testimony of Stormy Daniels will be the icing on the cake, primarily to prove Trump is a liar, and, by extension, that his defense is worthless.

Even if Trump is convicted, he will appeal. And appeal.

At this point of Pecker's testimony, the jury may convict Trump on the basis of so many electoral fraud schemes. It's actually difficult to nail down a single crime among all the violations. But when Trump's ladies testify, that will be the final nail(s).

17-152. Conspiracy to promote or prevent election. Any two or more persons who conspire to promote or prevent the election of any person to a public office by unlawful means and which conspiracy is acted upon by one or more of the parties thereto, shall be guilty of a misdemeanor. Sounds like the law professor isn't up to speed on election crimes.

Ironically, David Pecker is testifying about making up stories that were published to help the Trump campaign. Do you have any thoughts about such fraudulent news stories that helped Donald Trump?

This sounds like material for the inevitable appeal. Assuming Trump is convicted.

Hey Trump fans! Any of you think that David Pecker is lying on the stand? Of course, you can't answer because you don't have talking points yet.

What is your definition of the "liberal left media"? Do you mean any media sources that strive for accuracy?

I don't think it will be difficult for the Prosecution to prove there was an underlying crime. David Pecker is testifying about all sorts of criming, both state and Federal. Does anyone disagree?

Since your "news" is propaganda, the outcome of this trial may be a big surprise for you.

Nobody is showing up to support Trump. Not protestors, not his family, and not his "friends".

@Yellowtailwill soon trot out one of his favorite Trump defenses: Breaking down Trump's actions into tiny discrete parts to "prove" Trump's Innocence. "So Trump picked up a pen to write a check. Since when is picking up a pen a criminal act?"

Do you think the fake electors recruited themselves?

Trump is in charge of the money flow at the RNC.

I was responding to this post. Perhaps you can ask @impulse why he mentioned Bernie Sanders in this topic.