Roo Island Posted May 1 Share Posted May 1 4 minutes ago, Danderman123 said: Via his attorneys Trump informed the jury that he never had sex with either lady. In my opinion, that was a bad mistake. They sure wouldn't put him on the witness stand! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thaibeachlovers Posted May 1 Share Posted May 1 On 4/29/2024 at 8:46 PM, Roo Island said: This forum has super dodgy posters who fall for the lies, misinformation and hatred that is spewed by the right. Definitely not a good source for information. How about the media quoted in the OPs? Are they all right wing sources? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hanaguma Posted May 1 Share Posted May 1 2 minutes ago, Danderman123 said: Via his attorneys Trump informed the jury that he never had sex with either lady. In my opinion, that was a bad mistake. Possibly. Although what evidence is there actually? The whole Stormy Affair was in what, 2006? Could just become a 'he said, she said'. Same for McDougal. Personally, I'm sure he actually did the deed. He's the kind of guy who thinks with the little head for sure. But in the end it really isn't important to the case. Consensual sex between adults and all that. He wasn't paying them off to cover up a crime, just to cover up the possible embarrassment. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thaibeachlovers Posted May 1 Share Posted May 1 5 minutes ago, Danderman123 said: Via his attorneys Trump informed the jury that he never had sex with either lady. In my opinion, that was a bad mistake. Why is telling the truth a bad mistake? We only have their word that he did and I wouldn't trust either to tell the truth. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thaibeachlovers Posted May 1 Share Posted May 1 (edited) 18 minutes ago, Roo Island said: Ok. Answer my question. What president was the biggest liar? Facts only. Credible sites only. No deflection. Your question is a deflection from the topic. Edited May 1 by thaibeachlovers 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thaibeachlovers Posted May 1 Share Posted May 1 38 minutes ago, Danderman123 said: If Trump is jailed for another crazy post, he's only going for one night. I wonder where they will put all the secret service guys? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
earlinclaifornia Posted May 1 Share Posted May 1 3 minutes ago, Hanaguma said: Possibly. Although what evidence is there actually? The whole Stormy Affair was in what, 2006? Could just become a 'he said, she said'. Same for McDougal. Personally, I'm sure he actually did the deed. He's the kind of guy who thinks with the little head for sure. But in the end it really isn't important to the case. Consensual sex between adults and all that. He wasn't paying them off to cover up a crime, just to cover up the possible embarrassment. I choose to hear the jury myself and all the speculation is just more of that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thaibeachlovers Posted May 1 Share Posted May 1 40 minutes ago, Danderman123 said: There is no point in trying to influence this crowd with your talking points - the verdict will come, and then all of your posts won't matter. No one will care about your or my opinion about the case after the verdict. Because in Trump World trying to win the day with transitory talking points is job #1, but you could win every day and it will all be forgotten after the verdict. That's absolutely OK as no one cares about your opinion either, IMO. 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Danderman123 Posted May 1 Share Posted May 1 3 minutes ago, Hanaguma said: Possibly. Although what evidence is there actually? The whole Stormy Affair was in what, 2006? Could just become a 'he said, she said'. Same for McDougal. Personally, I'm sure he actually did the deed. He's the kind of guy who thinks with the little head for sure. But in the end it really isn't important to the case. The impact on the case is the damage to Trump's credibility if the jury decides that Trump is a liar. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thaibeachlovers Posted May 1 Share Posted May 1 48 minutes ago, Danderman123 said: I agree with you on this. What do you think of Trump telling the jury that he never had sex with either lady? Did he take lessons from Bill Clinton then? 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thaibeachlovers Posted May 1 Share Posted May 1 1 minute ago, Danderman123 said: The impact on the case is the damage to Trump's credibility if the jury decides that Trump is a liar. Gee wizz, that actually makes sense, but what if the jury think the women are lying through their teeth? Doesn't that make the outcome of the trial a not guilty verdict? If the jury is actually not biased against Trump, the defense only has to prove reasonable doubt to get an acquittal. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
riclag Posted May 1 Share Posted May 1 (edited) 27 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said: I wonder where they will put all the secret service guys? Now a days ya gotta put things in perspective! Looking back at the past ! If you're a dem president it was ok to have a go around in the WH oval room.Another time , pay 800k on a NDA and get away with it . But Trump , the dems make up laws in states decades after to GET TRUMP! It reeks of hypocrisy and is indicative of a ideology that goes after their political rivals. imop Edited May 1 by riclag 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Roo Island Posted May 1 Share Posted May 1 39 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said: How about the media quoted in the OPs? Are they all right wing sources? What source? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Roo Island Posted May 1 Share Posted May 1 39 minutes ago, Hanaguma said: Possibly. Although what evidence is there actually? The whole Stormy Affair was in what, 2006? Could just become a 'he said, she said'. Same for McDougal. Personally, I'm sure he actually did the deed. He's the kind of guy who thinks with the little head for sure. But in the end it really isn't important to the case. Consensual sex between adults and all that. He wasn't paying them off to cover up a crime, just to cover up the possible embarrassment. It's not about the affair. It's about cooking the books! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Danderman123 Posted May 1 Share Posted May 1 34 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said: Did he take lessons from Bill Clinton then? I used to think that Bill Clinton was a pathological liar. But then Trump showed me what a real pathological liar is. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Danderman123 Posted May 1 Share Posted May 1 31 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said: Gee wizz, that actually makes sense, but what if the jury think the women are lying through their teeth? Doesn't that make the outcome of the trial a not guilty verdict? If the jury is actually not biased against Trump, the defense only has to prove reasonable doubt to get an acquittal. You are correct. If the Defense proves that the ladies are lying, that would help Trump immeasurably. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hanaguma Posted May 1 Share Posted May 1 32 minutes ago, Roo Island said: It's not about the affair. It's about cooking the books! Exactly. Which is why the question of whether the Bad Orange Man actually did 'the deed' with these two is irrelevant. As to whether the jury will decide whether or not he is a liar, that ship has sailed. He is. Welcome to New York. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yellowtail Posted May 1 Share Posted May 1 1 hour ago, Danderman123 said: You are correct. If the Defense proves that the ladies are lying, that would help Trump immeasurably. No, that would not help Trump, because whether or not he had sex with them is irreverent as far as the "crime" is concerned. The whole thing is designed to drag Trump through the mud, keep him from campaigning, punish him brutalize him with legal costs, and at the end of the day, it does not matter that much if he is convicted. If he is convicted, it will go to appeal, and if he is acquitted, the damage will have been done, and the press will be all about why he was really guilty, in spite of his being acquitted. Had he reported the stormy payment as a campaign expense, he would have been prosecuted for that. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yellowtail Posted May 1 Share Posted May 1 2 hours ago, Danderman123 said: The impact on the case is the damage to Trump's credibility if the jury decides that Trump is a liar. The press has been calling Trump a liar for eight years. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yellowtail Posted May 1 Share Posted May 1 2 hours ago, thaibeachlovers said: Gee wizz, that actually makes sense, but what if the jury think the women are lying through their teeth? Doesn't that make the outcome of the trial a not guilty verdict? If the jury is actually not biased against Trump, the defense only has to prove reasonable doubt to get an acquittal. It does not matter if the women are lying, that they were paid to keep quiet is not in question. 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jerrymahoney Posted May 1 Share Posted May 1 1 hour ago, Roo Island said: It's not about the affair. It's about cooking the books! Yes. They should not have listed the entries as legal expenses. They should have entered them as extortion payments: According to New York Penal Law §155.05(2)(e), extortion occurs when a person compels or threatens another to deliver money or property under the threat of physical violence, property damage, or public humiliation. https://jeffreylichtman.com/new-york-city-white-collar-criminal-defense-lawyer/coercion-and-extortion 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yellowtail Posted May 1 Share Posted May 1 5 minutes ago, jerrymahoney said: Yes. They should not have listed the entries as legal expenses. They should have entered them as extortion payments: According to New York Penal Law §155.05(2)(e), extortion occurs when a person compels or threatens another to deliver money or property under the threat of physical violence, property damage, or public humiliation. https://jeffreylichtman.com/new-york-city-white-collar-criminal-defense-lawyer/coercion-and-extortion Did Trump not get a $600K judgement against Stormy? Don't remember seeing that on CNN... 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jerrymahoney Posted May 1 Share Posted May 1 8 minutes ago, Yellowtail said: Did Trump not get a $600K judgement against Stormy? Don't remember seeing that on CNN... The 9th US Circuit Court of Appeals sided with the former president in his effort to recoup additional legal fees from adult film star Stormy Daniels, who had filed and lost a defamation suit against him. Daniels was ordered to pay Trump’s attorneys just over $120,000 in legal fees. That’s on top of the more than $500,000 in court-ordered payments to Trump attorneys she’s already been ordered to pay. (Judge) Otero later ordered Daniels to pay roughly $293,000 in legal fees. She was also ordered to pay $245,000 in fees after losing another appeal. https://edition.cnn.com/2023/04/04/politics/stormy-daniels-pay-trump-legal-fees/index.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
0ffshore360 Posted May 1 Share Posted May 1 The trial is not about paying a prostitute. It is about illegal book keeping to avoid impact on a political campaign. It is going to get worse. Trump will need to explain away a ghost 50 million loan soon. Quite a significant sum to nominate as a deductible ! 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
candide Posted May 1 Share Posted May 1 15 minutes ago, jerrymahoney said: Yes. They should not have listed the entries as legal expenses. They should have entered them as extortion payments: According to New York Penal Law §155.05(2)(e), extortion occurs when a person compels or threatens another to deliver money or property under the threat of physical violence, property damage, or public humiliation. https://jeffreylichtman.com/new-york-city-white-collar-criminal-defense-lawyer/coercion-and-extortion Just a question as I am not familiar with such legal issues. Considering that paying Stormy was a personal matter and not a business matter, is it allowed that his company pays for it (whatever the type of entry), instead of Trump paying it with his personal funds? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scottiejohn Posted May 1 Share Posted May 1 30 minutes ago, Yellowtail said: The press has been calling Trump a liar for eight years. For only eight years? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jerrymahoney Posted May 1 Share Posted May 1 11 minutes ago, 0ffshore360 said: The trial is not about paying a prostitute. It is about illegal book keeping to avoid impact on a political campaign. I like this oft stated rationale: The trial is not about paying a prostitute. It is about illegal book keeping to avoid impact on a political campaign. Instead of: The payments were made during a political campaign because that's when Stormy Daniels and her attorney decided to show up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yellowtail Posted May 1 Share Posted May 1 2 minutes ago, scottiejohn said: For only eight years? Yeah, the left loved him before the election. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chomper Higgot Posted May 1 Share Posted May 1 1 minute ago, jerrymahoney said: I like this oft stated rationale: The trial is not about paying a prostitute. It is about illegal book keeping to avoid impact on a political campaign. Instead of: The payments were made during a political campaign because that's when Stormy Daniels and her attorney decided to show up. What do court documents say? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jerrymahoney Posted May 1 Share Posted May 1 7 minutes ago, candide said: Just a question as I am not familiar with such legal issues. Considering that paying Stormy was a personal matter and not a business matter, is it allowed that his company pays for it (whatever the type of entry), instead of Trump paying it with his personal funds? I don't know -- It is a private company. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
.png.3b3332cc2256ad0edbc2fe9404feeef0.png)
Recommended Posts
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 accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now