3 hours ago, Yagoda said:

Ignorance spurts out again.

 

The stat of lims has run on misdemeanors.

 

Name the campaign violation? What law?

 

I do forget things but those are things that you never knew in the first place.

 

 

Still trying the lame trolling trick you borrowed from Yellowtail? 😆

20 minutes ago, TorquayFan said:

Whilst a Jail sentence doesn't disqualify Trump, I would expect the Republicans would dump him fast if it gets to that point . . . .

I just wish I was so sure that they would dump it!

They will claim it is all rigged and that he should be elected so he can become the dictator he wants to be and pardon himself!

4 minutes ago, candide said:

Still trying the lame trolling trick you borrowed from Yellowtail? 😆

Still trying the anti-intellectual, anti critical thinking schtick of your fact challenged clique? You all sound the same, rotating group think.

3 minutes ago, scottiejohn said:

I just wish I was so sure that they would dump it!

They will claim it is all rigged and that he should be elected so he can become the dictator he wants to be and pardon himself!

He is gonna throw everybody into camps like the last time, when everything was unaffordable.

16 minutes ago, Yagoda said:

Still trying the anti-intellectual, anti critical thinking schtick of your fact challenged clique? You all sound the same, rotating group think.

Who's intellectual, you? 😁

If you were, you wouldn't need to borrow lame trolling tactics from Yelowtail!

1 hour ago, candide said:

Who's intellectual, you? 😁

If you were, you wouldn't need to borrow lame trolling tactics from Yelowtail!

 

What lame trolling tactics, calling out leftists that make false claims? 

 

 

56 minutes ago, Yellowtail said:

 

What lame trolling tactics, calling out leftists that make false claims? 

 

 

No

 Asking other posters to waste time for an information you already know. 

5 minutes ago, candide said:

No

 Asking other posters to waste time for an information you already know. 

What you really mean is asking leftists for "information" that to support their false claims. 

 

What typically happens, is that a leftist makes an unsupported claim. Then when I ask them to support it, the leftist either ignores the request, call me stupid or whatnot. or provides a link to some silliness that does not support their claim. 

 

This goes back and forth a few times and then the leftist (not caring about the truth) just lies and says they already provided it, and then the leftist calls me a troll or stupid or some-such. 

 

It's the same when you ask most leftists to explain something they've regurgitated. They can't, but it's whoever asked them' fault. 

 

22 minutes ago, Yellowtail said:

What you really mean is asking leftists for "information" that to support their false claims. 

 

What typically happens, is that a leftist makes an unsupported claim. Then when I ask them to support it, the leftist either ignores the request, call me stupid or whatnot. or provides a link to some silliness that does not support their claim. 

 

This goes back and forth a few times and then the leftist (not caring about the truth) just lies and says they already provided it, and then the leftist calls me a troll or stupid or some-such. 

 

It's the same when you ask most leftists to explain something they've regurgitated. They can't, but it's whoever asked them' fault. 

 

The indictment has been linked several times. Then you and your pale imitator have kept on trolling by asking the same question over and over.

31 minutes ago, Yellowtail said:

What you really mean is asking leftists for "information" that to support their false claims. 

 

What typically happens, is that a leftist makes an unsupported claim. Then when I ask them to support it, the leftist either ignores the request, call me stupid or whatnot. or provides a link to some silliness that does not support their claim. 

 

This goes back and forth a few times and then the leftist (not caring about the truth) just lies and says they already provided it, and then the leftist calls me a troll or stupid or some-such. 

 

It's the same when you ask most leftists to explain something they've regurgitated. They can't, but it's whoever asked them' fault. 

 

Are you sticking to your assertion that unless I have memorized the charges against Trump that he must be innocent?

1 hour ago, Yellowtail said:

 

What lame trolling tactics, calling out leftists that make false claims? 

 

 

Asking about the charges against Trump over and over, even after they have been posted here. 

 

I am hereby inventing a term for your lame technique called:

 

"Groundhog Day Trolling".

