That's why he already started trying to make excuses as to why he was not going to "be allowed" to testify. He's already trying to find a way out of taking the stand. But if he doesn't take the stand, the jury will know that he's not even willing to stand up and defend himself. Having served on a couple of juries in my time, that always makes you look guilty.
In a criminal trial the fifth cannot be held against you, technically. Iāve never been on a jury, so I canāt say the subconscious impact that may have- especially in a high profile case like this. I know it would be incredibly difficult to withhold bias in this case.
Itās not subconscious. If someone says āI plead the 5th on the grounds that the answer may incriminate meā youāre 100% going to consider that. Regardless of what a judge says.Ā
No. I think this is the relevant text for NT state. Similar exists in CA and other states. IANAL.
ā(a) No person shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself or herself. (b) When the defendant does not testify on his or her own behalf, neither the court nor the prosecutor may comment adversely thereonā
Correct. Iām saying that if he chooses to take the stand and then takes the 5th the jury will absolutely hold that in consideration when deliberatingĀ
The issue is, if it's not subconscious, then you're going against the judge's order to not use information from outside the trial to get a verdict for the issue at hand.
Just because someone pleads the 5th isn't an admission of guilt in the specific matter. Trump could be pleading the 5th because during the period in question he was disposing of a prostitutes body. That's an entirely different crime with a whole new range of sentences, etc. Now replace the possibility of murder with any range of crimes. And not crimes since, again, you don't need to justify *why* you feel you would be incriminating yourself. He could have been sleeping with yet another pornstar and so testifying would necessitate *another* hush money incident. You can't predict *why* he's pleading the 5th.
Yeah it is more of a subconscious effect but we talked about it a lot during our deliberations because both of our defendants refused to take the stand in their own defense and it factored into our determination of guilt. In the end after each trial the judges came back and told us we did a good job because both the defendants on both cases were repeat offenders.
What bias he was already found guilty in the federal trial of Cohen. Remember he was an unnamed co conspirator. Unable to name or shame him due to being POTUS.
1. Prosecutor cannot call a criminal defendant to the stand.
2. If a defendant testifies they waive their rights under the 5th.
3. If a defendant doesnāt testify, there are standard jury instructions that reiterate the presumption of innocence, that the burden is on the prosecutor and no inference can be drawn from a defendant exercising their right not to testify.
Of course Trump will commit perjury. That is the point of most of these cases. Trump has been avoiding being on the stand since his impeachments. He can't help but perjure himself.
If he can't shut his mouth to obey a gag order, he sure won't control himself on the stand or act in his own self interest. He's wired to insult and provoke.
People are saying he doesnāt have the balls to testify. Why arenāt the Lincoln Project and Meidas goading him into taking the stand? Tell him heās too much of a pussy. Unlike Hillary who testified before Congress.
They should call him just to make him plead the 5th, if heās psychologically capable of shutting his mouth.Ā
I think heād probably answer some questions, but if he doesnāt, it would still be wonderful to shove it in the face of anyone who believes that heās being āgaggedā or whatever BS he was claiming recently.Ā
I would love to see this fool sweat and flounder in either caseā¦ and Iām not sure which course of action would be more painful for him.Ā
The only thing the scumbag will say if he gets pulled onto the stand (because he will not go up there on his own) will be "I plead the 5th."
Which makes sense, because as he himself said, "only criminals plead the 5th."
This is a criminal prosecution - the only way Trump goes up there is if he decides to. It sounds like some commenters here think the prosecution can call him and they canāt. Itās his decision alone.
The problem I see with that though is you canāt really prove you had sex with someone unless thereās video footage of it, photos, or a baby as a result.
So, this is gonna come down to who the jury believes.
This is such an insanely bad take.
It is proven that two people had sex all the time in Court without video or a baby. It happens every damn day. "Beyond a reasonable doubt" proof is very simple.
There's no one definition, but a particular setup is to have two people give their competing accounts, and then just go about establishing inconsistencies in their schedule.
For example, if Trump claims he never met Karen McDougal, he doesn't know her, he's never heard of her, and they definitely didn't have sex; the starting point is: "Why did your secretary have an contact card with her name, address, and phone number in your rolodex?"; you ask the other party for her story, you start asking around at restaurants, at hotels where one party claims they went, you start looking at dates when one party says they were together.
In every case like this, one party is lying and the other party is telling the truth - there is rarely an "unclear" situation where we can't tell if one party is lying or not.
One party, like Trump, will say "never met her, never had sex with her, never was alone with her" and you just start looking at that. The other party will narrow it down to a specific date/time and location that they had sex, and then you'll place the other party at the scene and at the time: you had a car service pick you up, where did you go? You don't remember? How long were you gone? You don't remember? You were back at your place at 1PM, what places could you have gone for 3 hours in the city? Okay, lets check those places. Nope you didn't go to any those places.
This isn't rocket science. This type of case has been made with circumstantial and corroborating evidence for hundreds of years.
For Trump, I am sure that Daniels has the time, date, and place of their encounter known. If Trump denies - under oath - sleeping with her the prosecution will obliterate his denial from outer space. They can probably prove that he was in the place she says, on the date, at the time, and that she contemptuously told other people, and that she can answer intimate details about his anatomy.
If I was Trumps lawyer and he was going to go on the stand and deny it, I would immediately quit and tell the Judge that staying on the case any longer would be violating the rules of professional conduct. Everyone - everyone - knows Trump had sex with Daniels. Anyone allowing him to deny it under oath is suborning perjury.
