The Star Witness
“There is no gag order on Michael Cohen… Everyone can say whatever they want…”
Serial perjurer Michael Cohen is expected to begin giving testimony today in what is the climactic moment of a political show trial that would make Joe Stalin proud. A former U.S. president, who stands accused of the ridiculous charge of illegally hiding a payment to silence a porn star who claims a sexual encounter. Michael Cohen once was one of Donald Trump's personal attorneys. Most recently Cohen could be found disparaging the man he is set to testify against on social media and on podcasts, as the defendant is the one hit with the gag order. As the trial turns to Cohen's testimony, the msm will refrain from mentioning that the prosecution's star witness is a felon convicted of perjury.
Cohen made a $130,000 hush money payment to the porn star "stormy" Daniels as part of a perfectly legal and quite common non-disclosure agreement before the 2016 election which involved a 2006 sexual encounter, she claims to have had with Donald Trump. Prosecutors say that this payment was falsely labeled. I guess they think it should have been labeled as a "hush money payment." Normally that would be a bookkeeping issue that could at worst be labelled a misdemeanor. In this case the statute of limitations had already run out. They also are asking the jury to believe that Donald Trump took an integral part in the bookkeeping and furthermore it was done to hide a "crime," which they have yet to define. Finally, the prosecution is trying to get a conviction of federal campaign law through a state court which is completely out of the state of New York's jurisdiction. The # 3 man at Biden's DOJ is now prosecuting this case for Alvin Bragg.
The key to the prosecution's case is Cohen, who has admitted to lying under oath multiple times, as well as lying to the U.S. Congress in 2017 about a Trump Organization real estate project in Moscow, and to top it all off Cohen pleaded guilty to violating tax law in 2018, but now says he did not commit that crime. Today he is expected to say everything and anything the prosecution wants. The defense will have a wonderful time tearing him to shreds, but that will all be less important than the final instructions that Judge Merchan gives the jury. Those instructions will be framed to render the guilty verdict that democrats want in order to defeat Donald Trump in November.
In other news:
Trump leads President Biden in five battleground states, and Gaza and the economy have hurt Biden among young and nonwhite voters polls found.
Democrats are leading Republicans for the Senate in Arizona, Nevada, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin - races that could decide control of the chamber.
Dozens of graduates walked out of Duke's commencement ceremony before a speech by Jerry Seinfeld, who has vocally supported Israel.
Many indoctrinated students, distrustful of major U.S. outlets, are reading Al Jazeera.
Russian forces have poured across Ukraine's northeastern border capturing villages and settlements.
Vladimir Putin replaced the defense minister who had led Russia’s military since the start of the war. The new defense chief is an economist.
In other news:
Trump leads President Biden in five battleground states, and Gaza and the economy have hurt Biden among young and nonwhite voters polls found.
Democrats are leading Republicans for the Senate in Arizona, Nevada, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin - races that could decide control of the chamber.
Dozens of graduates walked out of Duke's commencement ceremony before a speech by Jerry Seinfeld, who has vocally supported Israel.
Many indoctrinated students, distrustful of major U.S. outlets, are reading Al Jazeera.
Russian forces have poured across Ukraine's northeastern border capturing villages and settlements.
Vladimir Putin replaced the defense minister who had led Russia’s military since the start of the war. The new defense chief is an economist.
Tags
Who is online
64 visitors
Good morning.
Let all our readers focus on the "testimony" of Michael Cohen today.
in large part due to the putin aligned maga congress member's efforts to patronize an american fascist POTUS for 4 months...
smiling broadly as he gazes down from maga heaven...
[deleted][✘]
I believe that despite all his maga bluster stating the opposite, the cowardly un-indicted co-conspirator #1 won't be taking the stand to defend himself in the current NY trial, since he's already telegraphed to his gullible supporters that the judge's gag order won't let him...
See, here is the thing.
Trump doesn't have to testify.
it is on the prosecution to prove his guilt, Trump doesn't have to prove he is innocent.
Nor should he since he would be ripped to shreds.
This is a result of Trump claiming that the gag order prevented him from testifying. That is of course a lie, do you acknowledge that?
Is there anything not factual in my post that you would care to comment on?
Pretty sure it is NOT the result of that.
Much more likely he is following his lawyers' advice.
Unless you have evidence that Trump claiming anything prevents him from testifying. of course.
Do you?
trump states it twice in this clip...
