Jump to content

Judge Denies Trump's Mistrial Request Over Stormy Daniels Testimony


Recommended Posts

2 hours ago, Danderman123 said:

Trump is claiming that his team is winning the case, as is FOX.

 

https://www.foxnews.com/video/6352487454112

 

Of course, they both also claimed he won the last presidential election.  So that pretty much tells everyone what they need to know about the total lack of credibility of both.

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The moment the conversation turns to DT his supporters start talking about Biden.  It's a tacit admission that they have nothing supportive to offer.

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The moment the conversation turns to Biden his supporters start talking about Trump.  It's a tacit admission that they have nothing supportive to offer.

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Supposedly, the prosecution will call Michael Cohen tomorrow.

 

Unlike many, I don't think he will be a good witness, because he will tell the truth. Unfortunately, he will have to admit that Trump's orders to him were not explicit, they were in code.

 

So rather than Trump telling Cohen to pay off Stormy Daniels, Cohen will testify that Trump told him to "take care of it".

 

A normal person will listen to Cohen's testimony and understand the criminal nature of Trump's orders, but some people will claim that Cohen's testimony exonerates Trump. And maybe one juror won't have the mental capacity to connect the dots.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 hours ago, Danderman123 said:

Trump is clearly prepping his fanbase by telling him that his team is winning the case.

 

If he is convicted, his fans may revolt.

 

Or not, it depends how crazy they are.

One idiot has come out from under the ether... many to join him soon...

  

Fareed Zakaria admitted on his show Sunday that the felony charges brought against former President Trump in New York over falsifying business records appear politically motivated. 

"I doubt the New York indictment would have been brought against a defendant whose name was not Donald Trump," Zakaria said. 

The CNN host argued that the trial against Trump guarantees to "keep him in the spotlight" and "infuriate his base." 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Skipalongcassidy said:

One idiot has come out from under the ether... many to join him soon...

  

Fareed Zakaria admitted on his show Sunday that the felony charges brought against former President Trump in New York over falsifying business records appear politically motivated. 

"I doubt the New York indictment would have been brought against a defendant whose name was not Donald Trump," Zakaria said. 

The CNN host argued that the trial against Trump guarantees to "keep him in the spotlight" and "infuriate his base." 

Is Zakaria someone whose opinion you trust?

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, Danderman123 said:

Supposedly, the prosecution will call Michael Cohen tomorrow.

 

Unlike many, I don't think he will be a good witness, because he will tell the truth. Unfortunately, he will have to admit that Trump's orders to him were not explicit, they were in code.

 

So rather than Trump telling Cohen to pay off Stormy Daniels, Cohen will testify that Trump told him to "take care of it".

 

A normal person will listen to Cohen's testimony and understand the criminal nature of Trump's orders, but some people will claim that Cohen's testimony exonerates Trump. And maybe one juror won't have the mental capacity to connect the dots.

And what is the "criminal nature" of Trump's orders? 

 

How is paying someone to keep quiet illegal? 

 

Yeah, I agree, the jurors really need to "connect the dots" to GET Trump. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Skipalongcassidy said:

I didn't think that you would know who he is... 

If you say, he'll pull up a hundred examples of how he has attacked Trump. 

 

"Even a blind hog gets an acorn every now and then." 

  • Thumbs Up 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, Yellowtail said:

And what is the "criminal nature" of Trump's orders? 

 

How is paying someone to keep quiet illegal? 

 

Yeah, I agree, the jurors really need to "connect the dots" to GET Trump. 

Your memory is getting worse.

  • Haha 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

28 minutes ago, Yellowtail said:

Do you trust his opinion? 

There's two ways of looking at his comments:

 

1) The prosecutors are simply out to get Trump for political reasons, or

 

2) If Trump had not been elected in 2016, none of these facts would have been publicly known, and Trump would not have been indicted.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

To recap the bidding:

 

Michael Cohen pled guilty to a campaign finance violation for paying Stormy Daniels just before the 2016 election.

 

Donald Trump reimbursed Cohen, but tried to cover up the campaign finance violation by claiming the payments to Cohen were a business expense (attorney services).

 

Under NY State law, the business fraud is elevated from a misdemeanor to a felony if it is intended to cover up  a crime.

 

 

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, Danderman123 said:

There's two ways of looking at his comments:

 

1) The prosecutors are simply out to get Trump for political reasons, or

 

2) If Trump had not been elected in 2016, none of these facts would have been publicly known, and Trump would not have been indicted.

 

 

 

I meant do you trust his opinion, generally? 

 

I think the prosecutors are simply out to get Trump for political reasons. 

 

All the "facts" would have been known whether Trump had been reelected or not, and Biden would still have all his classifies documents.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, Danderman123 said:

I live in Thailand and so don't watch CNN enough to form an opinion of Fareed Zakaria.

 

Who do you watch such that you have been able to form an opinion? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, Yellowtail said:

 

Who do you watch such that you have been able to form an opinion? 

I don't really watch TV, sorry.

 

Maybe Rachel Maddow once every couple of months.

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Danderman123 said:

I don't really watch TV, sorry.

 

Maybe Rachel Maddow once every couple of months.


Explains everything!

 

Thank you 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
3 minutes ago, Eric Loh said:

Fareed opined that Trump will lose in 2016. Why the sudden change of heart to submit to CNN. Whatever floats your boat.  


I haven’t submitted to CNN.  Reported by FOX.

 

Currently the most watched and respected network.

 

Point I was making is even liberals are seeing for what the Kangaroo Court really is, a KANGAROO COURT.

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

1 minute ago, G_Money said:


I haven’t submitted to CNN.  Reported by FOX.

 

Currently the most watched and respected network.

Sorry I don;t watched cable television channels that being exposed for lying. 

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

6 minutes ago, Eric Loh said:

Sorry I don;t watched cable television channels that being exposed for lying. 

Is there a news outlet of any kind that has not been exposed for lying? 

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...