╌>

The Star Witness

  

Category:  Op/Ed

By:  vic-eldred  •  one week ago  •  206 comments

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.

AA1meUn4.img?w=800&h=435&q=60&m=2&f=jpg


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.




Tags

jrDiscussion - desc
[]
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
1  author  Vic Eldred    one week ago

Good morning.

GNbhg2OWAAAGFNG?format=jpg&name=small

Let all our readers focus on the "testimony" of Michael Cohen today.

 
 
 
devangelical
Professor Principal
1.1  devangelical  replied to  Vic Eldred @1    one week ago
Russian forces have poured across Ukraine's northeastern border capturing villages and settlements.

in large part due to the putin aligned maga congress member's efforts to patronize an american fascist POTUS for 4 months...

that would make Joe Stalin proud

smiling broadly as he gazes down from maga heaven...

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
1.1.1  Texan1211  replied to  devangelical @1.1    one week ago

[deleted][]

 
 
 
devangelical
Professor Principal
1.1.2  devangelical  replied to  Texan1211 @1.1.1    one week ago

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...

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
1.1.3  Texan1211  replied to  devangelical @1.1.2    one week ago

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.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
1.1.4  TᵢG  replied to  Texan1211 @1.1.3    one week ago
Trump doesn't have to testify.

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?

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
1.1.5  Texan1211  replied to  TᵢG @1.1.4    one week ago

Is there anything not factual in my post that you would care to comment on?

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
1.1.6  Texan1211  replied to  TᵢG @1.1.4    one week ago
This is a result of Trump claiming that the gag order prevented him from testifying.   

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?

 
 
 
devangelical
Professor Principal
1.1.7  devangelical  replied to  Texan1211 @1.1.6    one week ago
Unless you have evidence that Trump claiming anything prevents him from testifying

trump states it twice in this clip...

... uh, you were saying?

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
1.1.8  Texan1211  replied to  devangelical @1.1.7    one week ago
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?

 
 
 
devangelical
Professor Principal
1.1.9  devangelical  replied to  Texan1211 @1.1.8    one week ago
Unless you have evidence that Trump claiming anything prevents him from testifying.
I am CLEARING asking for any evidence that Trump cannot testify because of what he claims .

clearing? I think you mean clearly.

none the less, not exactly the same meaning for each of your statements, is there?

how is that unclear at all?

jrSmiley_88_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
1.1.10  Texan1211  replied to  devangelical @1.1.9    one week ago

you can pretend you don't know what I am asking, but the words are plain enough.

 
 
 
devangelical
Professor Principal
1.1.11  devangelical  replied to  Texan1211 @1.1.10    one week ago

you've asked 2 different questions. you can pretend you haven't...

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
1.1.12  Texan1211  replied to  devangelical @1.1.11    one week ago

and you haven't answered....

 
 
 
Right Down the Center
Senior Guide
1.1.13  Right Down the Center  replied to  TᵢG @1.1.4    one week ago
Nor should he since he would be ripped to shreds.

That is an opinion

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?

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.

 
 
 
devangelical
Professor Principal
1.1.14  devangelical  replied to  Texan1211 @1.1.12    one week ago

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...

 
 
 
Right Down the Center
Senior Guide
1.1.15  Right Down the Center  replied to  devangelical @1.1.7    one week ago

 Interesting that the version you show does not show him asking the question and the guy behind him shaking his head.

 

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
1.1.16  Texan1211  replied to  devangelical @1.1.14    one week ago

[deleted][]

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
1.1.17  Texan1211  replied to  Right Down the Center @1.1.13    one week ago

[deleted][]

 
 
 
Jeremy Retired in NC
Professor Expert
1.1.18  Jeremy Retired in NC  replied to  devangelical @1.1.2    one week ago
the cowardly un-indicted co-conspirator #1 won't be taking the stand to defend himself in the current NY trial, 

Why should he?  Fat Alvin has already fucked up his chances of gaining a conviction by tampering with evidence.  

 
 
 
Jeremy Retired in NC
Professor Expert
1.1.19  Jeremy Retired in NC  replied to  devangelical @1.1.7    one week ago

So suddenly you believe what he says?

 
 
 
devangelical
Professor Principal
1.1.20  devangelical  replied to  Right Down the Center @1.1.13    one week ago

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
1.1.21  TᵢG  replied to  Right Down the Center @1.1.13    one week ago
Hardly the lie you are trying ti make it out to be.

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:  

That is an opinion

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.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
1.1.22  TᵢG  replied to  Jeremy Retired in NC @1.1.19    one week ago
So suddenly you believe what he says?

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.

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
1.1.23  Texan1211  replied to  TᵢG @1.1.22    one week ago

Something only Biden defenders seem to care about...

