Cardin Drake

LOL. They didn't bring it only because they had no case. What is truly political is the unprecedented lengths they have gone to get Trump, including sending the #3 man in the DOJ to Bragg's office to help prosecute Trump. Cohen served time for crimes that had nothing to do with Trump. He got a better deal because he also agreed to plead guilty to campaign finance violations in an attempt by the DOJ to slime Trump with guilt by association. I still do not get what the prosecution's theory is of the crimes Trump committed. It doesn't make sense. He committed election fraud because his accountant recorded this transaction as legal fees in 2017? Had Trump himself recorded the transactions in 2017 as "a bribe to keep Stormy Daniels from telling the truth about me", it would have had zero effect on the 2016 election.

Cohen was sentenced to 3 years total. He could have gotten 30 years for bank fraud and 5 for income tax evasion, hiding more than 4 million dollars in income. His sweetheart deal was for flipping on Trump. Unfortunately for the DOJ, Trump himself didn't do anything illegal. His campaign finance violations did not apply to Trump, or you can be sure they would have been charged. If you read the original post, there is a lot of detail about that. You are right about one thing though, Cohen would never have been charged with anything had the DOJ not been frantically going after everybody in Trump's orbit to try to get to Trump.

This ill-informed opinion is exactly why they thought prosecuting Trump for this nonsense is a good idea. Even with an acquittal or a hung jury, they are counting on folks thinking like this. The truth is Cohen was convicted for crimes Trump had absolutely nothing to do with, most notably evading millions in income tax, and lying on bank loan application forms. The DOJ gave him a sweetheart deal to also plead guilty to campaign finance violations, which was the least of his criminal offenses. He exceeded campaign limits when he made the 130K payment that Trump re-reimbursed him for. Ironically, that limit does not apply to Trump since it was his own campaign. Even now after the prosecution has rested, nobody can say exactly what crimes Trump is alleged to have committed.

I've never understood the prosecution's theory of the case. Even if everything Cohen said is true, where is the crime? The defense shredded Cohen's credibility yesterday for sure, but I will be very surprised if this jury doesn't convict anyway. The prosecution has been planning on the opposite of jury nullification all along.

Dems will dump Biden after the convention.

We are turning into a 3rd world political system. Idiots suggesting we should criminalize opposition to the regime and we have lunatics cheering them on. Should you succeed, you aren't going to like the system you are installing,

Sounds about right. Let's try to criminalize somebody's campaign promise to oppose Biden's plan to end fossil fuels. And gosh, why would oil companies want to contribute to somebody who opposes the plan to end fossil fuels?

The only testimony Daniels gave that was relevant to the case on trial. Daniels conceded she never spoke to Trump about her hush money and has no personal involvement in the repayment scheme that the former president is charged over. Trump nodded his head affirmatively as she remarked on her lack of knowledge about his role in the hush money deal. “I’m just here to answer questions about me,” Daniels told Necheles. Her testimony is however, good grounds for appeal of the case. No normal judge would have allowed this prejudicial testimony in at all. The judge then had the chutzpah to say the defense didn't object enough.

CNN, surprisingly:

Trump had the documents stored securely. Regardless of the difference in the cases, Biden was guilty. And he didn't have a poor memory when he took the documents. It's just a big F.U. He's guilty but we ain't charging him. What are you going to do about it? As they put it: "uncovered evidence that President Biden willfully retained and disclosed classified information after his vice presidency when he was a private citizen," the report said. We have also considered that, at trial, Mr. Biden would likely present himself to a jury, as he did during our interview of him, as a sympathetic, well-meaning, elderly man with a poor memory. And don't expect us to turn over the tape either.

So, he's a billionaire. Most of those are as a plaintiff chasing guys who stiffed his casinos. He went his whole life without being charged with a felony, and now he's got 91 indictments just in time for his Presidential campaign. Nobody is buying that is a coincidence. There's an interesting dynamic going on. If he is convicted, I think he may gain as much support as he loses. He will lose a small percentage of his support, but it's actually surprising how little he lost with the indictments. The credibility of the justice system is that damaged by these twisted Rube Goldberg indictments. But there is also a backlash helping him, especially in the black and Hispanic communities. Apparently, those communities know prosecutorial abuse when they see it.

I agree. You would have to be willfullly blind not to see the DOJ is actively working against Trump. They literally said that Biden was guilty of mishandling classified documents, but they weren't going to charge him "because the jury would likely not convict" because he is elderly. Yeah, they always let people go based on that. And then charge his political opponent for the same crime. You can't make this stuff up. They aren't even trying to hide it any more. It's part of the intimidation factor for others who want to oppose them. It will be interesting to see if Judge Cannon throws it out based on selective prosecution. That issue is now on her docket.

Honestly, there is some truth to both sides, if that is possible. This case is a perversion of justice that will never survive appeal. Everybody understands this case would never have been brought against anyone else, and would not have even been brought against Trump if he were not running for President. Heck, even you lefties can probably admit that. Ok, nevermind, you can't admit anything. Nevertheless the jeopardy is real, and if I had to bet, I'd bet on conviction. The best Trump can hope for is a hung jury. 12 New York liberals voting to acquit is about as likely as 12 Alabama grads unanimously voting an Auburn grad Miss Alabama over a Bama grad when the contestant is one of their daughters. The link details some of the incredible dirty dealings done by the Judge so far. His rulings are astonishing! It's hard to believe this is America. Long but definitely worth the read. Most incredibly, he won't allow the defense to bring up the fact that Trump was never charged by the DOJ with a campaign violation, even though that goes to the heart of the case, and won't let them bring in an expert witness to testify about what constitutes a campaign finance violation. https://www.nationalreview.com/2024/04/how-judge-merchan-is-orchestrating-trumps-conviction/ So yeah, the case is utter garbage, but CNN may very well be correct that so far Trump is losing. Bragg and the judge don't care if Trump wins on appeal, because they can delay that until after the election. All that matters is getting convicted felon next to Trump's name for the rest of the election cycle. The only conspiracy to commit election interference is coming out of Bragg's office.

Except the leading prosecutor in the case was a top Biden DOJ official: https://justthenews.com/government/courts-law/prosecutor-trump-hush-money-case-previously-paid-dnc-consulting-report

Fifty's Jesus brought to life:

Man, talk about a complete lack of self-awareness regarding a response to a detailed, factual, legal argument citing precedents by a subject matter expert...

Yeah, and the writer was a commissioner on the F.E.C. He understands the issue. And it's not like the Washington Post or NY Times were going to print that article.

Don't worry, the economy is in the best of hands:

Yep, it's also why it's impossible to have a serious discussion on this forum. I think the last time this country was this divided was 1860. Hopefully, not quite as divided.

I don't know, AU9377, I think the prosecutors are counting on the same kind of sterling legal analysis from the jury that we just got from Homer and Rex. Trump..duh...orangeman bad...guilty. The case will never survive appeal, but then that's not the point of the prosecution.

More humor from Bama. Gotta commend them:

Caution: Language

Nice straight forward explanation of why Bragg's case is ridiculous: https://thelibertydaily.com/trumps-hush-money-prosecution-is-bogus-case-bogus/ Here’s a quick tutorial on why Bragg doesn’t have a legal leg to stand on—call it “Federal Campaign Finance Law for Dummies 101”—an apropos title, given what’s going on. Daniels claims that she had a sexual encounter with Trump in 2006, fully 10 years before the 2016 presidential election, which Trump denies. For the payment, Daniels agreed to sign a nondisclosure agreement, which is a standard provision in many settlement agreements of personal injury cases and other claims. Bragg contends that Trump falsified business records, a misdemeanor, when this payment was listed as legal expenses instead of a campaign expense. Supposedly, according to Bragg, that converted the misdemeanors into felonies because Trump was concealing another crime. That other crime, according to prosecutors, is a violation of Section 17-152 of New York law, which make it a misdemeanor to “promote … the election of any person to public office by unlawful means.” Besides the fact that it’s very strange to allege that the commission of a misdemeanor for the purpose of covering up the commission of another misdemeanor is enough to allege a felony, the only plausible theory that Bragg is pushing for the alleged “unlawful means” was a violation of federal law by concealing a campaign-related payment. With me so far? But Trump was running for president. The raising and spending of money for campaigns for president and Congress is governed by federal law, the Federal Election Campaign Act, not state law. Any wrongdoing related to federal campaign financing falls under the enforcement authority of federal officials, not a local prosecutor like Bragg. In fact, the Federal Election Commission, on which I served as a commissioner, has civil enforcement authority and the U.S. Department of Justice has criminal enforcement authority over violations of this law. For the nuisance-value settlement payment to Daniels to fit within Bragg’s rickety legal structure, it would have to be a crime under federal law. In other words, it would have to be considered a campaign-related expense that was falsely reported under the Federal Election Campaign Act. If you want an example of such a violation, just look at the $113,000 civil penalty the Hillary Rodham Clinton campaign and the Democratic National Committee agreed to pay in 2022. They listed the payments for the opposition research that formed the basis for the infamous Steele dossier, which fabricated the entire Trump-Russia collusion hoax, as legal expenses instead of opposition research. But opposition research on the opposing candidate is obviously a campaign-related expense under applicable federal law, so the FEC had authority to investigate and enforce the law against this deception. That’s not the case with the Daniels’ payment. For starters, the incident in question that led to the payment is alleged to have happened 10 years before the 2016 campaign. More importantly, the payment fails the test the FEC applies to determine whether an expense is campaign-related. Under federal law and corresponding regulations, the FEC applies the “irrespective test” to “differentiate legitimate campaign and officeholder expenses from personal expenses.” As the FEC explains on its website, under the irrespective test, “personal use is any use of funds … to fulfill a commitment, obligation, or expense of any person that would exist, irrespective of the candidates’ campaign.” In other words, if the expense would exist even if the individual were not a candidate, then it’s personal and not a campaign expense. The payment to Daniels clearly fails that test. Trump was a celebrity long before he ran for office, and celebrities get these kinds of nuisance claims all the time. In fact, the prosecution’s first witness in the New York case, David Pecker, said he had helped settle similar claims to avoid legal costs and embarrassment by suppressing stories for numerous other celebrities, including Arnold Schwarzenegger and Tiger Woods. The easiest way to understand this test is to take the example of a personal injury claim. Candidate A has a car accident several years before he runs for Congress that injures another driver. After the campaign has started, the candidate decides to settle the personal injury claim made by the other driver by paying that driver $130,000 in exchange for a nondisclosure agreement. Settling and paying the claim may help the candidate in his campaign by avoiding personal embarrassment. But that doesn’t make it a campaign expense. It’s a claim that would exist even if the candidate were not running for office and is thus considered a personal expense under federal law. Daniels’ claim is also a personal claim that existed long before Trump ran for the presidency and, given his celebrity status, would have continued to exist even if he never ran for president. That’s no doubt why neither the FEC nor the Justice Department ever filed an enforcement action against the Trump campaign or Trump personally over the payment; specifically, because it was not a campaign-related expense. You know what would have led to enforcement actions? If Trump had actually claimed this was a campaign-related expense and had used campaign funds to make the payment, I have no doubt he would have been prosecuted by the feds for the illegal use of campaign funds to pay a personal expense. That’s what former Rep. Jesse Jackson Jr., D-Ill., went to prison for after he pleaded guilty in 2013 to spending $750,000 on personal expenses. Keep in mind that Bragg’s entire manufactured case of 34 counts of falsifying business records depends entirely on the legitimacy of his contention that the settlement payment should have been listed as a campaign-related expense. It shouldn’t because it wasn’t. And all of the other testimony from the prosecution’s witnesses about this payment and other settlement payments that are obviously intended to blacken the character of the former president and prejudice the jury doesn’t change the fact that none of these payments were campaign-related expenses. Period. End of story—or at least it should be.

Record-breaking heat waves on land and in the ocean, drenching rains, severe floods, years-long droughts, extreme wildfires, and widespread flooding during hurricanes are all becoming more frequent and more intense. There is no data that supports this. This statement from NOAA in no way shape or form says the same thing. Notice how carefully it is worded. An increasing trend in intensification rates is not the same as an increase in intensity. And it's limited to the East coast. But they do know how the press will report it. 2022) report an increasing trend in hurricane intensification rates near the U.S. East Coast since 1979. And this statement here from NOAA actually acknowledges the truth: in summary, it is premature to conclude with high confidence that increasing atmospheric greenhouse gas concentrations from human activities have had a detectable impact on Atlantic basin hurricane activity, Reading comprehension should be better from an Auburn grad. As usual, when confronted with the truth, blatant denialism takes over. Since this conversation is no longer civil, I'm out. You can have the last word, Homer.