2 minutes ago, Danderman123 said:

Asking about the charges against Trump over and over, even after they have been posted here. 

 

I am hereby inventing a term for your lame technique called:

 

"Groundhog Day Trolling".

Why insult Groundhogs?  They are lovely and cute, unlike many posters on here!

5 hours ago, candide said:

Who's intellectual, you? 😁

If you were, you wouldn't need to borrow lame trolling tactics from Yelowtail!

I sdont quite understand how holding an opinion and questioning the party line makes on a troll. However, dehumanization of the opposition is a common tactic of the Leninists.

18 minutes ago, Yagoda said:

I sdont quite understand how holding an opinion and questioning the party line makes on a troll. However, dehumanization of the opposition is a common tactic of the Leninists.

Why do you waste your time with worthless posts?

 

You do realize that the jury will make a decision soon. All your crazy posts will be forgotten afterwards.

22 minutes ago, Yagoda said:

I sdont quite understand how holding an opinion and questioning the party line makes on a troll. However, dehumanization of the opposition is a common tactic of the Leninists.

And trolling cannot be hidden by pseudo-intellectualism....

39 minutes ago, candide said:

And trolling cannot be hidden by pseudo-intellectualism....

Wow. Deep.

9 hours ago, Yagoda said:

Wow. Deep.

 

Yeah, and from one of the sexual intellectuals on the left. 

14 hours ago, Yagoda said:

Wow. Deep.

Time for you to ask about the statutes in the charging document again. Here's a reminder:

 

Manhattan District Attorney Alvin L. Bragg, Jr. today announced the indictment of DONALD J. TRUMP, 76, for falsifying New York business records in order to conceal damaging information and unlawful activity from American voters before and after the 2016 election. During the election, TRUMP and others employed a “catch and kill” scheme to identify, purchase, and bury negative information about him and boost his electoral prospects. TRUMP then went to great lengths to hide this conduct, causing dozens of false entries in business records to conceal criminal activity, including attempts to violate state and federal election laws.

 

 

21 minutes ago, Danderman123 said:

Time for you to ask about the statutes in the charging document again.

Not 'statutes'. Singular. From the link:

 

Falsifying Business Records in the First Degree, a class E felony, 34 counts

32 minutes ago, Danderman123 said:

Time for you to ask about the statutes in the charging document again. Here's a reminder:

 

Manhattan District Attorney Alvin L. Bragg, Jr. today announced the indictment of DONALD J. TRUMP, 76, for falsifying New York business records in order to conceal damaging information and unlawful activity from American voters before and after the 2016 election. During the election, TRUMP and others employed a “catch and kill” scheme to identify, purchase, and bury negative information about him and boost his electoral prospects. TRUMP then went to great lengths to hide this conduct, causing dozens of false entries in business records to conceal criminal activity, including attempts to violate state and federal election laws.

 

 

Did you find a statute in that puffpiece from a political hack who could arguably be said to have suborned perjury? Fanni Willis one of your heroes too?

 

Tell me what state and federal election laws were violated.

The lawyers discuss calling dueling campaign finance experts as witnesses

 

Updated 3:29 AM GMT+7, May 17, 2024

With the jury gone for the day, legal arguments are ongoing about the parameters of potential testimony from a campaign finance law expert the prosecution wants to call as a witness should the defense end up calling their expert to the witness stand.

 

Trump’s lawyers have said they may call Bradley A. Smith, a former Bill Clinton-appointed Republican Federal Election Commission member, to refute the prosecution’s contention that the hush money payments at issue in the trial amounted to campaign finance violations.

 

Trump is charged with felony counts of falsifying business records. In order to convict him, the jury must find that he improperly logged reimbursements to Cohen and did so with the intent to commit or hide another crime. Among those other alleged crimes, prosecutors say, were campaign finance violations.

 

Judge Merchan said he would take time this weekend to “digest both sets of submission further.”

 

https://apnews.com/live/trump-trial-updates-day-18-cohen

 

From 2018:

 

https://edition.cnn.com/2018/12/14/politics/trump-cohen-legal-risk/index.html

 

Bradley Smith, a former chairman of the Federal Election Commission, says it’s a stretch to say the payoffs were aimed solely at influencing the election.

 

Writing in the National Review this week, Smith said Trump had valid, personal reasons to hide the alleged affairs from public view. Among them: protecting his family from scandal and preserving his viability as a TV personality had he lost the election.

 

Just because an action might benefit a candidate, doesn’t mean its sole purpose is to influence an election, he said.

 

 

This may be the topic at issue:

 

Irrespective test

Commission regulations provide a test, called the "irrespective test," to differentiate legitimate campaign and officeholder expenses from personal expenses. Under the "irrespective test," personal use is any use of funds in a campaign account of a candidate (or former candidate) to fulfill a commitment, obligation or expense of any person that would exist irrespective of the candidate’s campaign or responsibilities as a federal officeholder.

 

More simply, if the expense would exist even in the absence of the candidacy or even if the officeholder were not in office, then the personal use ban applies.

 

https://www.fec.gov/help-candidates-and-committees/making-disbursements/personal-use/

52 minutes ago, jerrymahoney said:

This may be the topic at issue:

 

Irrespective test

Commission regulations provide a test, called the "irrespective test," to differentiate legitimate campaign and officeholder expenses from personal expenses. Under the "irrespective test," personal use is any use of funds in a campaign account of a candidate (or former candidate) to fulfill a commitment, obligation or expense of any person that would exist irrespective of the candidate’s campaign or responsibilities as a federal officeholder.

 

More simply, if the expense would exist even in the absence of the candidacy or even if the officeholder were not in office, then the personal use ban applies.

 

https://www.fec.gov/help-candidates-and-committees/making-disbursements/personal-use/

And yet, the payment was made two weeks before the election.

 

 

2 minutes ago, Danderman123 said:

And yet, the payment was made two weeks before the election.

That's when she showed up.

1 minute ago, jerrymahoney said:

That's when she showed up.

I believe her lawyer showed up much earlier, the negotiations broke down, the Access Hollywood tape came out, and things got urgent.

7 minutes ago, Danderman123 said:

I believe her lawyer showed up much earlier, the negotiations broke down, the Access Hollywood tape came out, and things got urgent.

She first showed up in 2011 but despite the timing, as Mr. Smith said in 2018, he was a billionaire real estate developer TV reality star so there would be lots of reasons for Ms. Stormy to try to sell her story of screwing him when his new wife was pregnant. And Keith Davidson had lots of marks that were not politicians.

13 minutes ago, jerrymahoney said:

She first showed up in 2011 but despite the timing, as Mr. Smith said in 2018, he was a billionaire real estate developer TV reality star so there would be lots of reasons for Ms. Stormy to try to sell her story of screwing him when his new wife was pregnant. And Keith Davidson had lots of marks that were not politicians.

My point was that the payment to Ms. Daniels was related to the election, as shown by the urgency expressed by Trump's mooks after the release of the Access Hollywood tape.

 

Your post was unresponsive and basically just noise. Did you join the Trump Defense team?

2 hours ago, Yagoda said:

Did you find a statute in that puffpiece from a political hack who could arguably be said to have suborned perjury? Fanni Willis one of your heroes too?

 

Tell me what state and federal election laws were violated.

The same trolling tactic borrowed from Yellotail again! 😀

It's like a broken record!

2 minutes ago, Danderman123 said:

My point was that the payment to Ms. Daniels was related to the election, as shown by the urgency expressed by Trump's mooks after the release of the Access Hollywood tape.

 

Your post was unresponsive and basically just noise. Did you join the Trump Defense team?

I said she first showed up in 2011 when Trump was not running for office.

8 minutes ago, jerrymahoney said:

I said she first showed up in 2011 when Trump was not running for office.

Trump didn't bother to buy her story in 2011, he waited until the election was imminent.

 

Thanks for the assist.