BangkokReady Posted May 1 Share Posted May 1 1 minute ago, placeholder said: I know what you mean. For instance, the Trump organization was repeatedly slandered by leftists for being a corrupt enterprise. But the courts proved them wrong. While it was indicted on 17 criminal counts, it was only convicted on 17 of them. I'm not really sure what point you're making. 🤷♂️ 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
placeholder Posted May 1 Share Posted May 1 2 minutes ago, BangkokReady said: I'm not really sure what point you're making. 🤷♂️ I nearly believe you. 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BangkokReady Posted May 1 Share Posted May 1 7 minutes ago, placeholder said: I nearly believe you. I'm sure you have something to say, but you aren't great at expressing yourself. 🤷♂️ 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thaibeachlovers Posted May 2 Share Posted May 2 15 hours ago, Roo Island said: What source? You never read any of the OPs then? That explains a lot about your posts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thaibeachlovers Posted May 2 Share Posted May 2 7 hours ago, BangkokReady said: Hardly surprising. While Trump says and does a lot of daft things, his critics lie about him all day long. Luckily, courts are at least still impartial, so the accusations have to be proven. And when things need to be proven, the left-wing narrative often falls apart. 🤷♂️ That should be "so far the left-wing narrative usually falls apart". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Roo Island Posted May 2 Share Posted May 2 10 hours ago, Yellowtail said: Mother Jones, got it. Didn't even read it. Shows why you don't really understand what's going on. Living in an echo chamber. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Roo Island Posted May 2 Share Posted May 2 1 hour ago, thaibeachlovers said: You never read any of the OPs then? That explains a lot about your posts. I'm guessing you don't know the recent changes to news posts here? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Roo Island Posted May 2 Share Posted May 2 1 hour ago, thaibeachlovers said: That should be "so far the left-wing narrative usually falls apart". Fall apart? You mean trying to enforce the law? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Roo Island Posted May 2 Share Posted May 2 11 hours ago, frank83628 said: no, its about get trump at any costs, a purely political witch hunt and has been since he ran for office.... how amny thing have the demoncrats thrown at him so far? Turn off Faux News. It's not a political witch hunt. Sad Maga cult members are ok with their leaders breaking the law. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
frank83628 Posted May 2 Share Posted May 2 1 hour ago, Roo Island said: Turn off Faux News. It's not a political witch hunt. Sad Maga cult members are ok with their leaders breaking the law. i don't watch fox news., and YES, it is a political witch hunt, you just don't see it because you despise Trump and welcome any negative news against him! clinton, biden, pelosi, most msm news anchors all bang on about 'if Trumps gets in again it will be the end of democracy' and that 'he will attack his political rivals' , when the Dems are doing that to him now, albeit not directly from Bidens mouth. P.S isn't 'maga cult members' derogatory name calling like a few were saying only the Trump crew do? again, you don't see your own hypocrisy! 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Roo Island Posted May 2 Share Posted May 2 8 minutes ago, frank83628 said: i don't watch fox news., and YES, it is a political witch hunt, you just don't see it because you despise Trump and welcome any negative news against him! clinton, biden, pelosi, most msm news anchors all bang on about 'if Trumps gets in again it will be the end of democracy' and that 'he will attack his political rivals' , when the Dems are doing that to him now, albeit not directly from Bidens mouth. P.S isn't 'maga cult members' derogatory name calling like a few were saying only the Trump crew do? again, you don't see your own hypocrisy! Where do you get your news. Be honest. Me? The NY Times, AP, NPR, Al jazerra, the economist, etc. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jerrymahoney Posted May 2 Share Posted May 2 On 5/1/2024 at 5:18 PM, 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 May 2, 2024 During the cross-examination, the defense lawyer Emil Bove quickly sought to discredit Mr. Davidson. He accused him of toeing the line between seeking monetary settlements for his clients and extortion. And he warned Mr. Davidson that he was “not here to play lawyer games,” adding that he was seeking truthful answers. https://www.nytimes.com/2024/05/02/nyregion/trump-trial-keith-davidson-stormy-daniels-hush-money.html **************************** Updated 2:12 AM GMT+7, May 3, 2024 (Emil) Bove also noted that Davidson had been involved in similar hush money payments for clients that had nothing to do with presidential politics, grilling him about previous instances in which he solicited money to suppress embarrassing stories, including one involving wrestler Hulk Hogan. By the time Davidson negotiated hush money payments for McDougal and Daniels, Bove asked Davidson whether he was “pretty well versed in coming right up to the line without committing extortion, right?” “I had familiarized myself with the law,” Davidson replied. https://apnews.com/article/hush-money-trial-new-fines-testimony-trump-fe6995afbc96650b67f46d813ab05f06 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
placeholder Posted May 3 Share Posted May 3 16 hours ago, jerrymahoney said: May 2, 2024 During the cross-examination, the defense lawyer Emil Bove quickly sought to discredit Mr. Davidson. He accused him of toeing the line between seeking monetary settlements for his clients and extortion. And he warned Mr. Davidson that he was “not here to play lawyer games,” adding that he was seeking truthful answers. https://www.nytimes.com/2024/05/02/nyregion/trump-trial-keith-davidson-stormy-daniels-hush-money.html **************************** Updated 2:12 AM GMT+7, May 3, 2024 (Emil) Bove also noted that Davidson had been involved in similar hush money payments for clients that had nothing to do with presidential politics, grilling him about previous instances in which he solicited money to suppress embarrassing stories, including one involving wrestler Hulk Hogan. By the time Davidson negotiated hush money payments for McDougal and Daniels, Bove asked Davidson whether he was “pretty well versed in coming right up to the line without committing extortion, right?” “I had familiarized myself with the law,” Davidson replied. https://apnews.com/article/hush-money-trial-new-fines-testimony-trump-fe6995afbc96650b67f46d813ab05f06 If we didn't have your word for it, one would think that you were in in the bag for Trump. Ignoring stuff like this much? Jury Hears Tape of Trump and Cohen Discussing Hush-Money Deal On it, Mr. Cohen discusses a hush-money deal that the parent company of The National Enquirer made on Mr. Trump’s behalf with the former Playboy model Karen McDougal, as well as the question of how to deal with “the financing” — that is, repaying — the supermarket tabloid’s publisher, David Pecker. “What financing?” Mr. Trump asked, suddenly snapping to attention. He then directed Mr. Cohen to “pay with cash.” https://archive.ph/XjcM8 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yellowtail Posted May 3 Share Posted May 3 2 hours ago, placeholder said: If we didn't have your word for it, one would think that you were in in the bag for Trump. Ignoring stuff like this much? Jury Hears Tape of Trump and Cohen Discussing Hush-Money Deal On it, Mr. Cohen discusses a hush-money deal that the parent company of The National Enquirer made on Mr. Trump’s behalf with the former Playboy model Karen McDougal, as well as the question of how to deal with “the financing” — that is, repaying — the supermarket tabloid’s publisher, David Pecker. “What financing?” Mr. Trump asked, suddenly snapping to attention. He then directed Mr. Cohen to “pay with cash.” https://archive.ph/XjcM8 So now we know Trump paid stormy off to keep quiet, amazing, Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jingthing Posted May 3 Share Posted May 3 1 minute ago, Yellowtail said: So now we know Trump paid stormy off to keep quiet, amazing, Yes but it wasn't about Melania. Melania is in a transactional marriage. She knows what kind of man he is. It was about the election. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yellowtail Posted May 3 Share Posted May 3 1 minute ago, Jingthing said: Yes but it wasn't about Melania. Melania is in a transactional marriage. She knows what kind of man he is. It was about the election. So? Influencing or attempting to influence an election is not illegal. How many stories were crushed in Clinton's "nuts or sluts" campaign? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jingthing Posted May 3 Share Posted May 3 (edited) 5 minutes ago, Yellowtail said: So? Influencing or attempting to influence an election is not illegal. How many stories were crushed in Clinton's "nuts or sluts" campaign? Stop being ingenuous. Trump hush money trial: What criminal charges does he face? | Reuters Edited May 3 by Jingthing Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yellowtail Posted May 3 Share Posted May 3 1 minute ago, Jingthing said: Stop being ingenuous. What does that mean? How is paying her off to keep quiet illegal? It is not. If influencing an election was illegal, everyone wearing a Biden hat would be guilty. NDAs to keep people quiet do not qualify as campaign expenses. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jingthing Posted May 3 Share Posted May 3 1 minute ago, Yellowtail said: What does that mean? How is paying her off to keep quiet illegal? It is not. If influencing an election was illegal, everyone wearing a Biden hat would be guilty. NDAs to keep people quiet do not qualify as campaign expenses. Read the indictment. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yellowtail Posted May 3 Share Posted May 3 Just now, Jingthing said: Read the indictment. You have no idea, do you? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jingthing Posted May 3 Share Posted May 3 (edited) 2 minutes ago, Yellowtail said: You have no idea, do you? I do actually but you haven't even read about the case so talking to you is a waste of time. If it makes you feel any better I predict the jury will hang. Edited May 3 by Jingthing Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yellowtail Posted May 3 Share Posted May 3 1 minute ago, Jingthing said: I do actually but you haven't even read about the case so talking to you is a waste of time. If it makes you feel any better I predict the jury will hang. You don't, it you did you would say. I'm betting he's convicted. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
candide Posted May 3 Share Posted May 3 49 minutes ago, Jingthing said: I do actually but you haven't even read about the case so talking to you is a waste of time. If it makes you feel any better I predict the jury will hang. Of course he knows it. It's just one of his favourite trolling tactics. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yellowtail Posted May 3 Share Posted May 3 15 minutes ago, candide said: Of course he knows it. It's just one of his favourite trolling tactics. Yes, you guys all know, but none of you will say.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jerrymahoney Posted May 3 Share Posted May 3 8 hours ago, placeholder said: Ignoring stuff like this much? Thank you Mr. Interrogator. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chomper Higgot Posted May 3 Share Posted May 3 (edited) The ground just firmed up a bit with Hope Hicks’ testimony. Slipping in at the end her conversation with Defendant Trump in which he states the need to ‘deal with Daniels now’ and in doing so blowing a hole in the Defendant’s claims that Cohen was a loose cannon, running around making decisions and spending hundreds of $thousands of the Defendant’s money without any knowledge or involvement the Defendant. In a bid to ensure the Jury didn’t miss the long, Hicks followed the testimony with tears before turning to the Defendant and saying ‘sorry’. Sorry for what, telling the truth? Perhaps not the ‘Hope’ the Defendant’s supporters and apologists were trying to cling in to. Edited May 3 by Chomper Higgot 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jerrymahoney Posted May 3 Share Posted May 3 Ms. Hicks testified under subpoena by the Prosecution. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chomper Higgot Posted May 3 Share Posted May 3 12 minutes ago, jerrymahoney said: Ms. Hicks testified under subpoena by the Prosecution. And then went on to directly implicate Defendant Trump in the alleged crimes. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jerrymahoney Posted May 3 Share Posted May 3 Hicks helps Trump’s ‘Melania’ defense Hicks handed a gift to Trump when she testified on direct examination that the reaction of his wife Melania was his biggest concern on the morning that the Wall Street Journal article detailing the hush-money payments came out three days before the 2016 election. “He was concerned about how it would be viewed by his wife,” Hicks said. The Trump team suggested in opening statements that the main reason why the catch-and-kill scheme to buy Daniels’s story happened was because Trump found it embarrassing for him and for Melania – an alternative explanation to prosecutors’ case that it was to influence the election. Prosecutors subsequently tried to have Hicks add that Trump was also concerned about those stories derailing his 2016 campaign, but Hicks only offered that Trump was always asking how certain news would “play” with voters. https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/article/2024/may/03/trump-trial-hope-hicks-testimony-key-takeaways Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
save the frogs Posted May 3 Share Posted May 3 Why the fake news never ends ? 1 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