• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Trump trial updates

Sandy Shanks said:
Trump stole classified documents essential to our national security. The Florida judge presiding was appointed by Trump. Her thing is to do nothing. No hearings, no decisions, no trial date, no trial, Justice Amy Coney Barrett has spent the last two months doing nothing.
Click to expand...
Because of the justice system, our national security is being threatened! An accused felon could be elected President.

The Times reports, "Reversing one of her own decisions, the federal judge overseeing former President Donald J. Trump’s classified documents case granted his request on Monday to postpone the deadline for a crucial court filing in the criminal proceeding, increasing the chance that any trial would be pushed past the November election.

"The ruling by the judge, Aileen M. Cannon, was made in a bare-bones order that contained no factual or legal reasoning. It did not schedule a new deadline but erased the one she had set almost a month ago ordering Mr. Trump’s lawyers to file by Thursday a detailed list of the classified materials that they intend to introduce at the trial, which is set to take place at some point in Federal District Court in Fort Pierce, Fla.

"Mr. Trump has relentlessly pursued a strategy of delaying all four of the criminal cases he is facing, and if he succeeds in delaying his trial on charges of mishandling classified documents until after the election, he could order his Justice Department to drop the matter altogether if he wins."

We cannot allow Trump to win. If he wins, with the help of judges, including six on the Supreme Court, he gets away with committing federal crimes ... allegedly.
 
DrewPaul said:
She suddenly woke up from being raped? Did she report to anyone she was raped?

Did any of Cosby's victims profit or continue a relationship with him? Besides Stormy says she wasn't drugged or did any drugs.
Click to expand...
You are captain assumption, mind you only positive assumptions for your god.
She was paid for sex and paid to stay quiet. What a Presidential act. Congrats.
 
Sandy Shanks said:
If he wins, with the help of judges, including six on the Supreme Court, he gets away with committing federal crimes ... allegedly.
Click to expand...
The conservative judges on the Supreme Court are threatening our national security!

It is within the realm of possibility that the decisions made by the conservative justices on the Supreme Court will result in a convicted felon elected President.

Trump is currently leading in the polls. All it takes is his election victory and that he is convicted in the on-going criminal trial for his deceit in paying off the porn star.

Then the convicted felon dismisses the far more serious charges against him. For all of this, Trump can thank the Supreme Court.

The Trump appointed judge in the stolen documents case is doing her part. She is doing absolutely nothing.

As is the media regarding these issues. But they can't ignore this.

ABC reports, "Against the backdrop of a divisive 2024 presidential campaign, the U.S. Supreme Court on Thursday will take up the monumental question of whether a former president turned presumptive GOP nominee can be criminally prosecuted for his efforts to stay in power after the last election.

"The case, Donald J. Trump v. United States, presents an unprecedented constitutional quandary for the court brought about by equally unprecedented actions by former President Donald Trump in the aftermath of the 2020 presidential election, which he lost to Joe Biden by a margin of 7 million popular votes.

"The outcome could determine whether Trump faces a federal trial this year on four felony counts pressed by special counsel Jack Smith, including conspiracy to defraud the U.S. and obstruction of an official proceeding, for his attempts to overturn the electoral vote count certifying Biden's victory.

"The President cannot function, and the Presidency itself cannot retain its vital independence, if the President faces criminal prosecution for official acts once he leaves office," Trump's attorneys wrote. Note: Trump is not being tried for his official acts. See first para of article.

"Two courts have resoundingly rejected the former president's immunity arguments, including a unanimous three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia.

"Former President Trump has become citizen Trump, with all of the defenses of any other criminal defendant," the panel wrote. "Former President Trump lacked any lawful discretionary authority to defy federal criminal law and he is answerable in court for his conduct."

"The appeals court warned that if Trump's constitutional theory were accepted, it would "collapse our system of separated powers" by putting a president above the law."

It will take another two months for the Supreme Court to arrive at the same conclusion, or they will send the case back down to the lower court, a likely possibility to add further delay.
 
Last edited:
US&THEM said:
You are captain assumption, mind you only positive assumptions for your god.
She was paid for sex and paid to stay quiet. What a Presidential act. Congrats.
Click to expand...
Sounded to me more like she wanted to get on the Apprentice, got rebuffed, and then made up some bullshit story to make a few bucks.
 
Buckeyes85 said:
No. Paying hush money is not a legal expense in any way shape or form. Not even close. A legal expense is money paid for legal services.

And I don't know what "this testimony" is referring to. The salacious details of their rendezvous? There you may have a point. But with Trump's defense premised in part on the claim that there was no rendezvous, therefore no reason for payment to her, her testimony that they did is as directly relevant as you can possibly get. To suggest otherwise defies logic.
Click to expand...