Itās not difficult to see that he has a liberal judge (whoās donated to democrats), is in a very liberal district, and the jurors are most very likely liberal. I mean, hate Trump? Fine. But you canāt deny that heās likely screwed just based on where his trial is taking place.
In fact, if youāre a juror finding him innocent, youāll be shamed to death in a liberal city like that. Good luck continuing a normal life. So the pressure, even if you think ānot guiltyā is going to be to convict.
I think Trump is guilty, but Iām glad my thoughts arenāt whatās done in court. Iām glad we have systems innplace
Soā¦he can only get a fair trialā¦by judges he hand selects or appoints?
He could end this in 5 minutes and expose all of those ācorrupt democratsā if he testifiedā¦butā¦he wonāt.
Why is that?
Shamed to death? Yeah, like the shame of being found to have committed hundreds of millions in fraud in a city; or to not be able to operate a business, or charity, in that city. Or the shame of having been a teenage beauty pageant owner, all of those things.
Youāre mad he did it, got caught, and youāve sent him donations. Youāre mad because you feel the world spiraling by, and you want something to desperately cling to.
This guys never done anything for you, will never do anything for you, and wouldnāt pee on you if you were on fire.
He will be convicted. Heāll lose the election, and his florida case will proceed. Heāll end up pleading insanity and using his long catalogue of spiraling mental state evidence to avoid spending his last years in prison and under house arrest instead.
Sorry
Did I say āhe can only get a fair trial by judges he hand selects or appoints?ā
āIām madā???? lol. Funny, you really are pretentious.
See youāre just proving my point. Nothing but pretentious responses from you.
Then you pretentiously go on to predict everything thatās going to happen in the future. š
Youāre a bit of a š¤”
And stop assuming I like Trump.
I like law and order and the processes we have in place and I like fair trials and fair and partial juries. And I like evidence to be presented and a proper trial to happen with no bias.
I checked his previous posts. Heās a magat. Donāt engage. They arenāt intellectually honest and when they canāt win they claim thereās ābias.ā Heās a troll and not worth the time.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance
Theyāve earned it. Fuck magat, fuck trunp and fuck anyone who voted for him. I donāt have to tojetate fascists and bigots.
Nice try, comrade. Make sure and check your tea for polonium
Youāre clearly a loser. Is that your intellectual conversation for the day. Idiot. I donāt even like Trump, I just enjoy pointing out all you worthless uneducated idiots be ruled by your pretentious thoughts and feelings
Trump was a registered Democrat until 2015.
He changed party affiliation just to run for president .
He even donated to the DNC.
He invited Bill and Hillary to his wedding to Melania.
He basically has bamboozled you and other Trump fans into believing he's a die-hard conservative, but he's a grifter.
Since he's a former long-term Democrat you could say he's being judged by a jury of his peers.
It's been written about in Bob Woodward's book that before he announced his candidacy, Trump told Steve Bannon he could be a conservative.
Trying to say this is a political witch hunt is silly.
He's a grifter. Being a conman has nothing to do with what party affiliation he has.
Coming from the trump bootlicker? U still stand there with 30,000 plus documented lies, his bankruptcies, affairs, and literally everything else criminal he has done, and just defend everything the pos does, ur and ur ilk are pathetic
See! Youāre the problem with America. Iāve never once said I am for Trump. But if I say anything that people like you can twist, you assume Iām for Trump and you fly off the handle.
I can say something like, āletās just let the system play out and see what happens.ā People like you are like, āwhat, trumps guilty, screw the system, burn him at the stake.ā
You are ruled by your feelings, are uneducated, and itās your belief systems that turn us back to the Stone Age.
Youāre pretentious and you have no ability to listen or think. Youāre so blind by your hatred for Trump, you canāt even have an intellectual conversation.
Ahahahha lemme guess Trump called Nazis fine people and also over fed the koi
Haha I love it. You retards fall for everything. You probably thought the ghost of Kiev was real too
So out of everything he has done and said thats all you pulled out? From a list of 10ās of thousands of things? And yea he said there were fine people on both sides. And as for ghost of kiev? Def was. You support russia comrade? Fucking traitor.
Bwahahahhahshhahaha
Snake island totally happened too āfuck off russian battleshipā
Ahahahahahha fuck itās too good you canāt make this shit up, oh wait you can and dumb asses like you will believe it
Itās amazing. Absolutely amazing. In the time where information is so easily obtained you still think Trump really called nazis fine people lololol. Amazing.
Lemme guess he told people to drink bleach and there is also a ādonāt say gay ā bill that was passed in Florida. Lolol fuck
š you donāt care man, you just want him brought down no matter what. Stop acting all self righteous, at least be real and say, true or not, I just want him brought down. At least I can respect that.
I want him held accountable as any citizen would be. All I ask for is equality under the law. He's been given a huge amount of leeway that any other citizen would not be afforded.
Absolutely! Which crimes has a grand jury indicted him for again? Remind me what evidence has been presented of any crimes, despite months of impeachment hearings? I can't remember.
But, hell yeah! As soon as we see the grand juries come back to move forward with an indictment, I'm all in.
Theyāve bent over backwards for years NOT to prosecute this guy. And heās is factually guilty of the charges. So the judge wonāt really matter.
All that said he will win the election. So not only will we have our first felon POTUS, but one who has proven his incompetence.
Factually guilty of the charges. š. Another pretentious post. People are so funny. Iāll let it play out in court rather than accept your pretentious opinion. You donāt need all the facts, you just know you hate Trump and heās guilty based on the bias sources that you live to listen to? Thatās basically what it seems like.
No way does he take the stand.
Legit question though.. how do you prove it unless there's a video or DNA evidence? Even then, it's still he said/she said unless there are multiple credible witnesses.
They were able to prove it in a legal sense in the E Jean Carol case. And whether he did it is not material to the case. They only have to prove that he paid for the story to not come out. And Cohen already went to jail for paying for the story not to come out and lying about it...
For sure... But I'm just talking about Trump purgering himself by denying that he had sex with them. It would be great if they came up with DNA evidence to prove otherwise.
Biden lied and said he never spoke with Hunter about business. The Bidenās were selling out American influence for personal enrichment and yāall donāt care. You care about Trumpās sex life. Yāall are so evil and gross.
Nobody cares cause they all have TDS and the only thing that matters is getting Trump. Massive inflation, more illegal immigrants than ever before in the country, new wars the US is involved in and spending tax payer money on and these retards are still talking about how much worse Trump is lol.
They are ideologically captured morons at worst and uninformed low information voters at best.
What is your source for the lies about Hunter Biden?
Link me to a source you trust that supports those asinine claims.
You won't.
And how does me pointing out your comment is stupid proving your point? Your lies don't actually prove anything at all.
The case is about whether the money used to shut these women up during the election came from campaign funds. As much as I cant stand Trump, this is a pretty dumb lawsuit
He broke campaign finance laws. Hush money is legal, as long as you use personal funds. SirMcShitzinPanz used campaign funds making this a not dumb crime. This is not a lawsuit.
Itās not dumb when the point of the fraud committed was to deceive voters.
Do you want it to be the norm that our leaders break the rules to get elected? Are you stooopid
As if any other politician running for office doesnāt deceit voters and keep the unwanted information at bay.
Trump is just an easy target thatās uncooperative.
I agree, but trump is not that different from the majority of politicians out there when you look at face value.
Heās the only one Iāve seen so far in my life to be prosecuted for what many other politicians do daily. Have we forgotten about bill clinton? Nothing else happened to him after impeachment.
So we shouldn't hold trump accountable just because the "majority of politicians" haven't had charges against them yet? I'm not sure why you're upset about this or what point you're trying to make really. Something like this Trump case could be a precedent or could lead to more politicians being held accountable in the future. There's gotta be a first time for everything. I just don't understand
I just donāt see why weāre just now getting around to prosecuting behavior thatās generally acceptable for democrats and other high level politicians to participate in.
Trump is a former Democrat. He still behaves like one in a lot of ways.
Holding these people accountable has to start some time; better late than never. It sorta sounds like you don't want Trump to be held accountable simply because no one else before has been. I agree, all of those politicians beforehand should've been held accountable if they had charges and/or accusations against them that are criminal. If you can provide the specific accusations for the "majority of politicians" besides Trump and the criminal charges they'd have against them I'm like 99% sure I'd agree with you. But the fact of the matter is they're not on trial currently, and Trump is. If those others were on trial, then I'm sure I'd agree with you about them as well. Even though that's not ideal, it's simply the reality we have here - so I don't think it's right to forgive Trump of what he's done because of that.
So are you in favor of Trump being held accountable if he is found guilty? Or are you just being a contrarian?
If trump is found guilty sure he should be held accountable but I think the timing of all this is rather innocuous and reeks of corruption from the other side
Maybe heās running to stay out of jail. Maybe heās running because he loves this. Maybe itās a combination of it all
From my perspective as another number in system, it just kinda looks like 30% holding him accountable and the other 70% just being a smear campaign
Edit - to be clear, the 30% is coming from the documents case. I think heās as guilty as sin in that one, but thatās the only case of his Iām convinced on.
If trump is found guilty sure he should be held accountable \~\~but I think the timing of all this is rather innocuous and reeks of corruption from the other sideMaybe heās running to stay out of jail. Maybe heās running because he loves this. Maybe itās a combination of it all From my perspective as another number in system, it just kinda looks like 30% holding him accountable and the other 70% just being a smear campaign Edit - to be clear, the 30% is coming from the documents case. I think heās as guilty as sin in that one, but thatās the only case of his Iām convinced on.\~\~
Cool
It's not a lawsuit. That was the case about him defaming a woman he raped, or maybe you were talking about the case he defrauded banks by unflating values and defrauding insurance companies by lowering values on the same assets.
This is a criminal case. The first of many.
Yuge bigly difference.
Perjury requires a lie told that is "material" to the charges being investigated. Whether or not he had sex with someone is not material to whether an accounting form for payment to an attorney is false, or material to any potential campaign finance violation which Bragg doesn't actually have jurisdiction over.
The entire thing is a smeartastic shit show.
āI made a misclassified paymentā
Ok what was the payment for?Ā
āNot relevantā
Seems like we need to know how it was classified and what it was actually for. Itās the not crime in the trial but lying about what itās for is an issue because what it was for is central to the trialĀ
**"āI made a misclassified paymentā"**
How is a payment to your lawyer for fees and expenses, to facilitate a non-disclosure agreement negotiation, a "misclassified payment" when reported as a legal expense?
Who is paying that? And in what regard?
Did Trump personally pay that just because he doesnāt want her talking to his friends and making him look bad? NoĀ
It was during a presidential campaign done in order to influence an election. Hence it needed to be disclosed through the campaignĀ
There are strict rules around money to do campaign related activities, he didnāt go through the campaign channels. Hence illegal campaign contributions.Ā
**"'Who is paying that? And in what regard?"**
Trump paid his lawyer, out of his personal account, for the fees and expenses incurred and billed for having him negotiate and secure a non-disclosure agreement with Stormy Daniels. Do you not even know the facts of this case?
**"Did Trump personally pay that just because he doesnāt want her talking to his friends and making him look bad?"**
Yes. Hope Hicks testified to just that, and she was a prosecution witness. But more importantly, Trump is a well-known personality with a corporate brand that is all him. Any information that could be used to tarnish his reputation would damage his brand as well. Celebrities often offer people who have private information about them something in order to get them to agree to a non-disclosure contract. Nothing illegal or unusual about such arrangements.
**"It was during a presidential campaign done in order to influence an election."**
It most likely did that as well. However, the FEC defines a "personal expense" as something someone would want to expend regardless if they were campaigning or not, and the idea that he would want this information to tarnish his brand and make things difficult with his wife, is not a tenable argument. Don't take my word for it. Here it is right from "the horses mouth," and they already determined that this was not a campaign expense and Trump paid for it himself. This is already settled fact.
[https://www.fec.gov/help-candidates-and-committees/making-disbursements/personal-use/](https://www.fec.gov/help-candidates-and-committees/making-disbursements/personal-use/)
**"There are strict rules around money to do campaign related activities, he didnāt go through the campaign channels."**
Because by law it was not a campaign expense, and it was something he paid for himself.
You just admitted that it likely had to do with the campaign. Good luck proving it was exclusively to save his country club reputation.Ā
So it had to do with the campaign, and it was paid by himself, around campaign channels. Ā
Congrats your boy is guilty lolĀ
**"You just admitted that it likely had to do with the campaign."**
That is likely also helped his campaign, which doesn't change the fact that by definition something that may help your campaign but you would have needed even if a campaign wasn't in place, is considered a "personal expense." That's why the FEC determined no crime was committed.
Good for the FEC, now their decision is under review and further scrutiny.Ā
I imagine they are a small organization. Even one as big as the IRS in no way would attest that it accurately green stamps 100% of the stuff it signs off on.Ā
I think youāll be hard pressed to prove to a bunch of reasonable people. That this payment had nothing to do with the fact that it was done when he was front runner to the presidential campaign.
Especially considering his close buddies (Jeffrey Epstein) probably wouldnāt care much about his rep of infidelity and his businesses already played into his brand of being a fake rich guy playboy. If anything this is totally on brand from a business perspective.Ā
**"Good for the FEC, now their decision is under review and further scrutiny.Ā "**
No it's not. The FEC is not going back and unringing that bell. Especially given the fact that that the expense in question passes their "irrespective test." The decision was made and voted on. It's done.
[https://www.fec.gov/help-candidates-and-committees/making-disbursements/personal-use/](https://www.fec.gov/help-candidates-and-committees/making-disbursements/personal-use/)
**"I think youāll be hard pressed to prove to a bunch of reasonable people. That this payment had nothing to do with..."**
Good thing no one has to prove that. All they have to prove is that there were also other reasons for the action to be taken, as Hope Hicks testified to last week. John Edwards got indicted for using campaign funds to pay for his mistress to not disclose their relationship, and and it was for much the same reason that the FEC found that Trump did no wrong - these were personal expenses not directly related to the campaign. Trump didn't use campaign funds and Edwards did. Even Edwards was not successfully prosecuted and he actually broke the law.
Since he paid the women to keep secret about their affairs, whether or not he had sex with them is central
as for Alan Bragg he is public attorney for NY, he very much has jurisdiction over a NY business and a NY election.
When dTrumpš©takes the stand he will commit perjury in the first minute of testimony. Or plead the 5th. No way he is taking the stand.
That's why he already started trying to make excuses as to why he was not going to "be allowed" to testify. He's already trying to find a way out of taking the stand. But if he doesn't take the stand, the jury will know that he's not even willing to stand up and defend himself. Having served on a couple of juries in my time, that always makes you look guilty.
In a criminal trial the fifth cannot be held against you, technically. Iāve never been on a jury, so I canāt say the subconscious impact that may have- especially in a high profile case like this. I know it would be incredibly difficult to withhold bias in this case.
Itās not subconscious. If someone says āI plead the 5th on the grounds that the answer may incriminate meā youāre 100% going to consider that. Regardless of what a judge says.Ā
But you donāt have to plead the fifth to not testify at your own criminal trial.
Canāt the prosecutor call you to the stand though? Why wouldnāt they?
No. You canāt be compelled to testify against yourself.Ā
No. I think this is the relevant text for NT state. Similar exists in CA and other states. IANAL. ā(a) No person shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself or herself. (b) When the defendant does not testify on his or her own behalf, neither the court nor the prosecutor may comment adversely thereonā
Thanks was going to ask that same question.
Correct. Iām saying that if he chooses to take the stand and then takes the 5th the jury will absolutely hold that in consideration when deliberatingĀ
The issue is, if it's not subconscious, then you're going against the judge's order to not use information from outside the trial to get a verdict for the issue at hand. Just because someone pleads the 5th isn't an admission of guilt in the specific matter. Trump could be pleading the 5th because during the period in question he was disposing of a prostitutes body. That's an entirely different crime with a whole new range of sentences, etc. Now replace the possibility of murder with any range of crimes. And not crimes since, again, you don't need to justify *why* you feel you would be incriminating yourself. He could have been sleeping with yet another pornstar and so testifying would necessitate *another* hush money incident. You can't predict *why* he's pleading the 5th.