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
1.1.24  TᵢG  replied to  Texan1211 @1.1.23    one week ago

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.

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
1.1.25  Texan1211  replied to  TᵢG @1.1.24    one week ago

no, it simply isn't a deflection.

its called a fact.

[deleted][]

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
1.1.26  Texan1211  replied to  TᵢG @1.1.24    one week ago
You can watch him say this on video yet you refuse to acknowledge this indisputable fact

Irrelevant as usual since I didn't ever dispute him saying it.

See how that works?

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
1.1.27  JohnRussell  replied to  TᵢG @1.1.24    one week ago

This whole thread shows the sort of gaslighting and nitpicking from the right that regularly overtakes this forum. 

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
1.1.28  Texan1211  replied to  JohnRussell @1.1.27    one week ago

[deleted][]

 
 
 
Hallux
PhD Principal
1.1.29  Hallux  replied to  Texan1211 @1.1.26    one week ago
See how that works?

A ruse by any other name is a ruse.

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
1.1.30  Texan1211  replied to  Hallux @1.1.29    one week ago

yeah, but I refuse to play his game.

 
 
 
Right Down the Center
Senior Guide
1.1.32  Right Down the Center  replied to  TᵢG @1.1.21    one week ago
This is a fine example of flat out denial of cold hard fact in order to defend Trump.

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

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
1.1.33  Texan1211  replied to  Right Down the Center @1.1.32    one week ago

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.

 
 
 
Right Down the Center
Senior Guide
1.1.34  Right Down the Center  replied to  devangelical @1.1.20    one week ago

I agree, makes me wonder why you are doing it

 
 
 
Right Down the Center
Senior Guide
1.1.35  Right Down the Center  replied to  Texan1211 @1.1.17    one week ago

Usually happens when the lunch is eaten

 
 
 
Right Down the Center
Senior Guide
1.1.36  Right Down the Center  replied to  Texan1211 @1.1.33    one week ago

The twist, the spin and ignoring of facts that don't go along with the narrative continues

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
1.1.37  TᵢG  replied to  Right Down the Center @1.1.32    one week ago

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.

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
1.1.38  Texan1211  replied to  TᵢG @1.1.37    one week ago

Which means and signifies absolutely nothing.

 
 
 
Right Down the Center
Senior Guide
1.1.39  Right Down the Center  replied to  TᵢG @1.1.22    one week ago

Try looking at the totality of what he said, context matters

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
1.1.40  Texan1211  replied to  Right Down the Center @1.1.39    one week ago

Not to Biden defenders.

 
 
 
Right Down the Center
Senior Guide
1.1.41  Right Down the Center  replied to  TᵢG @1.1.37    one week ago
Your first X link shows Trump stating in public that he is not allowed to testify because he is under a gag order. 

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

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
1.1.42  TᵢG  replied to  Right Down the Center @1.1.39    one week ago

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.

 
 
 
Right Down the Center
Senior Guide
1.1.43  Right Down the Center  replied to  TᵢG @1.1.42    one week ago
  or he is profoundly ignorant about basic law.   

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.

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
1.1.44  Texan1211  replied to  Right Down the Center @1.1.41    one week ago

Context only matters when it supports what someone claims, otherwise, it doesn't matter, apparently.

 
 
 
Right Down the Center
Senior Guide
1.1.45  Right Down the Center  replied to  Texan1211 @1.1.44    one week ago

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.

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
1.1.46  Texan1211  replied to  Right Down the Center @1.1.45    one week ago

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.

 
 
 
Right Down the Center
Senior Guide
1.1.47  Right Down the Center  replied to  Texan1211 @1.1.46    one week ago

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

 
 
 
Right Down the Center
Senior Guide
1.1.48  Right Down the Center  replied to  TᵢG @1.1.42    one week ago
He made a ridiculous claim that a gag order prevents him from testifying.

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

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
1.1.49  Texan1211  replied to  Right Down the Center @1.1.47    one week ago

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?

 
 
 
Right Down the Center
Senior Guide
1.1.50  Right Down the Center  replied to  Texan1211 @1.1.49    one week ago

yes but I would call it using the very same "logic".

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
1.1.51  TᵢG  replied to  Right Down the Center @1.1.48    one week ago
He made a ridiculous claim that a gag order prevents him from testifying after he believed his lawyer told him that was the case.

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.

 
 
 
Right Down the Center
Senior Guide
1.1.52  Right Down the Center  replied to  TᵢG @1.1.51    one week ago
If he believed his attorney told him that a gag order means he cannot testify then Trump is profoundly ignorant about the law. 