The charges he faces are not from the payments.
It's from how it was booked into Trump Org ledgers.
 
Buckeyes85 said:
Nice duck and dodge.
He has contested that they were paid for reasons other than attorneys fees.

It's truly comical that you and yours are attempting to suggest Daniel's testimony is irrelevant. But since you need a refresher, here is Trump's defense:
  • the payment(s) were legitimate business expenses that I had no reason to hide and I had no reason to pay hush money to this adult film actress in order to keep her quite just before the election about an affair I supposedly had with her BECAUSE I NEVER HAD AN AFFAIR WITH HER TO BEGIN WITH!
Does the all caps part help you understand why her testimony is directly relevant? As another poster suggested, if pathologically lying Trump would have just admitted: Yea, I had a fling and paid her to keep quite, his defense could stick with the angle of "but I did nothing illegal when I paid her." But they can't because Trump has them backed into a corner to deny everything from top to bottom.
Click to expand...

The charges are that eleven years after this encounter, Trump fraudulently caused his business records to be falsified.

Whether the two of them had sex in 2006 is irrelevant to these charges.
 
Athanasius68 said:
The charges are that eleven years after this encounter, Trump fraudulently caused his business records to be falsified.
Click to expand...

Actually, the charges are that 3 months after his fixer criminally violated campaign finance laws, FPOTUS#45 falsified business records to hide and/or aid in the commission of the previous crime which he conspired to achieve.

Athanasius68 said:
Whether the two of them had sex in 2006 is irrelevant to these charges.
Click to expand...

The details of the sex are irrelevant, the source of the story though is not as it shows the motivation for FPOTUS#45's intent to form a conspiracy to commit election fraud though illegal means and therefore falsify business records.

WW
 
Athanasius68 said:
Whether the two of them had sex in 2006 is irrelevant to these charges.
Click to expand...

It's incredibly relevant to the charges - it speaks to his motivations, which represent the mens rea element of the crime.

If Trump wants to claim he never slept with Daniels, the prosecution has to prove he did. Daniels' testimony couldn't be more relevant.
 
WorldWatcher said:
Actually, the charges are that 3 months after his fixer criminally violated campaign finance laws, FPOTUS#45 falsified business records to hide and/or aid in the commission of the previous crime which he conspired to achieve.

WW
Click to expand...

Judge Merchan has already ruled that conviction of Cohen is not relevant to the trial here.
 
TheDoctorWasIn said:
It's incredibly relevant to the charges - it speaks to his motivations, which represent the mens rea element of the crime.

If Trump wants to claim he never slept with Daniels, the prosecution has to prove he did. Daniels' testimony couldn't be more relevant.
Click to expand...

His motivations to do what?
 
Athanasius68 said:
Judge Merchan has already ruled that conviction of Cohen is not relevant to the trial here.
Click to expand...

That's not what he ruled.

He ruled that Cohen's conviction could come it, but that the prosecution could not attempt to use Cohen's conviction to indicate that Trump is therefore guilty of the crime. That the elements of Trump's criminal activity must stand on it's own.

Have you been following the proceedings in court? Hell the prosecution brought up Cohen's conviction in their opening statement and Justice Merchan had no issue with it.

WW
 
Lutherf said:
Sounded to me more like she wanted to get on the Apprentice, got rebuffed, and then made up some bullshit story to make a few bucks.
Click to expand...
And trump paid her off because....
 
Lutherf said:
Sounded to me more like she wanted to get on the Apprentice, got rebuffed, and then made up some bullshit story to make a few bucks.
Click to expand...
Of course it did, she was outsmarted by Donny.
 
Athanasius68 said:
And you still need to describe the fraud. What is it? what was the intent?

The note to which I responded said what seems to be the de facto theory of Bragg-- Trump unlawfully tried to influence the election by fraudulently hiding the payoffs for this affair.

But that has to be based upon the assumption that the $$$ for the NDA was to protect the campaign and was about the campaign, and thus had to come from campaign funds.
But as I pointed, that is not how the FEC defines what is and what is not a campaign expense.
Click to expand...
This is easier. This is my earlier post:

NY § 17-152. Conspiracy to promote or prevent election. Any two or more
persons who conspire to promote or prevent the election of any person to
a public office by unlawful means and which conspiracy is acted upon by
one or more of the parties thereto, shall be guilty of a misdemeanor.

Trump is on trial for falsifying business records throughout his first year in office to hide an election-influencing hush-money payment to porn star Stormy Daniels.

Falsifying business records is a misdemeanor, but the charge becomes a felony, punishable by up to four years in prison if the records were falsified with the intent to commit or hide some other underlying crime.