... uh, you were saying?
Yes, I am CLEARLY asking for any evidence that Trump cannot testify because of what he claims.
how is that unclear at all?
clearing? I think you mean clearly.
none the less, not exactly the same meaning for each of your statements, is there?
you can pretend you don't know what I am asking, but the words are plain enough.
you've asked 2 different questions. you can pretend you haven't...
and you haven't answered....
That is an opinion
It seems the unspun version of your comment according to politifact and the video is "Well, I'm not allowed to testify, I'm under a gag order I guess, right?" Trump said May 2 at the end of the day at the Manhattan courthouse. When he asked the question the person behind him was shaking his head yes. The next day, he corrected his understanding while responding to a reporter’s question before court. "The gag order is not to testify," Trump said May 3 . "The gag order stops me from talking about people and responding when they say things about me."
Hardly the lie you are trying ti make it out to be.
are you stating that both of your comments are asking the same question? if so, I answered the first one, so my answer should apply to either...
Interesting that the version you show does not show him asking the question and the guy behind him shaking his head.
[deleted][✘]
[deleted][✘]
Why should he? Fat Alvin has already fucked up his chances of gaining a conviction by tampering with evidence.
So suddenly you believe what he says?
This is a fine example of flat out denial of cold hard fact in order to defend Trump.
Dev @1.1.7 gave you a video of Trump stating he is not allowed to testify due to the gag order:
Since you think this is noteworthy, here is a rule of thumb. Whenever someone talks about the future they are necessarily opining. It is not necessary to state that this is opinion because it cannot be anything other than opinion. That opinion may be spot on, but it cannot be a fact until it actually happens.
This is not about believing what Trump says, it is about what Trump stated. What he stated is a blatant lie, but the offered fact is that he stated it.
Something only Biden defenders seem to care about...
Deflection ... of course.
Trump stated that the gag order prevented him from testifying. That was (yet again) a ridiculous lie.
You can watch him say this on video yet you refuse to acknowledge this indisputable fact.
no, it simply isn't a deflection.
its called a fact.
[deleted][✘]
Irrelevant as usual since I didn't ever dispute him saying it.
See how that works?
This whole thread shows the sort of gaslighting and nitpicking from the right that regularly overtakes this forum.
[deleted][✘]
A ruse by any other name is a ruse.
yeah, but I refuse to play his game.
This is a fine example of showing only what you want seen in order to attack Trump at all costs (like credibility), not the actual whole thing that tears the narrative apart. As you can see he asked.
And he clarified the next day.
Hardly the lie you are trying to make it out to be
And you know what is really strange?
It doesn't make one damn bit of difference what Trump said, it doesn't prevent him from testifying if he wants to, a simple fact not acknowledged by Biden defenders.
I agree, makes me wonder why you are doing it
Usually happens when the lunch is eaten
The twist, the spin and ignoring of facts that don't go along with the narrative continues
Your first X link shows Trump stating in public that he is not allowed to testify because he is under a gag order. Exactly as noted.
That is what you actually see and hear when you view this, right?
Your second X link shows Trump reversing himself. Likely after being publicly humiliated by the press after his idiotic claim in the first link.
The point was that Trump made the claim in the first link. And he did. He publicly stated that he is not allowed to testify because he is under a gag order. Reversing himself does not change the fact that he used the gag order as an excuse to not testify.
Which means and signifies absolutely nothing.
Try looking at the totality of what he said, context matters
Not to Biden defenders.
After he asked his lawyer ( I presume) Or did you miss that. At that point it is called being misinformed, not lying. Most people know the difference
Keeping up with a ridiculous spin only hurts credibility
This not about context; the context is quite clear on each day. These are two entirely different statements on different days.
He made a ridiculous claim that a gag order prevents him from testifying. As stated. Either he was lying or he is profoundly ignorant about basic law.
He then retracted his ridiculous claim the day after.
Nice dance step. A more honest reply might have been you had not seen the video of him asking his lawyer about the correctness of the comment before you had made your claims.
Context only matters when it supports what someone claims, otherwise, it doesn't matter, apparently.
It is really quite simple
He asked his lawyer if the gag order prevented him from testifying
I assume his lawyer knows the answer to that but he was shaking his head yes and no
Trump believed he was saying he was prevented from testifying and went with what he believed his lawyer said
It was not correct
Trump clarified the next day.
Only real partisan Biden supporters would try to spin it any other way. Even to the point of showing an edited video.
the thing is, it doesn't even matter, it has zero bearing on whether Trump testifies or not
seems pretty easy to get, but here we are yet again.
Agree, comes from the need to spin everything Trump does as orange man bad and calling out the bullshit somehow makes you a Trump supporter. You would think they would tire of it but like you say here we are yet again. I am getting better about not calling it out though unless I have some time to waste and a full laptop battery charge
He made a ridiculous claim that a gag order prevents him from testifying after he believed his lawyer told him that was the case.
Completed it for you
i have it on good authority that criticizing Biden is defending Trump, so wouldn't attacking Trump be defending Biden-- using the very same logic?
yes but I would call it using the very same "logic".
If he believed his attorney told him that a gag order means he cannot testify then Trump is profoundly ignorant about the law. With all his lawsuit experience, that is not likely; even a moron would not translate a gag order into not being able to serve as a witness in the court proceedings. So, no, not a credible hypothesis.
It is also unlikely that Trump —after being told that he cannot testify— would not demand his attorney explain why. It is almost certainly the case that no attorney told Trump that he could not testify due to a gag order.
To wit, the most likely scenario is that Trump was (big surprise) lying in public ... trying to play martyr ... trying to gin up sympathy for being so unfairly treated that he cannot even testify on his own behalf.
And people want this scoundrel to be PotUS.
You did see him ask his attorney didn't you? This is an example of not believing what you see because it does not fit into a pre conceived narrative. So the fact he didn't know because he has to ask his attorney is the most likely hypothesis
You did notice he asked the attorney during a news conference didn't you? It was not exactly the time to demand why now was it?
No it isn't, it is just what you would like it to be. Your feelings for Trump seem to be stopping you from seeing what is right in front of your face.
But go for it, people that can look at things without bias can see what you are doing.
He turned around to secure public backup for the lie he just made. Did you see the grimaced nod from his attorney? The attorney obviously knows that a gag order does not prevent his client from testifying but he was caught in an impossible situation.
This is not obvious to you?
You are illustrating a perfect example of trying to defend the indefensible. Your argument is ridiculous.
Nobody with any sense will buy your hypothesis that Trump's attorneys told him or even slightly encouraged him to believe that the gag order prevents him from testifying. Trump might be a legal moron, but attorneys generally are not (when it comes to the law).
You are illustrating a perfect example of seeing what you want to see, not what is right in front of you.
Anyone without trump colored glasses can see that.
Now if you can get a few million independents to share the delusion joe might have a shot at winning
uh-huh, sure. if that's what he believed, trump's got bigger problems no lawyer can help him with...
An expected response from a biden supporter. Keep on spinning
I saw Trump lie that he could not testify because of the gag order.
What did you see?
I don't know why you even try.
I saw videos without spin.
Trump asked his lawyer if gag order meant he could not testify
Trump made and incorrect statement (you do understand the difference between making an incorrect statement and lying don't you?) Stating it was a lie means you know what Trump does and does not already know. That is ridiculous especially since Trump asked his lawyer,
Trump clarified and stated the correct meaning of what the gag order meant for him.
Or see 1.1.41, 1.1.45, or 1.1.52
My wife is away for a couple days and I am really really bored.
Yes I think it is extremely likely that none of Trump's attorneys told him or even hinted at the idea that the gag order prevents him from testifying.
I also think it is extremely likely that Trump has enough gray matter to understand that a gag order does not prevent him from testifying.
But still you engage in rhetorical somersaults attempting to defend Trump with the ridiculous notion that Trump truly believed that a gag order prevents him from testifying.
It seems I am not the one with the twisted logic and claims of what Trump does and does not know or what his lawyers did or did not explain to him totally ignoring the fact that Trump asked the lawyer the question for anyone to see.
But go with it. This exchange is getting boring and there is nothing else to say.
There was nothing for you to argue from the beginning.
It is obvious that:
To wit, your argument that Trump was not lying and was just publicly declaring what he genuinely, honestly believed —a gag order deprives him of his right to testify— is ridiculous. It is a pathetic attempt to defend Trump.
See 1.1.62
It doesn't matter how many times you keep saying the same thing, it doesn't make it any more correct. Or are you just trying to get the last word?
When someone repeatedly makes a ridiculous claim, especially if I suspect it is with dishonest intent, you can bet I will respond with clarity illustrating the absurdity of the claim:
It is obvious that:
To wit, your argument that Trump was not lying and was just publicly declaring what he genuinely, honestly believed —a gag order deprives him of his right to testify— is ridiculous. It is a pathetic attempt to defend Trump.
There is a whole lot of that going on.
It's the endless defense of the indefensible
And they're really bad at it, too.
See 1.1.62
It doesn't matter how many times you keep saying the same thing, it doesn't make it any more correct. Or are you just trying to get the last word?
Hmm.
Perhaps one or two more and you'll get it?....
I would call it
Bwaaak Bawaaak
Yeah, yours and others reactions show differently.
Way to completely miss the point.
Noting when someone lies does not mean one believes the lie.
Dev noted that Trump lied about not being able to testify due to a gag order. He was reporting a lie made by Trump. Yet for some bizarre reason you conflate reporting a lie with believing a lie.
We see bizarre conflation on here every day coming from right wing sources.
Then stop acting as if you believe the "lie". Good way to avoid being outed as a hypocrite and avoid all this.
Where, specifically, do I act as though I believe Trump's lies? Provide a quote.
Your allegation is irrational. And you should know that off the bat given my comment history, if anything, is critical of Trump's pathological lying.
[removed][✘]
Notice what they do. For months Trump has called the gag order unconstitutional because it gags him the defendant from speaking and on top of it during a Presidential campaign. His lawyers filed an appeal on that very valid point. We didn't hear anything from the left.
Now that Trump realizes he shouldn't put himself on the witness stand he comes up with the silly idea that the gag order prevents him from testifying. The lefties seize on it. However as sure as I'm sitting here that "gag order" will be found unconstitutional.
There was no point for Trump to even speak about himself testifying. It is common for the defendant to not testify in a criminal trial.
Trump brought this up as a stunt. He lied that he cannot testify (implying he wanted to) because of the gag order. Just another lie to rally his supporters.
On what grounds?
And that is a lie. Trump can make all sorts of public statements. The gag order is used to stop him from attacking select individuals participating in the trial. He can still campaign. He could speak of issues, strategies, make fun of Biden, etc.
You want them to focus on her taco
The former president entered the courtroom flanked by his lawyers, his son Eric Trump and multiple aides.
Trump’s entourage on Monday also included multiple members of Congress: Sen. J.D. Vance (R-Ohio), Sen. Tommy Tuberville (R-Ala.) and Rep. Nicole Malliotakis (R-N.Y.), who represents Staten Island and parts of Brooklyn.
It is Trump’s 27th day in a courtroom this year.
— Zach Schonfeld
[removed][✘]
“Sen. J.D. Vance (R-Ohio), Sen. Tommy Tuberville (R-Ala.) and Rep. Nicole Malliotakis (R-N.Y.)”
Potential Cabinet members? Less a team of rivals and more a team of sycophants. Project 2025 is a real possibility.
They accompanied Trump to court yesterday. MSNBC had someone in the courtroom, who said Vance didn't stay long. They didn't even know that Vance made a statement yesterday outside the courtroom.
Speaker Johnson was there today.
It pays to run against corrupt lawfare.
“It pays to run against corrupt lawfare.”
It’s a fool’s errand to run on such a specious, narrow, and naive platform.
It's less than 6 months away...
“It's less than 6 months away...”
Some things are timeless, vic. Things like character, like accountability, like the truth.
Every single scumbag is running for VP. They all played a part in 1/6 and should have absolutely no place anywhere near the White House and that includes the former 'president'
A good distillation of the fantasy world MAGAs live in. The "msm" often mentions Cohen's criminal record and perjury.
How "often?"
That is a pretty standard way Cohen is described across mainstream media.
I'm sure the defense will bring it up and I'm sure the prosecution will be objecting.
You notice that the MAGA's also never address the evidence, just take shots at the prosecution, the judges, and the witnesses?
What is the "evidence?'
And while you are at it: what is the crime that Trump is trying to conceal?
Not only in this case but in all of his cases.
Says those who refuse to accept facts.
That is going to be very hard to do today.
The MAGA take on all this is worthless.
-
Trump's tax cheats on Chicago tower may cost him $100 million
Web 2 days ago · Trump 's tax cheats on Chicago tower may cost him $100 million ... including a nearly half a billion dollar fine stemming from other Trump Organization valuation fraud in …
Where is the evidence in this case?