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

It is also unlikely that Trump —after being told that he cannot testify— would not demand his attorney explain why.    

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?

To wit, the most likely scenario is that Trump was (big surprise) lying in public ...  

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.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
1.1.53  TᵢG  replied to  Right Down the Center @1.1.52    one week ago
You did see him ask his attorney didn't you?

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?

Your feelings for Trump seem to be stopping you from seeing what is right in front of your face.

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).

 
 
 
Right Down the Center
Senior Guide
1.1.54  Right Down the Center  replied to  TᵢG @1.1.53    one week ago

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 

 
 
 
devangelical
Professor Principal
1.1.55  devangelical  replied to  Right Down the Center @1.1.48    one week ago

uh-huh, sure. if that's what he believed, trump's got bigger problems no lawyer can help him with...

 
 
 
Right Down the Center
Senior Guide
1.1.56  Right Down the Center  replied to  devangelical @1.1.55    one week ago

An expected response from a biden supporter. Keep on spinning

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
1.1.57  TᵢG  replied to  Right Down the Center @1.1.54    one week ago
You are illustrating a perfect example of seeing what you want to see.

I saw Trump lie that he could not testify because of the gag order.   

What did you see?

 
 
 
bugsy
Professor Participates
1.1.58  bugsy  replied to  Right Down the Center @1.1.54    one week ago

I don't know why you even try.

 
 
 
Right Down the Center
Senior Guide
1.1.59  Right Down the Center  replied to  TᵢG @1.1.57    one week ago

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

 
 
 
Right Down the Center
Senior Guide
1.1.60  Right Down the Center  replied to  bugsy @1.1.58    one week ago

My wife is away for a couple days and I am really really bored.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
1.1.61  TᵢG  replied to  Right Down the Center @1.1.59    one week ago

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.

 
 
 
Right Down the Center
Senior Guide
1.1.62  Right Down the Center  replied to  TᵢG @1.1.61    one week ago

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.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
1.1.63  TᵢG  replied to  Right Down the Center @1.1.62    one week ago

There was nothing for you to argue from the beginning.

It is obvious that:

  • No attorney would even hint to Trump that a gag order prevents testimony; they know better.   Your hypothesis is absurd.
  • Trump would have to be a legal moron to actually believe that a gag order means he could not testify.

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. 

 
 
 
Right Down the Center
Senior Guide
1.1.64  Right Down the Center  replied to  TᵢG @1.1.63    one week ago

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?

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
1.1.65  TᵢG  replied to  Right Down the Center @1.1.64    one week ago

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:

  • No attorney would even hint to Trump that a gag order prevents testimony; they know better.   Your hypothesis is absurd.
  • Trump would have to be a legal moron to actually believe that a gag order means he could not testify.

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. 

 
 
 
Gsquared
Professor Principal
1.1.66  Gsquared  replied to  TᵢG @1.1.65    one week ago
It is a pathetic attempt to defend Trump. 

There is a whole lot of that going on.

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
1.1.67  Tessylo  replied to  Gsquared @1.1.66    one week ago

It's the endless defense of the indefensible

 
 
 
Gsquared
Professor Principal
1.1.68  Gsquared  replied to  Tessylo @1.1.67    one week ago
It's the endless defense of the indefensible

And they're really bad at it, too.

 
 
 
Right Down the Center
Senior Guide
1.1.69  Right Down the Center  replied to  TᵢG @1.1.65    one week ago

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?

256

 
 
 
Gsquared
Professor Principal
1.1.70  Gsquared  replied to  Right Down the Center @1.1.69    one week ago
1.1.64     Right Down the Center     replied to    TᵢG   @ 1.1.63  
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?

1.1.69    Right Down the Center   replied to   TᵢG   @ 1.1.65

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.

 
 
 
GregTx
PhD Guide
1.1.71  GregTx  replied to  Gsquared @1.1.70    6 days ago

Perhaps one or two more and you'll get it?....

 
 
 
Thomas
Senior Guide
1.1.72  Thomas  replied to  Right Down the Center @1.1.50    6 days ago

I would call it

Bwaaak Bawaaak

 
 
 
Jeremy Retired in NC
Professor Expert
1.1.73  Jeremy Retired in NC  replied to  TᵢG @1.1.22    6 days ago
This is not about believing what Trump says

Yeah, yours and others reactions show differently.

 
 
 
Gsquared
Professor Principal
1.1.74  Gsquared  replied to  GregTx @1.1.71    6 days ago

Way to completely miss the point. 

512

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
1.1.75  TᵢG  replied to  Jeremy Retired in NC @1.1.73    6 days ago

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.  jrSmiley_88_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
Gsquared
Professor Principal
1.1.76  Gsquared  replied to  TᵢG @1.1.75    6 days ago

We see bizarre conflation on here every day coming from right wing sources.