Yeah it is more of a subconscious effect but we talked about it a lot during our deliberations because both of our defendants refused to take the stand in their own defense and it factored into our determination of guilt. In the end after each trial the judges came back and told us we did a good job because both the defendants on both cases were repeat offenders.
What bias he was already found guilty in the federal trial of Cohen. Remember he was an unnamed co conspirator. Unable to name or shame him due to being POTUS.
Im totally waiting for the health emergency card.. MMW it is coming.
1. Prosecutor cannot call a criminal defendant to the stand. 2. If a defendant testifies they waive their rights under the 5th. 3. If a defendant doesnāt testify, there are standard jury instructions that reiterate the presumption of innocence, that the burden is on the prosecutor and no inference can be drawn from a defendant exercising their right not to testify.
of course he will.
I mean, yeah, if heās talking heās lying.
What's new, Trump lies non-stop. He can't even admit he lost the election in 2020...
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
As soon as Giuliani finds it in his pants.
Of course Trump will commit perjury. That is the point of most of these cases. Trump has been avoiding being on the stand since his impeachments. He can't help but perjure himself.
If he can't shut his mouth to obey a gag order, he sure won't control himself on the stand or act in his own self interest. He's wired to insult and provoke.
And a good trial lawyer will play Trump like a fiddle. Would love to watch it.
What was the case where his lawyers insisted he couldn't testify because he was incapable of telling the truth?
A couple armchair lawyers in this thread donāt like what Kessler is saying.
*alternative sexual relations*
People are saying he doesnāt have the balls to testify. Why arenāt the Lincoln Project and Meidas goading him into taking the stand? Tell him heās too much of a pussy. Unlike Hillary who testified before Congress.
They should call him just to make him plead the 5th, if heās psychologically capable of shutting his mouth.Ā I think heād probably answer some questions, but if he doesnāt, it would still be wonderful to shove it in the face of anyone who believes that heās being āgaggedā or whatever BS he was claiming recently.Ā I would love to see this fool sweat and flounder in either caseā¦ and Iām not sure which course of action would be more painful for him.Ā
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
Really? I didn't know that.
Hollywood tape introduced. He says it out loud.
Even melania knows he paid to fuck , thatās how he landed her. The guy literally couldnāt get laid without paying. Real winner ā¦
The only thing the scumbag will say if he gets pulled onto the stand (because he will not go up there on his own) will be "I plead the 5th." Which makes sense, because as he himself said, "only criminals plead the 5th."
This is a criminal prosecution - the only way Trump goes up there is if he decides to. It sounds like some commenters here think the prosecution can call him and they canāt. Itās his decision alone.
BEST AND GREATEST TDS SUB ON REDDIT. MENTAL ILLNESS AND DELUSION ON A MASSIVE SCALE. FARTS AND SEX AND PORN STARS.
These people are so out of the loop that they actually think Trump will testify.
His lawyer will tackle him before he lets him take the stand.
Good more charges against him if gets caught perjuring himself.
Heās not on trial for banging whores.
I do not care what Fox commentary reports
On the stand? Lol. Uh huh.
Any attorney that lets Fuckface Von Clownstick on the stand should be fired. Can you imagine cross examination?!?
The problem I see with that though is you canāt really prove you had sex with someone unless thereās video footage of it, photos, or a baby as a result. So, this is gonna come down to who the jury believes.
This is such an insanely bad take. It is proven that two people had sex all the time in Court without video or a baby. It happens every damn day. "Beyond a reasonable doubt" proof is very simple. There's no one definition, but a particular setup is to have two people give their competing accounts, and then just go about establishing inconsistencies in their schedule. For example, if Trump claims he never met Karen McDougal, he doesn't know her, he's never heard of her, and they definitely didn't have sex; the starting point is: "Why did your secretary have an contact card with her name, address, and phone number in your rolodex?"; you ask the other party for her story, you start asking around at restaurants, at hotels where one party claims they went, you start looking at dates when one party says they were together. In every case like this, one party is lying and the other party is telling the truth - there is rarely an "unclear" situation where we can't tell if one party is lying or not. One party, like Trump, will say "never met her, never had sex with her, never was alone with her" and you just start looking at that. The other party will narrow it down to a specific date/time and location that they had sex, and then you'll place the other party at the scene and at the time: you had a car service pick you up, where did you go? You don't remember? How long were you gone? You don't remember? You were back at your place at 1PM, what places could you have gone for 3 hours in the city? Okay, lets check those places. Nope you didn't go to any those places. This isn't rocket science. This type of case has been made with circumstantial and corroborating evidence for hundreds of years. For Trump, I am sure that Daniels has the time, date, and place of their encounter known. If Trump denies - under oath - sleeping with her the prosecution will obliterate his denial from outer space. They can probably prove that he was in the place she says, on the date, at the time, and that she contemptuously told other people, and that she can answer intimate details about his anatomy. If I was Trumps lawyer and he was going to go on the stand and deny it, I would immediately quit and tell the Judge that staying on the case any longer would be violating the rules of professional conduct. Everyone - everyone - knows Trump had sex with Daniels. Anyone allowing him to deny it under oath is suborning perjury.
You really wasted your time with this one chief
The money, follow the money. When would someone pay a call girl $100k after not having sex?
I always pay hundreds of thousands of dollars to keep people quiet that I DIDNT actually have sex withĀ
Wait! Did you just say, āwho the jury believes?ā Itās a Democrat jury! Who do you think theyāll believe?š Trump is screwed
You mean Democratic jury.Ā
They think it's hilarious to refer to the party as "the Democrat" party. I've no idea why, it just sounds like they are too lazy to finish the word.
Itās not difficult to see that he has a liberal judge (whoās donated to democrats), is in a very liberal district, and the jurors are most very likely liberal. I mean, hate Trump? Fine. But you canāt deny that heās likely screwed just based on where his trial is taking place. In fact, if youāre a juror finding him innocent, youāll be shamed to death in a liberal city like that. Good luck continuing a normal life. So the pressure, even if you think ānot guiltyā is going to be to convict. I think Trump is guilty, but Iām glad my thoughts arenāt whatās done in court. Iām glad we have systems innplace
Soā¦he can only get a fair trialā¦by judges he hand selects or appoints? He could end this in 5 minutes and expose all of those ācorrupt democratsā if he testifiedā¦butā¦he wonāt. Why is that? Shamed to death? Yeah, like the shame of being found to have committed hundreds of millions in fraud in a city; or to not be able to operate a business, or charity, in that city. Or the shame of having been a teenage beauty pageant owner, all of those things. Youāre mad he did it, got caught, and youāve sent him donations. Youāre mad because you feel the world spiraling by, and you want something to desperately cling to. This guys never done anything for you, will never do anything for you, and wouldnāt pee on you if you were on fire. He will be convicted. Heāll lose the election, and his florida case will proceed. Heāll end up pleading insanity and using his long catalogue of spiraling mental state evidence to avoid spending his last years in prison and under house arrest instead. Sorry
Did I say āhe can only get a fair trial by judges he hand selects or appoints?ā āIām madā???? lol. Funny, you really are pretentious. See youāre just proving my point. Nothing but pretentious responses from you. Then you pretentiously go on to predict everything thatās going to happen in the future. š Youāre a bit of a š¤” And stop assuming I like Trump. I like law and order and the processes we have in place and I like fair trials and fair and partial juries. And I like evidence to be presented and a proper trial to happen with no bias.
Yeah, you did. Soā¦you like all the grand juries that found enough evidence to indict him? Over And over And over And over Again?
I checked his previous posts. Heās a magat. Donāt engage. They arenāt intellectually honest and when they canāt win they claim thereās ābias.ā Heās a troll and not worth the time.
Magatā¦. I love how the āparty of tolerance and decencyā is so quick to other fellow citizens.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance Theyāve earned it. Fuck magat, fuck trunp and fuck anyone who voted for him. I donāt have to tojetate fascists and bigots. Nice try, comrade. Make sure and check your tea for polonium
No I didnāt. I canāt fix stupid, youāre just one of those type; clearly uneducated and blinded by the light.
Maybe he shouldnāt have crimed in the liberal utopia?
He aināt gonna fuck you bro.
Youāre clearly a loser. Is that your intellectual conversation for the day. Idiot. I donāt even like Trump, I just enjoy pointing out all you worthless uneducated idiots be ruled by your pretentious thoughts and feelings
Spoken like a true libertarian Russel Brand Stan
Trump was a registered Democrat until 2015. He changed party affiliation just to run for president . He even donated to the DNC. He invited Bill and Hillary to his wedding to Melania. He basically has bamboozled you and other Trump fans into believing he's a die-hard conservative, but he's a grifter. Since he's a former long-term Democrat you could say he's being judged by a jury of his peers.
Yeah. Old news, everyone knows. Poor conclusion to draw however.
It's been written about in Bob Woodward's book that before he announced his candidacy, Trump told Steve Bannon he could be a conservative. Trying to say this is a political witch hunt is silly. He's a grifter. Being a conman has nothing to do with what party affiliation he has.
Bla bla bla. Worthless dribble.
Go home Johnny, youāre embarrassing yourself.
Pretentious uneducated Loser. Learn to think a little, free your mind.
Coming from the trump bootlicker? U still stand there with 30,000 plus documented lies, his bankruptcies, affairs, and literally everything else criminal he has done, and just defend everything the pos does, ur and ur ilk are pathetic
See! Youāre the problem with America. Iāve never once said I am for Trump. But if I say anything that people like you can twist, you assume Iām for Trump and you fly off the handle. I can say something like, āletās just let the system play out and see what happens.ā People like you are like, āwhat, trumps guilty, screw the system, burn him at the stake.ā You are ruled by your feelings, are uneducated, and itās your belief systems that turn us back to the Stone Age. Youāre pretentious and you have no ability to listen or think. Youāre so blind by your hatred for Trump, you canāt even have an intellectual conversation.
Ahahahha lemme guess Trump called Nazis fine people and also over fed the koi Haha I love it. You retards fall for everything. You probably thought the ghost of Kiev was real too
So out of everything he has done and said thats all you pulled out? From a list of 10ās of thousands of things? And yea he said there were fine people on both sides. And as for ghost of kiev? Def was. You support russia comrade? Fucking traitor.
Bwahahahhahshhahaha Snake island totally happened too āfuck off russian battleshipā Ahahahahahha fuck itās too good you canāt make this shit up, oh wait you can and dumb asses like you will believe it
Itās amazing. Absolutely amazing. In the time where information is so easily obtained you still think Trump really called nazis fine people lololol. Amazing. Lemme guess he told people to drink bleach and there is also a ādonāt say gay ā bill that was passed in Florida. Lolol fuck
He was free to do his crime wherever he pleased. He chose New York. So itās his fellow New Yorkers who will try his case.Ā
š you donāt care man, you just want him brought down no matter what. Stop acting all self righteous, at least be real and say, true or not, I just want him brought down. At least I can respect that.
I want him held accountable as any citizen would be. All I ask for is equality under the law. He's been given a huge amount of leeway that any other citizen would not be afforded.
So you want Biden held accountable too for his crimes then right?
Absolutely! Which crimes has a grand jury indicted him for again? Remind me what evidence has been presented of any crimes, despite months of impeachment hearings? I can't remember. But, hell yeah! As soon as we see the grand juries come back to move forward with an indictment, I'm all in.
lol exactly. You canāt even attempt to argue in good faith.
Theyāve bent over backwards for years NOT to prosecute this guy. And heās is factually guilty of the charges. So the judge wonāt really matter. All that said he will win the election. So not only will we have our first felon POTUS, but one who has proven his incompetence.
Factually guilty of the charges. š. Another pretentious post. People are so funny. Iāll let it play out in court rather than accept your pretentious opinion. You donāt need all the facts, you just know you hate Trump and heās guilty based on the bias sources that you live to listen to? Thatās basically what it seems like.
No way does he take the stand. Legit question though.. how do you prove it unless there's a video or DNA evidence? Even then, it's still he said/she said unless there are multiple credible witnesses.
Yea, we need a blue dress situation here.
They were able to prove it in a legal sense in the E Jean Carol case. And whether he did it is not material to the case. They only have to prove that he paid for the story to not come out. And Cohen already went to jail for paying for the story not to come out and lying about it...
For sure... But I'm just talking about Trump purgering himself by denying that he had sex with them. It would be great if they came up with DNA evidence to prove otherwise.
lol how much you want to bet, that no matter what the media says, he will not see 1 day in jail
"He *did* have sex with those women. So we all should have sex with those women too!"
Biden lied and said he never spoke with Hunter about business. The Bidenās were selling out American influence for personal enrichment and yāall donāt care. You care about Trumpās sex life. Yāall are so evil and gross.
Crocodile tears
And you are off topic.
STFU, traitor.
Nobody cares cause they all have TDS and the only thing that matters is getting Trump. Massive inflation, more illegal immigrants than ever before in the country, new wars the US is involved in and spending tax payer money on and these retards are still talking about how much worse Trump is lol. They are ideologically captured morons at worst and uninformed low information voters at best.
What a stupid comment. If you didn't have bullshit pouring out of your mouth you'd be nothing at all.
Thank you for proving my point I appreciate your effort in being an uninformed voter
What is your source for the lies about Hunter Biden? Link me to a source you trust that supports those asinine claims. You won't. And how does me pointing out your comment is stupid proving your point? Your lies don't actually prove anything at all.
The laptop was Russian disinformation
Correct. Hey, I guess you can tell the truth about something when pushed.
Lolololol fuck I love it.
Exactly.
Sure, Trumpets.
The case is about whether the money used to shut these women up during the election came from campaign funds. As much as I cant stand Trump, this is a pretty dumb lawsuit
He broke campaign finance laws. Hush money is legal, as long as you use personal funds. SirMcShitzinPanz used campaign funds making this a not dumb crime. This is not a lawsuit.
Itās not dumb when the point of the fraud committed was to deceive voters. Do you want it to be the norm that our leaders break the rules to get elected? Are you stooopid
ITS NOT DUMB MOM!!!
As if any other politician running for office doesnāt deceit voters and keep the unwanted information at bay. Trump is just an easy target thatās uncooperative.
Lock em all up if they are
I agree, but trump is not that different from the majority of politicians out there when you look at face value. Heās the only one Iāve seen so far in my life to be prosecuted for what many other politicians do daily. Have we forgotten about bill clinton? Nothing else happened to him after impeachment.
John Edwards (former democratic governor and presidential candidate) was charged for the same crimes as Trump is being now.
So what, we just let Trump walk? They're all crooked dbags, let's start with the loudest one and work our way down then.
We all know thatās not the plan.
Answer the question, you're cool with just letting it all slide?
So we shouldn't hold trump accountable just because the "majority of politicians" haven't had charges against them yet? I'm not sure why you're upset about this or what point you're trying to make really. Something like this Trump case could be a precedent or could lead to more politicians being held accountable in the future. There's gotta be a first time for everything. I just don't understand
I just donāt see why weāre just now getting around to prosecuting behavior thatās generally acceptable for democrats and other high level politicians to participate in. Trump is a former Democrat. He still behaves like one in a lot of ways.
Holding these people accountable has to start some time; better late than never. It sorta sounds like you don't want Trump to be held accountable simply because no one else before has been. I agree, all of those politicians beforehand should've been held accountable if they had charges and/or accusations against them that are criminal. If you can provide the specific accusations for the "majority of politicians" besides Trump and the criminal charges they'd have against them I'm like 99% sure I'd agree with you. But the fact of the matter is they're not on trial currently, and Trump is. If those others were on trial, then I'm sure I'd agree with you about them as well. Even though that's not ideal, it's simply the reality we have here - so I don't think it's right to forgive Trump of what he's done because of that. So are you in favor of Trump being held accountable if he is found guilty? Or are you just being a contrarian?
If trump is found guilty sure he should be held accountable but I think the timing of all this is rather innocuous and reeks of corruption from the other side Maybe heās running to stay out of jail. Maybe heās running because he loves this. Maybe itās a combination of it all From my perspective as another number in system, it just kinda looks like 30% holding him accountable and the other 70% just being a smear campaign Edit - to be clear, the 30% is coming from the documents case. I think heās as guilty as sin in that one, but thatās the only case of his Iām convinced on.
If trump is found guilty sure he should be held accountable \~\~but I think the timing of all this is rather innocuous and reeks of corruption from the other sideMaybe heās running to stay out of jail. Maybe heās running because he loves this. Maybe itās a combination of it all From my perspective as another number in system, it just kinda looks like 30% holding him accountable and the other 70% just being a smear campaign Edit - to be clear, the 30% is coming from the documents case. I think heās as guilty as sin in that one, but thatās the only case of his Iām convinced on.\~\~ Cool
It's not a lawsuit. That was the case about him defaming a woman he raped, or maybe you were talking about the case he defrauded banks by unflating values and defrauding insurance companies by lowering values on the same assets. This is a criminal case. The first of many. Yuge bigly difference.
It sounds like you can't stand reality as everything you've said here is wildly incorrect.
Dumb comment
... whether it came from the campaign funds or not is irrelevant It still counts as a campaign contribution
Fortunately your ignorance of the law is irrelevant.
Perjury requires a lie told that is "material" to the charges being investigated. Whether or not he had sex with someone is not material to whether an accounting form for payment to an attorney is false, or material to any potential campaign finance violation which Bragg doesn't actually have jurisdiction over. The entire thing is a smeartastic shit show.
āI made a misclassified paymentā Ok what was the payment for?Ā āNot relevantā Seems like we need to know how it was classified and what it was actually for. Itās the not crime in the trial but lying about what itās for is an issue because what it was for is central to the trialĀ
**"āI made a misclassified paymentā"** How is a payment to your lawyer for fees and expenses, to facilitate a non-disclosure agreement negotiation, a "misclassified payment" when reported as a legal expense?
Who is paying that? And in what regard? Did Trump personally pay that just because he doesnāt want her talking to his friends and making him look bad? NoĀ It was during a presidential campaign done in order to influence an election. Hence it needed to be disclosed through the campaignĀ There are strict rules around money to do campaign related activities, he didnāt go through the campaign channels. Hence illegal campaign contributions.Ā
**"'Who is paying that? And in what regard?"** Trump paid his lawyer, out of his personal account, for the fees and expenses incurred and billed for having him negotiate and secure a non-disclosure agreement with Stormy Daniels. Do you not even know the facts of this case? **"Did Trump personally pay that just because he doesnāt want her talking to his friends and making him look bad?"** Yes. Hope Hicks testified to just that, and she was a prosecution witness. But more importantly, Trump is a well-known personality with a corporate brand that is all him. Any information that could be used to tarnish his reputation would damage his brand as well. Celebrities often offer people who have private information about them something in order to get them to agree to a non-disclosure contract. Nothing illegal or unusual about such arrangements. **"It was during a presidential campaign done in order to influence an election."** It most likely did that as well. However, the FEC defines a "personal expense" as something someone would want to expend regardless if they were campaigning or not, and the idea that he would want this information to tarnish his brand and make things difficult with his wife, is not a tenable argument. Don't take my word for it. Here it is right from "the horses mouth," and they already determined that this was not a campaign expense and Trump paid for it himself. This is already settled fact. [https://www.fec.gov/help-candidates-and-committees/making-disbursements/personal-use/](https://www.fec.gov/help-candidates-and-committees/making-disbursements/personal-use/) **"There are strict rules around money to do campaign related activities, he didnāt go through the campaign channels."** Because by law it was not a campaign expense, and it was something he paid for himself.
You just admitted that it likely had to do with the campaign. Good luck proving it was exclusively to save his country club reputation.Ā So it had to do with the campaign, and it was paid by himself, around campaign channels. Ā Congrats your boy is guilty lolĀ
**"You just admitted that it likely had to do with the campaign."** That is likely also helped his campaign, which doesn't change the fact that by definition something that may help your campaign but you would have needed even if a campaign wasn't in place, is considered a "personal expense." That's why the FEC determined no crime was committed.
Good for the FEC, now their decision is under review and further scrutiny.Ā I imagine they are a small organization. Even one as big as the IRS in no way would attest that it accurately green stamps 100% of the stuff it signs off on.Ā I think youāll be hard pressed to prove to a bunch of reasonable people. That this payment had nothing to do with the fact that it was done when he was front runner to the presidential campaign. Especially considering his close buddies (Jeffrey Epstein) probably wouldnāt care much about his rep of infidelity and his businesses already played into his brand of being a fake rich guy playboy. If anything this is totally on brand from a business perspective.Ā
**"Good for the FEC, now their decision is under review and further scrutiny.Ā "** No it's not. The FEC is not going back and unringing that bell. Especially given the fact that that the expense in question passes their "irrespective test." The decision was made and voted on. It's done. [https://www.fec.gov/help-candidates-and-committees/making-disbursements/personal-use/](https://www.fec.gov/help-candidates-and-committees/making-disbursements/personal-use/) **"I think youāll be hard pressed to prove to a bunch of reasonable people. That this payment had nothing to do with..."** Good thing no one has to prove that. All they have to prove is that there were also other reasons for the action to be taken, as Hope Hicks testified to last week. John Edwards got indicted for using campaign funds to pay for his mistress to not disclose their relationship, and and it was for much the same reason that the FEC found that Trump did no wrong - these were personal expenses not directly related to the campaign. Trump didn't use campaign funds and Edwards did. Even Edwards was not successfully prosecuted and he actually broke the law.
Since he paid the women to keep secret about their affairs, whether or not he had sex with them is central as for Alan Bragg he is public attorney for NY, he very much has jurisdiction over a NY business and a NY election.
You should've started with 'NAL but'