Except there are quotes. Part of the evidence is an audio tape of Trump discussing the payment to Daniels with Cohen. Kinda makes the whole " I didn't know about the payment" defense just a tad unbelievable.
Except there are quotes. Part of the evidence is an audio tape of Trump discussing the payment to Daniels with Cohen. Kinda makes the whole " I didn't know about the payment" defense just a tad unbelievable.
Originally posted by: tom
None of you can provide the quotes that show that Trump used campign funds to pay her not can anybody provide the exact quote that says Trump knowingly falsified the business records.
Cohen's attorney said that Cohen told him that he had no evidence linking Trump
Your willful ignorance is embarrassing. There is no allegation that Trump used "campaign funds" to pay off his porn star. In fact, it's kind of the reverse. The indictment is that he used money in service of the campaign without reporting it as "campaign funds." Your servile pandering to Trump is humiliating to you. But, I'm sure it will reach new depths over the next months.
Originally posted by: Boilerman
Yet no one can identify a crime for Trump in the hush money trial. Those who claim that I'm wrong haven't done a minute of research. I'd say that makes them Liberals, but that would be redundant.
The fact that you do not want to recognize the alleged crime, does not mean there is not one. The grand jury found reasonable cause to bring an indictment, the judge supervising the trial found reasonable cause that a crime had been committed, and now the jury will decide if there is proof beyond a reasonable doubt. I believe all of those involved have done more than "a minute of research." You might try to do the same, instead of slobbering all over yourself--and damaging what is left of your reputation--in service to Donald Trump.
Originally posted by: Dealer1
Your willful ignorance is embarrassing. There is no allegation that Trump used "campaign funds" to pay off his porn star. In fact, it's kind of the reverse. The indictment is that he used money in service of the campaign without reporting it as "campaign funds." Your servile pandering to Trump is humiliating to you. But, I'm sure it will reach new depths over the next months.
Tom also says there was no insurrection on Jan 6. So that's what you're dealing with when you attempt to engage him
The Trump defense is that he paid legal fees to cohen who then used the money to pay daniels in return for a NDA. I have yet to see the actual evidence that there was anything illegal here. All the usual suspects can say is that the prosecutors say it was illegal.
Who needs a jury when we have Tom?
Originally posted by: PJ Stroh
Who needs a jury when we have Tom?
Speaking of jury....I have Jury Duty next Tuesday. In California, not New York. :)
Originally posted by: PJ Stroh
Who needs a jury when we have Tom?
Questions any responsible jury member should ask
What is the evidence?
What is the crime?
Does it prove beyond a reasonable doubt?
The answer shouldn't be because the prosecutor said so. But that is what the usual suspects here think
The prosecutor didn't say anything. He's not a witness.
trump's Republican lawyer said so.
his Republican media exec said so.
his Republican hooker said so.
the audio tape of his conversation said so
and the records of the transaction said so.
And the best part is none of those sources are Russian agents who confessed to making it all up. Maybe that's why you have issues with them
Originally posted by: tom
The Trump defense is that he paid legal fees to cohen who then used the money to pay daniels in return for a NDA. I have yet to see the actual evidence that there was anything illegal here. All the usual suspects can say is that the prosecutors say it was illegal.
Of course you don't see the evidence--because you don't want to see the evidence. You are willfully ignorant. The indictment is that he submitted false business records in furtherance of another crime: namely failure to report funds spent in service of his campaign. And, well, yes the prosecutor alleges that it was illegal; but the grand jury concluded that there was probable cause to believe a crime had been committed, and the presiding judge certified that there was probable cause that a crime had been committed. That's our system--our system is NOT some Trump flunky in Congress yelling "bribery, corruption, Crime Family" over and over without one shred of evidence. Now, that kind of thing you believed and repeated here--because you wanted to. You are sacrificing you intellectual integrity in service to one despicable human being.