 
 
 
Jeremy Retired in NC
Professor Expert
1.1.77  Jeremy Retired in NC  replied to  TᵢG @1.1.75    6 days ago
Noting when someone lies does not mean one believes the lie.

Then stop acting as if you believe the "lie".  Good way to avoid being outed as a hypocrite and avoid all this.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
1.1.78  TᵢG  replied to  Jeremy Retired in NC @1.1.77    6 days ago

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.

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
1.1.79  Tessylo  replied to  TᵢG @1.1.78    6 days ago

[removed][]

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
1.1.80  author  Vic Eldred  replied to  Right Down the Center @1.1.54    6 days ago

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.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
1.1.81  TᵢG  replied to  Vic Eldred @1.1.80    6 days ago
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.

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.

However as sure as I'm sitting here that "gag order" will be found unconstitutional.

On what grounds?


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.

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.

 
 
 
Thomas
Senior Guide
1.2  Thomas  replied to  Vic Eldred @1    6 days ago

You want them to focus on her taco

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
2  author  Vic Eldred    one week ago

The former president entered the courtroom flanked by his lawyers, his son Eric Trump and multiple aides.

GNdk9SHWwAApCgc?format=jpg&name=small

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

 

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
2.1  Tessylo  replied to  Vic Eldred @2    6 days ago

[removed][]

 
 
 
afrayedknot
Junior Quiet
2.2  afrayedknot  replied to  Vic Eldred @2    6 days ago

“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. 

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
2.2.1  author  Vic Eldred  replied to  afrayedknot @2.2    6 days ago

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.

 
 
 
afrayedknot
Junior Quiet
2.2.2  afrayedknot  replied to  Vic Eldred @2.2.1    6 days ago

“It pays to run against corrupt lawfare.”

It’s a fool’s errand to run on such a specious, narrow, and naive platform. 

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
2.2.3  author  Vic Eldred  replied to  afrayedknot @2.2.2    6 days ago

It's less than 6 months away...

 
 
 
afrayedknot
Junior Quiet
2.2.4  afrayedknot  replied to  Vic Eldred @2.2.3    6 days ago

“It's less than 6 months away...”

Some things are timeless, vic. Things like character, like accountability, like the  truth. 

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
2.2.5  Tessylo  replied to  Vic Eldred @2.2.1    6 days ago

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'

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
3  JohnRussell    one week ago
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.

A good distillation of the fantasy world MAGAs live in.  The "msm" often mentions Cohen's criminal record and perjury. 

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
3.1  author  Vic Eldred  replied to  JohnRussell @3    one week ago

How "often?"

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
3.1.1  JohnRussell  replied to  Vic Eldred @3.1    one week ago
Defense attorneys are expected to fiercely attack Cohen's credibility. In 2018, he pleaded guilty to federal charges related to the Daniels payment, as well as lying to Congress. Defense attorneys are expected to bring that up, as well as October testimony in a separate Trump civil case — in which Trump was found liable for fraud — when Cohen admitted to other instances of lying under oath. Trump trial live updates as Michael Cohen testifies today (cbsnews.com)

That is a pretty standard way Cohen is described across mainstream media. 

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
3.1.2  author  Vic Eldred  replied to  JohnRussell @3.1.1    one week ago

I'm sure the defense will bring it up and I'm sure the prosecution will be objecting.

 
 
 
Ozzwald
Professor Quiet
3.2  Ozzwald  replied to  JohnRussell @3    one week ago
A good distillation of the fantasy world MAGAs live in.  The "msm" often mentions Cohen's criminal record and perjury.

You notice that the MAGA's also never address the evidence, just take shots at the prosecution, the judges, and the witnesses?

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
3.2.1  author  Vic Eldred  replied to  Ozzwald @3.2    one week ago

What is the "evidence?'  

And while you are at it: what is the crime that Trump is trying to conceal?

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
3.2.2  JohnRussell  replied to  Ozzwald @3.2    one week ago
You notice that the MAGA's also never address the evidence, just take shots at the prosecution, the judges, and the witnesses?

Not only in this case but in all of his cases. 

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
3.2.3  author  Vic Eldred  replied to  JohnRussell @3.2.2    one week ago

Says those who refuse to accept facts.

That is going to be very hard to do today.

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
3.2.4  JohnRussell  replied to  Vic Eldred @3.2.3    one week ago

The MAGA take on all this is worthless. 

-

Salon.com
...

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 …

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
3.2.5  author  Vic Eldred  replied to  JohnRussell @3.2.4    one week ago

Where is the evidence in this case?

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
3.2.6  JohnRussell  replied to  Vic Eldred @3.2.5    one week ago

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. 

 
 
 
Jeremy Retired in NC
Professor Expert
3.2.7  Jeremy Retired in NC  replied to  Ozzwald @3.2    one week ago
You notice that the MAGA's also never address the evidence

You mean the evidence that was tampered with by the prosecution?

 
 
 
Jeremy Retired in NC
Professor Expert
3.2.8  Jeremy Retired in NC  replied to  JohnRussell @3.2.6    one week ago
Trump has been a crook his entire adult life.

And yet there are no convictions to back up your claim.  But don't let facts get in the way of your hurt feelings.

His past has finally caught up with him. 

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.  

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
3.2.9  author  Vic Eldred  replied to  JohnRussell @3.2.6    one week ago
Trump has been a crook his entire adult life.

Is that what you want the jury to convict him for?

 
 
 
Ozzwald
Professor Quiet
3.2.10  Ozzwald  replied to  Jeremy Retired in NC @3.2.7    one week ago
You mean the evidence that was tampered with by the prosecution?

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.

 
 
 
Ozzwald
Professor Quiet
3.2.11  Ozzwald  replied to  Jeremy Retired in NC @3.2.8    one week ago
And yet there are no convictions to back up your claim.

Since when has MAGA required convictions????
us-vote-republicans-trump.jpeg hillary-clinton-republican-national-convention-hatred-17388a16-e731-4c24-b476-3ff3fd523be6.jpg

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
3.2.12  Texan1211  replied to  Ozzwald @3.2.11    one week ago

When did far left radicals stop caring about convictions?

oh, right, it must have been about 2016 or so.

 
 
 
Jeremy Retired in NC
Professor Expert
3.2.13  Jeremy Retired in NC  replied to  Ozzwald @3.2.11    one week ago

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.

 
 
 
Jeremy Retired in NC
Professor Expert
3.2.14  Jeremy Retired in NC  replied to  Ozzwald @3.2.10    one week ago
Here's some homework for you.

.  jrSmiley_10_smiley_image.gif  You actually think you are in ANY position to assign "homework"

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
3.2.15  Tessylo  replied to  Ozzwald @3.2    one week ago

The MOUTAINS of evidence

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
3.2.16  Tessylo  replied to  Ozzwald @3.2.11    one week ago

Or facts or truth or common sense?

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
3.2.17  Tessylo  replied to  Tessylo @3.2.15    one week ago

MOUNTAINS

(maybe someday I'll be able to edit/correct my comments again)

 
 
 
MrFrost
Professor Guide
3.2.18  MrFrost  replied to  Vic Eldred @3.2.1    one week ago
what is the crime that Trump is trying to conceal?

You STILL haven't looked up the charges? 

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
3.2.19  Tessylo  replied to  Vic Eldred @3.2.9    6 days ago

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

jrSmiley_86_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
Snuffy
Professor Participates
3.2.20  Snuffy  replied to  Tessylo @3.2.19    6 days ago
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

 
 
 
Ozzwald
Professor Quiet
3.2.21  Ozzwald  replied to  Jeremy Retired in NC @3.2.14    6 days ago

You actually think you are in ANY position to assign "homework"

When your posts contain that many ignorant/false statements, yes.  Someone has to.

 
 
 
Thomas
Senior Guide
3.2.22  Thomas  replied to  Jeremy Retired in NC @3.2.14    6 days ago

Funnier yet the idea that you might actually do some

 
 
 
Jeremy Retired in NC
Professor Expert
3.2.23  Jeremy Retired in NC  replied to  Tessylo @3.2.19    5 days ago
We want the former 'president' to be convicted for ALL OF THE CRIMES that it has committed.

The problem is that, to date, you all have failed to prove any of your accusations.  

 
 
 
Jeremy Retired in NC
Professor Expert
3.2.24  Jeremy Retired in NC  replied to  Ozzwald @3.2.21    5 days ago

jrSmiley_10_smiley_image.gif   You actually think you are in ANY position to assign "homework".  

 
 
 
Ronin2
Professor Quiet
3.3  Ronin2  replied to  JohnRussell @3    one week ago

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.

 
 
 
Jeremy Retired in NC
Professor Expert
4  Jeremy Retired in NC    one week ago

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.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
4.1  author  Vic Eldred  replied to  Jeremy Retired in NC @4    one week ago

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.

 
 
 
Jeremy Retired in NC
Professor Expert
4.1.1  Jeremy Retired in NC  replied to  Vic Eldred @4.1    one week ago

They need to step in.  It's being destroyed in real time.  And all over hurt feelings and false accusations.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
4.1.2  author  Vic Eldred  replied to  Jeremy Retired in NC @4.1.1    one week ago

Stepping in is something John Roberts hates to do.

He is now between the rock and the hard place.

 
 
 
devangelical
Professor Principal
4.1.3  devangelical  replied to  Vic Eldred @4.1    one week ago

if justice isn't applied equally to all, and the politically powerful aren't held accountable ...

it will become common place and our legal system will be destroyed

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
4.1.4  author  Vic Eldred  replied to  devangelical @4.1.3    one week ago
if justice isn't applied equally to all

You finally got something right.

 
 
 
devangelical
Professor Principal
4.1.5  devangelical  replied to  Vic Eldred @4.1.4    one week ago

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...

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
4.1.6  Tessylo  replied to  Vic Eldred @4.1    one week ago

Not if they don't break the law like the former 'president' has done, SO MANY TIMES.

 
 
 
Jeremy Retired in NC
Professor Expert
4.1.7  Jeremy Retired in NC  replied to  Tessylo @4.1.6    one week ago

Still waiting on proof of that.  

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
4.1.8  author  Vic Eldred  replied to  Tessylo @4.1.6    one week ago

There is no evidence here.

Evidently the prosecution is counting on the jury convicting Trump regardless of the evidence.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
4.1.9  author  Vic Eldred  replied to  devangelical @4.1.5    one week ago
a co-conspirator has already done time for this crime.

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.

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
4.1.10  Tessylo  replied to  Vic Eldred @4.1.8    one week ago
 
 
 
George
Junior Expert
5  George    one week ago

[deleted][]

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
5.1  author  Vic Eldred  replied to  George @5    one week ago

Great question.

Let's see if we get an answer.

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
5.1.1  JohnRussell  replied to  Vic Eldred @5.1    one week ago

If "TDS" isnt banned from this forum  "MAGAs"  is not going to be either. 

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
5.1.2  author  Vic Eldred  replied to  JohnRussell @5.1.1    one week ago

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

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
5.1.3  JohnRussell  replied to  Vic Eldred @5.1.2    one week ago

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. 

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
5.1.4  author  Vic Eldred  replied to  JohnRussell @5.1.3    one week ago

I don't think that was the part of the comment you got ticketed for... was it?

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
5.1.5  Texan1211  replied to  Vic Eldred @5.1.2    one week ago

that post is delusional and quite imaginative.

 
 
 
devangelical
Professor Principal
5.1.6  devangelical  replied to  Vic Eldred @5.1.2    one week ago
Take a good look at post # 1.1

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...

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
5.1.7  author  Vic Eldred  replied to  devangelical @5.1.6    one week ago

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.

 
 
 
devangelical
Professor Principal
5.1.8  devangelical  replied to  Vic Eldred @5.1.7    one week ago
what happened to Trump's attorney/client privilege

that's not applicable to criminal acts. attorneys are officers of the court...

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
5.1.9  author  Vic Eldred  replied to  devangelical @5.1.8    one week ago

What the fuck is the crime?

 
 
 
George
Junior Expert
5.1.10  George  replied to  devangelical @5.1.8    one week ago
that's not applicable to criminal acts.

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. 

 
 
 
Gsquared
Professor Principal
5.1.11  Gsquared  replied to  devangelical @5.1.8    one week ago
that's not applicable to criminal acts

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.

 
 
 
devangelical
Professor Principal
5.1.12  devangelical  replied to  Gsquared @5.1.11    one week ago

no biggie, facts like that aren't disclosed to the FOX, newsmax, and salem audiences...

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
5.1.13  Tessylo  replied to  JohnRussell @5.1.3    one week ago

jrSmiley_93_smiley_image.jpg

jrSmiley_81_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
devangelical
Professor Principal
5.1.14  devangelical  replied to  Vic Eldred @5.1.9    one week ago
What the fuck is the crime?

crimes, plural...

we'll all know in about 3+ weeks when he gets convicted...

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
5.1.15  author  Vic Eldred  replied to  devangelical @5.1.14    one week ago

Still no answer.

 
 
 
devangelical
Professor Principal
5.1.16  devangelical  replied to  Vic Eldred @5.1.15    one week ago

you can look up the charges as easily as I can. I can't predict what crimes he will be convicted of, if any...

 
 
 
Gsquared
Professor Principal
5.1.17  Gsquared  replied to  Vic Eldred @5.1.15    one week ago

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.

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
5.1.18  Tessylo  replied to  Gsquared @5.1.17    6 days ago

Facts, schmacts

 
 
 
GregTx
PhD Guide
5.1.19  GregTx  replied to  Tessylo @5.1.18    6 days ago

Exactly. 

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
5.1.20  Tessylo  replied to  GregTx @5.1.19    6 days ago

You and certain others here have no use for them

 
 
 
GregTx
PhD Guide
5.1.21  GregTx  replied to  Tessylo @5.1.20    6 days ago

Mmmmkay, says the one who doesn't read anyones links....

 
 
 
Kavika
Professor Principal
6  Kavika     one week ago

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.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
6.1  author  Vic Eldred  replied to  Kavika @6    one week ago
This reminds me of when Sammy ''The Bull'' Gravano testified against ''Teflon John Gotti''.

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.

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
6.1.1  JohnRussell  replied to  Vic Eldred @6.1    one week ago

The idea that every allegation against Trump is "made up" is probably the dumbest fucking thing anyone has ever said. 

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
6.1.2  author  Vic Eldred  replied to  JohnRussell @6.1.1    one week ago

What is dumb is people posing as intellectuals asking that Trump be smeared as a wrongdoer without even a conviction after all the investigations.

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
6.1.3  JohnRussell  replied to  Vic Eldred @6.1.2    one week ago

Are you going to try and tell us with a straight face that Trump is not a wrongdoer ? 

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
6.1.4  author  Vic Eldred  replied to  JohnRussell @6.1.3    one week ago

No deflecting today, John. Where is the evidence in this case?

You do know that there is going to be a motion to dismiss.

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
6.1.5  Texan1211  replied to  JohnRussell @6.1.3    one week ago

Are you going to tell us with a straight face you finally, after many years, at last have evidence of a Trump criminal conviction?

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
6.1.6  JohnRussell  replied to  Vic Eldred @6.1.4    one week ago
Where is the evidence in this case?

I'm not answering any more stupid questions. 

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
6.1.7  Texan1211  replied to  JohnRussell @6.1.6    one week ago

That's a unique way of saying you have nothing.

 
 
 
devangelical
Professor Principal
6.1.8  devangelical  replied to  JohnRussell @6.1.3    one week ago

trump hasn't violated any republican family values ... /s

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
6.1.9  author  Vic Eldred  replied to  JohnRussell @6.1.6    one week ago

I knew you couldn't.

 
 
 
Just Jim NC TttH
Professor Principal
6.1.10  Just Jim NC TttH  replied to  JohnRussell @6.1.6    one week ago

Due to the fact you can't?

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Principal
6.1.11  Sean Treacy  replied to  JohnRussell @6.1.1    one week ago
he idea that every allegation against Trump is "made up" is probabl

This one absolutely is.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
6.1.12  author  Vic Eldred  replied to  Just Jim NC TttH @6.1.10    one week ago

He took the 5th.

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
6.1.13  JohnRussell  replied to  Just Jim NC TttH @6.1.10    one week ago

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!

 
 
 
Jeremy Retired in NC
Professor Expert
6.1.14  Jeremy Retired in NC  replied to  JohnRussell @6.1.3    one week ago
Are you going to try and tell us with a straight face that Trump is not a wrongdoer ? 

I think Vic may be telling you the same thing many others have told you - PROVE IT.  So far every attempt has fallen flat.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
6.1.15  author  Vic Eldred  replied to  JohnRussell @6.1.13    one week ago

Another day, another witness and still no evidence.

Will Cohen collapse the house of cards under cross examination?

 
 
 
Jeremy Retired in NC
Professor Expert
6.1.16  Jeremy Retired in NC  replied to  JohnRussell @6.1.6    one week ago
I'm not answering any more stupid questions. 

All I heard is that you are running away from questions you can't answer.

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
6.1.17  JohnRussell  replied to  Jeremy Retired in NC @6.1.14    one week ago

"Proof" is a meaningless concept to MAGAs. 

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
6.1.18  author  Vic Eldred  replied to  JohnRussell @6.1.13    one week ago

None of it is evidence of a crime.

 
 
 
Jeremy Retired in NC
Professor Expert
6.1.19  Jeremy Retired in NC  replied to  Vic Eldred @6.1.18    one week ago

It appears to be opinion.  No link, nothing substantiating the comment.  N.O.T.H.I.N.G.

 
 
 
Kavika
Professor Principal
6.1.20  Kavika   replied to  Vic Eldred @6.1    one week ago
The problem with trying to flip people is that sometimes they make up stuff to save their own ass.

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.

 
 
 
Jeremy Retired in NC
Professor Expert
6.1.21  Jeremy Retired in NC  replied to  JohnRussell @6.1.17    one week ago

And an unattainable thing for the Left to produce.  

 
 
 
Just Jim NC TttH
Professor Principal
6.1.22  Just Jim NC TttH  replied to  JohnRussell @6.1.13    one week ago

[deleted][]

 
 
 
Gsquared
Professor Principal
6.1.23  Gsquared  replied to  Vic Eldred @6.1.15    one week ago
still no evidence

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.