Trump has been a crook his entire adult life. The idea of "lawfare" against him is ridiculous. His past has finally caught up with him.
You mean the evidence that was tampered with by the prosecution?
And yet there are no convictions to back up your claim. But don't let facts get in the way of your hurt feelings.
It's only taken 7 years of unrestricted investigations to turn up some of the most petty shit that the prosecutors have to tamper with evidence to even remotely get it to work.
Is that what you want the jury to convict him for?
Here's some homework for you. Look up the definition of "evidence tampering", then specifically point out how it applies.
Failure to do this, or falsifying the definition or actions, just go to show that you have a losing argument.
Since when has MAGA required convictions????
When did far left radicals stop caring about convictions?
oh, right, it must have been about 2016 or so.
Ahhh, a deflection. It's funny you put up Hillary stuff. Just another example of the lefts support of the illegal act of tampering with evidence and mishandling classified materials.
.
You actually think you are in ANY position to assign "homework"
The MOUTAINS of evidence
Or facts or truth or common sense?
MOUNTAINS
(maybe someday I'll be able to edit/correct my comments again)
You STILL haven't looked up the charges?
We want the former 'president' to be convicted for ALL OF THE CRIMES that it has committed.
In other news, the lifelong thug/criminal/thief/grifter owes Chicago about $100 million
Nope, you're wrong. He MAY owe that to the IRS due to a reopened audit of a Chicago property but it's not money owed to Chicago and it's not yet been settled as it's still being fought in court. [ deleted ]
[ ✘ ] Report: Trump may face $100 million-plus IRS bill over skyscraper | AP News
When your posts contain that many ignorant/false statements, yes. Someone has to.
Funnier yet the idea that you might actually do some
The problem is that, to date, you all have failed to prove any of your accusations.
Only Democrats and leftists would consider Cohen a "star" witness; much the less a credible one.
But what can anyone expect from a party that alters/destroys evidence; puts a gag order on only the defendant (While letting the Judge, witnesses for the prosecution; and the media say whatever they want about the case. It isn't like the judge bothered to sequester the jury. They are free to listen to the TDS media and social media as soon as they leave the courtroom.); and attempts to silence witnesses for the prosecution.
Putin and Xi are envious of the Democrat legal system.
Star witness. That's fucking hilarious.
IN addition to that clusterfuck witness, now we have BOTH of the left's "gotcha" trials with prosecutorial misconduct as they have both tampered with evidence.
Last night Mark Levin was left wondering if the SCOTUS would ever put a stop to the lawfare vs Trump. He warned that if they don't put a stop to it, it will become common place and our legal system will be destroyed.
They need to step in. It's being destroyed in real time. And all over hurt feelings and false accusations.
Stepping in is something John Roberts hates to do.
He is now between the rock and the hard place.
if justice isn't applied equally to all, and the politically powerful aren't held accountable ...
You finally got something right.
here's something else that's right. a co-conspirator has already done time for this crime. time to drag alan weisselberg back into court for this trial so a few years can tacked onto his sentence...
Not if they don't break the law like the former 'president' has done, SO MANY TIMES.
Still waiting on proof of that.
There is no evidence here.
Evidently the prosecution is counting on the jury convicting Trump regardless of the evidence.
Again, what is the crime?
It can't be "hiding funding," because Hillary Clinton already made the argument that hiding the funding for the Steele dossier as legal expenses was perfectly legal.
3.2.15
[deleted][✘]
Great question.
Let's see if we get an answer.
If "TDS" isnt banned from this forum "MAGAs" is not going to be either.
My talking about "the left" in a derogatory way has been ticketed John. You & others using MAGA in a derogatory way has not.
Take a good look at post # 1.1
I got ticketed , with points, the other day for telling you that no one "hides" or "runs away" from you, which is a claim you regularly make entirely without a basis.
When someone confronts your nonsense you change the subject or ask a question. To deflect.
You are treated well on this forum.
I don't think that was the part of the comment you got ticketed for... was it?
that post is delusional and quite imaginative.
now seems like a really good time for trump supporters to remind everyone who cohen was protecting with the lies he was convicted of telling and why he served time in prison. cohen's testimony this week will be corroborated by trump's own recorded words, texts, actions, documents, and witnesses...
Are you telling us that Trump should not have followed his lawyer's advice.
One more thing: Please ask Cohen what happened to Trump's attorney/client privilege.
that's not applicable to criminal acts. attorneys are officers of the court...
What the fuck is the crime?
That is 100% wrong, a attorney is absolutely forbidden from testifying about a clients previous criminal acts, in fact the only one who can wave that privilege is the client. But since Cohen will never be able to be an attorney again, he has nothing to lose.
If the attorney and client are conspiring to commit a criminal act, or planning or furthering an ongoing fraud or crime, the attorney client privilege does not apply.
no biggie, facts like that aren't disclosed to the FOX, newsmax, and salem audiences...
crimes, plural...
we'll all know in about 3+ weeks when he gets convicted...
Still no answer.
you can look up the charges as easily as I can. I can't predict what crimes he will be convicted of, if any...
The New York indictment contains 34 counts. Do you need them all set out here for you here? If you want I will be happy to copy and paste the entire indictment.
Facts, schmacts
Exactly.
You and certain others here have no use for them
Mmmmkay, says the one who doesn't read anyones links....
This reminds me of when Sammy ''The Bull'' Gravano testified against ''Teflon John Gotti''. Gravano convicted of numerous murders and other crimes sent Teflon John to prison with his testimony.
Cohan isn't nearly the bad guy that Sammy was and DJT isn't as tough or smart as Teflon Don.
Let the testimony begin.
Somebody flips to save his own ass?
The problem with trying to flip people is that sometimes they make up stuff to save their own ass.
The idea that every allegation against Trump is "made up" is probably the dumbest fucking thing anyone has ever said.
What is dumb is people posing as intellectuals asking that Trump be smeared as a wrongdoer without even a conviction after all the investigations.
Are you going to try and tell us with a straight face that Trump is not a wrongdoer ?
No deflecting today, John. Where is the evidence in this case?
You do know that there is going to be a motion to dismiss.
Are you going to tell us with a straight face you finally, after many years, at last have evidence of a Trump criminal conviction?
I'm not answering any more stupid questions.
That's a unique way of saying you have nothing.
trump hasn't violated any republican family values ... /s
I knew you couldn't.
Due to the fact you can't?
This one absolutely is.
He took the 5th.
any random dumbass could google "evidence in the trump hush money case"
==================================================
You
What is the evidence in Donald Trump's hush money case?
Copilot
Usingthe web
In the Donald Trump hush money case, prosecutors have presented several pieces of evidence to support their charges against him. Here are some key elements:
Checks and Accounting Documents:
The checks and accounting documents form a central part of the case.
Prosecutors aim to show that Trump was reimbursing his former lawyer, Michael Cohen, for the $130,000 hush money payment to adult film actress Stormy Daniels.
These documents demonstrate how Trump’s organization approved and issued checks related to the payment1.
Witness Testimonies:
Michael Cohen, Trump’s former lawyer, is a central witness in the trial.
Cohen calculated how the $130,000 allegedly paid to Daniels was distributed as monthly payments for a “retainer.”
Other witnesses, including Rebecca Manochio (Trump Organization junior bookkeeper) and Madeleine Westerhout (former presidential aide), testified about how checks were signed in 2017 once Trump was in the White House1.
Transcripts and Notes:
Jeffrey McConney, the former controller at the Trump Organization, verified the evidence.
McConney’s “chicken scratch” notes from a January 2017 meeting indicate discussions about getting money to Michael Cohen for reimbursement1.
Audio Recording:
Prosecutors have informed Trump’s attorneys that the evidence includes an audio recording of Trump and a witness2.
In summary, the evidence includes financial records, witness testimonies, transcripts, and an audio recording, all aimed at establishing Trump’s involvement in the hush money payment to Stormy Daniels12. If you have any more questions, feel free to ask!
I think Vic may be telling you the same thing many others have told you - PROVE IT. So far every attempt has fallen flat.
Another day, another witness and still no evidence.
Will Cohen collapse the house of cards under cross examination?
All I heard is that you are running away from questions you can't answer.
"Proof" is a meaningless concept to MAGAs.
None of it is evidence of a crime.
It appears to be opinion. No link, nothing substantiating the comment. N.O.T.H.I.N.G.
In Cohen's case he has already served time and in the case of Sammy whether he lied or didn't Teflon John went to prison over his testimony and died there.
And an unattainable thing for the Left to produce.
