You have just proved you are dumber than I thought. A dumb pervert…..
I’d put you on ignore but you are, entertaining
Trump Indicted
- Thread starter RoseRed
- Start date
I’d put you on ignore but you are, entertaining
Falsifying business records. Really?
The complete indictment in PDF:
or, the same thing here if you don't want to get cooties in your computer:
Robert Barnes is a good one to follow:
Barnes says Dershowitz wants to represent Trump. Barnes not impressed with Trump's choice of counsel. Attorneys can not solicit a client for business. Trump would have to ask him.
This is conflicting
The complete indictment in PDF:
or, the same thing here if you don't want to get cooties in your computer:
Robert Barnes is a good one to follow:
Barnes says Dershowitz wants to represent Trump. Barnes not impressed with Trump's choice of counsel. Attorneys can not solicit a client for business. Trump would have to ask him.
This is conflicting
Last edited:
Legal Analysis starting to flow in as lawyers have time to read the indictment.
As a layperson, I assume they laid on the large number of charges to increase the amount of time this will take to be adjudicated (well into election season) and run up his defense costs.
As a layperson, I assume they laid on the large number of charges to increase the amount of time this will take to be adjudicated (well into election season) and run up his defense costs.
Last edited:
PeoplesElbow
Well-Known Member
Isnt campaigning by it's very nature trying to influence an election outcome?
If it's a crime simply having a bumper sticker for a candidate could run you afoul of the law. That is scary stuff there. For everyone that wants Trump convicted think about what would happen if conservatives could do the same thing to liberals, for the record I'd be against that too.
In a nutshell, they are trying to argue that Cohen paid the hush money to Daniels from his own pocket. Hush money is not illegal and is very common. It is technically a settlement with a Non-Disclosure Agreement (NDA). In any case, they argue that this constituted an illegal campaign contribution from Cohen to Trump. Then they further argue that Trump paid Cohen back in installments from various organizations within his control and called them legal expenses. This is the Falsifying Business Records part.
In any case, even is this is all true, this is not the kinda stuff that you shut be putting people in prison for (up to 4 years for each of the charges). Big fines to the organization at best.
Last edited:
He can be his own worst enemy.
Yeah, he really should lay off of the personal insults. Horseface is totally uncalled for. I do agree with the other stuff he said in the first post. Lawyer Barnes often says that trials are largely a public relations game. Trump needs to start appealing to the moderates and he's not going to win them over with the cheap shots.
IMO Barnes stretches it a bit during some of his PR posts, but here is the latest:
Last edited:
That. That aspect of his character continually disappoints me. I don't recall another leader of his stature that so constantly snatches defeat from the jaws of victory with his ill-advised and ill-timed rhetoric..
If he stopped, he would probably get more followers.
Or get more people like me to support him with less hesitation... His mouth makes me cringe often. Not that I don't understand the urge to lash out..its just not what he should feel the need to do. I think it used to be called "suck it up..be the tough one"...back in my day.
Yes.
Falsifying business records. Really?
The complete indictment in PDF:
or, the same thing here if you don't want to get cooties in your computer:
Robert Barnes is a good one to follow:
Barnes says Dershowitz wants to represent Trump. Barnes not impressed with Trump's choice of counsel. Attorneys can not solicit a client for business. Trump would have to ask him.
This is conflicting
This is what they are going with. Are you ****ing kidding me?
Democrats have been arguing that since 2016 and afaik that has been thoroughly discredited ...
Michael Cohen Pled Guilty to Something That Is Not a Crime
So what does it mean to be “for the purpose of influencing an[] election”? To understand this, we read the statutory language in conjunction other parts of the statute. Here the key is the statute’s prohibition on diverting campaign funds to “personal use.” This is a crucial distinction, because one of the primary factors separating campaign funds from personal funds is that the former must be spent on the candidate’s campaign, while the latter can be used to buy expensive vacations, cars, watches, furs, and such. The law defines “personal use” as spending “used to fulfill any commitment, obligation, or expense of a person that would exist irrespective of the candidate’s election campaign.” So a candidate may intend for good toothpaste and soap, a quality suit, and a healthy breakfast to positively influence his election, but none of those are campaign expenditures, because all of those purchases would typically be made irrespective of running for office. And even if the candidate might not have brushed his teeth quite so often or would have bought a cheaper suit absent the campaign, these purchases still address his underlying obligations of maintaining hygiene and dressing himself.
To use a more pertinent example, imagine a wealthy entrepreneur who decides to run for office. Like many men and women with substantial business activities, at any one time there are likely several lawsuits pending against him personally, or against those various businesses. The candidate calls in his company attorney: “I want all outstanding lawsuits against our various enterprises settled.” His lawyer protests that the suits are without merit — the company should clearly win at trial, and he should protect his reputation of not settling meritless lawsuits. “I agree that these suits lack merit,” says our candidate, “but I don’t want them as a distraction during the campaign, and I don’t want to take the risk that the papers will use them to portray me as a heartless tycoon. Get them settled.”
The settlements in this hypothetical are made “for the purpose of influencing the election,” yet they are not “expenditures” under the Federal Election Campaign Act. Indeed, if they were, the candidate would have to pay for them with campaign funds. Thus, an unscrupulous but popular businessman could declare his candidacy, gather contributions from the public, use those contributions to settle various preexisting lawsuits, and then withdraw from the race. A nice trick!