 
 
 
Hallux
PhD Principal
6.1.24  Hallux  replied to  Vic Eldred @6.1.4    one week ago
You do know that there is going to be a motion to dismiss.

That goes without saying as is the motion to dismiss will be dismissed notwithstanding the collective crossed fingers of empty hope ... hick!

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
6.1.25  author  Vic Eldred  replied to  Hallux @6.1.24    one week ago

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.

 
 
 
Gsquared
Professor Principal
6.1.26  Gsquared  replied to  Vic Eldred @6.1.25    one week ago
I don't know where the prosecution goes from here.

Based on the evidence adduced to date, an inevitable guilty verdict.

There are no smoking guns, no surprises.

Just a straight forward, factual presentation, and thus, nothing for even the most ardent Trumpist to bitch about.

case that should never have been brought

If one doesn't believe in upholding the law.

A bright line of ethics has been crossed

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?

 
 
 
devangelical
Professor Principal
6.1.27  devangelical  replied to  Vic Eldred @6.1.25    one week ago
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.

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...

 
 
 
Hallux
PhD Principal
6.1.28  Hallux  replied to  Vic Eldred @6.1.25    one week ago
In the end all we had was a very vicious, partisan case

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.

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
6.1.29  Tessylo  replied to  devangelical @6.1.27    one week ago

'a jury of his peers'

how did they get 12 sewer rats plus alternates?

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Principal
6.1.30  Sean Treacy  replied to  Gsquared @6.1.26    one week ago
on the evidence adduced to date, an inevitable guilty verdict

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!

 
 
 
devangelical
Professor Principal
6.1.31  devangelical  replied to  Tessylo @6.1.29    one week ago

most of his peers are already serving time ...

 
 
 
Gsquared
Professor Principal
6.1.32  Gsquared  replied to  Sean Treacy @6.1.30    one week ago
Andrei Vyshinsky

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.

Imagine... you would believe Democrats would indict a Democrat

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!

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
6.1.33  Tessylo  replied to  devangelical @6.1.31    one week ago

they had a smattering of cockroaches for good measure

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Principal
6.1.34  Sean Treacy  replied to  Gsquared @6.1.32    one week ago
bout their lack of understanding

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????

 
 
 
Gsquared
Professor Principal
6.1.35  Gsquared  replied to  Sean Treacy @6.1.34    6 days ago
mindlessly use overuse the same couple words without understanding them

Your comment is the perfect example of that.

so why don't you find an example of a Democratic DA prosecuting a Democrat for a crime he lacks jurisdiction over 

Your comment was shown to be fraudulent.  No wonder you want to change the storyline.

Have a wonderful day.

 
 
 
devangelical
Professor Principal
6.1.36  devangelical  replied to  Vic Eldred @6.1.4    6 days ago
You do know that there is going to be a motion to dismiss.

... almost every day.

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
6.2  Tessylo  replied to  Kavika @6    one week ago

The former 'president' though is indeed a thug and a wannabe mob boss and lifelong con'man'

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
6.3  Tessylo  replied to  Kavika @6    one week ago

The former 'president' was ranting somewhere else recently about the late great Hannibal Lechter

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
7  JohnRussell    one week ago

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. 

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
7.1  Tessylo  replied to  JohnRussell @7    one week ago

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

 
 
 
devangelical
Professor Principal
7.1.1  devangelical  replied to  Tessylo @7.1    one week ago
they were there for the NJ boardwalk amusements

I thought freak shows were illegal ... /s

 
 
 
Gsquared
Professor Principal
7.1.2  Gsquared  replied to  devangelical @7.1.1    one week ago

Freak show?  Wait until the Republican convention this summer.

 
 
 
Gsquared
Professor Principal
7.2  Gsquared  replied to  JohnRussell @7    one week ago
Trump has spent part of his time in court today looking at photos of his rally crowd size

If the jurors can see that they will not like it.

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
8  JohnRussell    one week ago

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. 

 
 
 
Gsquared
Professor Principal
8.1  Gsquared  replied to  JohnRussell @8    one week ago

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.

 
 
 
devangelical
Professor Principal
8.1.1  devangelical  replied to  Gsquared @8.1    6 days ago

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 ...

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
8.1.2  Tessylo  replied to  devangelical @8.1.1    6 days ago

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?

 
 
 
devangelical
Professor Principal
10  devangelical    6 days ago

on the plus side, no secret service protection will be needed in a protective solitary confinement situation...

 
 

Who is online


Jeremy Retired in NC


42 visitors