[deleted][✘]
Do you understand the definition of evidence? Evidence is defined as "an item or information proffered to make the existence of a fact more or less probable". Evidence can take the form of testimony, documents, photographs, videos, voice recordings, DNA testing, or other tangible objects.
That goes without saying as is the motion to dismiss will be dismissed notwithstanding the collective crossed fingers of empty hope ... hick!
I don't know where the prosecution goes from here. There are no smoking guns, no surprises. In the end all we had was a very vicious, partisan case that never should have been brought.
A bright line of ethics has been crossed simply to smear a Presidential candidate that democrats fear in an open election.
Based on the evidence adduced to date, an inevitable guilty verdict.
Just a straight forward, factual presentation, and thus, nothing for even the most ardent Trumpist to bitch about.
If one doesn't believe in upholding the law.
By a married man with a one month old child having sex with a porn star. Or, isn't that an ethical failure for Trumpists?
trump has brought this all upon himself. a jury of his peers will decide his fate based upon the facts, and we will all have to live with the results of their decision. well, most of us that believe in constitutional due process anyway...
You do of course realize you are the also making a partisan case, one that echoes Donald's word for word. Y'all had the opportunity to dump him 4 years ago and now you blame those who tried ... good luck with Project 2025 which for all intents is Project 1984 Redux.
'a jury of his peers'
how did they get 12 sewer rats plus alternates?
no doubt. Andrei Vyshinksy was also able to obtain a 100% conviction rate under similar circumstances.
If one doesn't believe in upholding the law.
Imagine drinking so much kool-aid that you would believe that Democrats would indict a Democrat for doing this..Embarrassing to admit it in public!
most of his peers are already serving time ...
It says a lot about their lack of understanding of history, and their patriotism, when reactionary propagandists equate the American judicial system to the Soviet Union.
Like former Democratic Vice-Presidential candidate John Edwards being prosecuted by Democratic President Obama's Department of Justice for substantially similar campaign finance violations or Democratic Senator Menendez being prosecuted by Democratic President Biden's Department of Justice on corruption charges, for example. Imagine what you must be drinking to make completely unfounded allegations in public about what Democrats allegedly wouldn't do!
they had a smattering of cockroaches for good measure
I'd say they same when Kool aid drinking biden worshippers mindlessly use overuse the same couple words without understanding them.
Imagine what you must be drinking to make completely unfounded allegati
Unlike the DOJ Alvin Bragg lacks jurisdiction to prosecute anyone for supposed federal election crimes? so why don't you find an example of a Democratic DA prosecuting a Democrat for a crime he lacks jurisdiction over and you can talk. Because the only entities that could legitimately prosecute Trump for campaign expenditures (DOJ, FEC) declined to do so.
And the best part is we actually have the perfect test. Did Alvin Bragg indict Hillary Clinton for falsifying business records and actually committing a federal election crime during the same election????
Your comment is the perfect example of that.
Your comment was shown to be fraudulent. No wonder you want to change the storyline.
Have a wonderful day.
... almost every day.
The former 'president' though is indeed a thug and a wannabe mob boss and lifelong con'man'
The former 'president' was ranting somewhere else recently about the late great Hannibal Lechter
There is a report that Trump has spent part of his time in court today looking at photos of his rally crowd size.
No joke.
The majority of those folks weren't there for the former 'president' were gone before the end of the 90 minutes of delusional ranting and raving - they were there for the NJ boardwalk amusements of which the former 'president' was one - a walking talking delusional sputtering babboon
I thought freak shows were illegal ... /s
Freak show? Wait until the Republican convention this summer.
If the jurors can see that they will not like it.
Cohen's testimony about his conversations with Trump, in conjunction with the documents, is devastating to Trump. It will all come down to whether the jury believes Cohen about private conversations he had with Trump.
It seems like the evidence reported as having been introduced at the trial so far has been very damaging to Trump. It's hard to imagine who the defense might call as a witness. Very possibly, the defense won't call any witnesses. The defense will attack the credibility of the prosecution's witnesses and sufficiency of the evidence, and make the argument that the prosecution has not met it's burden of proof, which is usual for criminal defendants.
the prosecution has structured their case very well. trump's own words will convict him, and there's nothing he or his lawyers can do about it ...
Simply awesome, wasn't it you that said he'd stiff them, like it's done to everyone it's whole life, once it loses?
on the plus side, no secret service protection will be needed in a protective solitary confinement situation...