The underlying crimes either committed or merely intended to be committed that hoist Trump's falsifying business records up from misdemeanor to felony "may include violations of New York Election Law section 17-152,"

In the same bill of particulars, prosecutors said the underlying crime could also be an intent to violate state tax law because Trump's then-"fixer," Michael Cohen, paid Daniels $130,000 out of his own pocket. Trump hid the true nature of that outlay when he reimbursed Cohen through a series of monthly checks for "legal fees," money Cohen then claimed as income, prosecutors say.

As an alternative, the underlying crime could be an intent to violate federal election law, prosecutors said, under the theory that the hush-money payment was an illegally high campaign contribution.

That is the case in a nutshell and if it did not have merit based on NY Law, then it would have been thrown out of court the day it entered the courtroom. As you can see there are three possible underlying crimes in the indictment that would lift misdemeanor falsifying business records from a NY Misdemeanor to a NY Felony. The Prosecution only needs Intent to Defraud on one of them to upgrade the falsifying business records from a misdemeanor to a felony. Two of them are NY State Charges, the other is a federal election law violation.

You see, this is not really very complicated. It is only righties that stick their heads in the sand and whine that "I just can't see it. I just can't see it"

For reference here is the section of the NY code regarding falsifying business records:
§ 175.10 Falsifying business records in the first degree. another crime or to aid or conceal the commission thereof. Falsifying business records in the first degree is a class E felony.
 
Last edited:
EnchantedMuggle said:
Why would anybody have to pay her if if was a made-up bullshit story?
Click to expand...
She was shopping the story around for YEARS and pretty much nobody was interested. Heck, from the sound of things, pretty much nobody believed her. Then came the Access Hollywood tape and she figured this would be her one good shot at a shakedown so she took it. She is the one that took advantage of the election and said as much today.
 
Lutherf said:
She was shopping the story around for YEARS and pretty much nobody was interested. Heck, from the sound of things, pretty much nobody believed her. Then came the Access Hollywood tape and she figured this would be her one good shot at a shakedown so she took it. She is the one that took advantage of the election and said as much today.
Click to expand...

Therefore, she had to be paid off? Even though nothing happened? Trump went "OMG, nothing happened, she has no leg to stand on, we better pay this woman to shut up"?

Still doesn't make any sense.

Also, what do you mean, "shopping the story around"? Getting ready to tell what happened? Then threatened into shutting up, then years later, paid off?
 
Last edited:
EnchantedMuggle said:
Therefore, she had to be paid off? Even though nothing happened? Trump went "OMG, nothing happened, she has no leg to stand on, we better pay this woman to shut up"?

Still doesn't make any sense.

Also, what do you mean, "shopping the story around"? Getting ready to tell what happened? Then threatened into shutting up, then years later, paid off?
Click to expand...
What testimony has there been so far that Trump ordered the payment? All the testimony so far is that the decision to pay originated with Cohen. In fact, there was testimony to the effect that Trump didn't want to pay so Cohen took it upon himself to take out a HELOC to make the payment.

Testimony today included evidence that the story had been around since 2006, was published on a site called "The Dirty" in 2011 and that Stormy actually had it taken down (through Davidson). Clifford also testified today that she took the story to Gloria Allred but that didn't pan out and it appears that Clifford may well have lied about the details of that brief engagement too.

I get it. You hate Trump and so badly want him punished for causing all that hate to well up in you that you're willing to believe absolutely anything you're told that might help to validate your hatred, but just because something someone says makes you feel better about yourself doesn't make it true.
 
Lutherf said:
What testimony has there been so far that Trump ordered the payment? All the testimony so far is that the decision to pay originated with Cohen. In fact, there was testimony to the effect that Trump didn't want to pay so Cohen took it upon himself to take out a HELOC to make the payment.

Testimony today included evidence that the story had been around since 2006, was published on a site called "The Dirty" in 2011 and that Stormy actually had it taken down (through Davidson). Clifford also testified today that she took the story to Gloria Allred but that didn't pan out and it appears that Clifford may well have lied about the details of that brief engagement too.

I get it. You hate Trump and so badly want him punished for causing all that hate to well up in you that you're willing to believe absolutely anything you're told that might help to validate your hatred, but just because something someone says makes you feel better about yourself doesn't make it true.
Click to expand...

I get it. You want so badly to feel better about supporting a criminal that you'll make any excuse for his behavior, and even for his lies. But just because you're oddly hanging onto hope that the prosecution has no evidence to bring forth in a trial that is definitely not over so you can cling desperately to your owning the libs M.O. doesn't make that hope true. It just makes that hope kind of sad, TBH.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom