Jump to content

Donald Trump hush money trial, explained


Social Media

Recommended Posts

12 minutes ago, sirineou said:

and an equal number who think the earth is flat or  other nonsense. 

Trump was indited by a grand jury, not by the democrats. 

I have asked you several times if you know what a Grand Jury is, and you decline to answer. I am convinced you do not know, as indicated by your posts. 

No that's not true, otherwise there would not be all these bond trump has to pay.  

Indictments are handed down by grand juries after they are introduced by prosecuting attorneys... who are... in regards to every indictment handed down on trump... democrats.  Ever wonder about that???

  • Confused 1
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

If you had evidence you’d share it.

It is true that President Joe Biden appointed the attorney general who appointed special counsel Jack Smith. Many state and local prosecutors in the United States are elected, including the Democratic Manhattan district attorney suing Mr. Trump on charges related to paying hush money to a porn star, and the Democratic Atlanta-area district attorney reportedly set to indict Mr. Trump on election charges next week... https://www.csmonitor.com › USA › Politics › 2023 › 0809 › Trump-indictments-How-to-tell-if-they-r

  • Like 1
  • Confused 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Skipalongcassidy said:

The summary in the second-to-last paragraph of your article struck a chord with me:

 

"Trying Trump is good and necessary, as are all the other steps that have been taken to safeguard democracy since his ascent to power."

 

This reinforces my deep-seated beliefs about the legitimacy of the 91 indictments against Trump, as well as the investigations into his election interference, such as The Mueller Investigation, the coercion of Ukraine that led to his impeachment, and the subsequent impeachment for insurrection.

 

It seems that this conclusion may not coincide with, and might even contradict, your viewpoint which implies that all your efforts to state otherwise may have been futile.

 

Edited by LosLobo
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, LosLobo said:

The summary in the second-to-last paragraph of your article struck a chord with me:

 

"Trying Trump is good and necessary, as are all the other steps that have been taken to safeguard democracy since his ascent to power."

 

This reinforces my deep-seated beliefs about the legitimacy of the 91 indictments against Trump, as well as the investigations into his election interference, such as The Mueller Investigation, the coercion of Ukraine that led to his impeachment, and the subsequent impeachment for insurrection.

 

It seems that this conclusion may not coincide with, and might even contradict, your viewpoint which implies that all your efforts may have been futile.

Again with all the bull<deleted>... where are the convictions???

  • Confused 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

...this is, by far, the weakest criminal case I have ever seen in my 60 years. There is nothing here. There is no misdemeanor, there is no felony, there is no federal crime. The feds refused to prosecute — even Bragg refused to prosecute until some of his young progressive woke prosecutors demanded that he prosecute,” Dershowitz stated.

 

“I have a challenge: name any case in the history of America where anybody was ever prosecuted for failing to disclose a hush money payment on some kind of business form. It’s never happened in the history of this country. And to use an unprecedented jerry-rigged case against the man running against your president, your Democrats, is such an abuse of the legal system, we ought to change our motto from ‘E pluribus unum’ to ‘double standard hypocrisy,'” Dershowitz continued.

 

https://dailycaller.com/2024/04/13/alan-dershowitz-slams-alvin-bragg-hush-money-case-donald-trump-stormy-daniels-sean-hannity-new-york/

Edited by impulse
  • Confused 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Skipalongcassidy said:

Now you are entering the realm of fairness of the indictment process... their is approximately half of the USA voters who believe the system is currently rigged by the democratic party machine... who are you to say that they are wrong... will the day of reckoning ever appear... we will have to wait and see... so far all that you have are indictments... no convictions. 

You can believe what you want but for an indictment one needs PROOF. 

  • Like 1
  • Agree 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

A Grand Jury reviews the evidence and testimony to determine if the indictments are warranted, the Grand Jury also has the right to conduct investigations and subpoena witnesses and evidence.

 

Welcome to team ‘Convictions are sometimes wrong’ 

 

I expect that’s going to be your argument if Trump is convicted.

 

Much like your argument will be _______________ when he is not???

  • Confused 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Skipalongcassidy said:

Much like your argument will be _______________ when he is not???

I’ve told you.

 

I will accept any verdict handed down by any of the juries in any of Trump’s trials.

 

And I also said ‘Hold me to it’.

 

You, on the other hand, have been silent on the matter.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Chomper Higgot said:

ok, you’ve put a lot of effort into arguing Trump should not be held accountable to the law.

 

So let’s put it to the test:

 

 

 Will you accept any verdict handed down by any of the juries in any of Trump’s trials?

 

 

I would be very surprised if a clear answer is forthcoming.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 4/14/2024 at 6:53 AM, sirineou said:

No need to be explained.

It is really a very simple case,involving  campaign finance violations and falsification  business records.

One defendant was convicted , and not is the turn of the other.  

April 14, 2024

 

The jurors will be assessing Mr. Cohen, too. If even one does not believe his testimony, the trial could end with a hung jury, a clear victory for the former president. Todd Blanche, the lawyer leading the case, has told Mr. Trump in recent weeks that he can win the trial, people with knowledge of the discussion said.

 

https://www.nytimes.com/2024/04/14/nyregion/trump-trial-manhattan.html

  • Like 1
  • Sad 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, jerrymahoney said:

The jurors will be assessing Mr. Cohen, too. If even one does not believe his testimony, the trial could end with a hung jury

As id Cohen is the only witness and all the evidence 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.







×
×
  • Create New...