Trump Election Interference / Falsification of Business Records Criminal Trial (Trump guilty on all 34 Counts) (3 Viewers)

DaveXA said:

Yeah, it's an odd thing to complain about when this happens all...the...time. But, when you're grasping for straws like he is...you get these convoluted and indefensible takes on something pretty obvious. He always, always has ulterior motives

Click to expand...

Come on…what is he going to do? Actually dispute the facts of the case?

SaintForLife said:

Why would Trump prosecutor Matthew Colangelo leave the #3 spot in Biden’s DOJ for a lower level job in DA Bragg’s office?

Click to expand...

First, that’s not a “lower level job” - it’s a quite different job. He was at the NYAG before he took the DOJ job - where he was there in an acting (non-confirmed) role from January 2021 to December 2022, before he took the job back at the NYAG to lead the Trump case. You’re going to have to ask him why but there’s certainly nothing curious about it - he wasn’t at DOJ for very long and the AAG post is policy and management, there’s no case work whatsoever. Many lawyers prefer case work and substantive practice over policy and management. And DOJ isn’t necessarily the end all be all.

But it certainly doesn’t suggest he’s some Biden plant. The investigation began in 2018 (when he was still at NYAG). He certainly appears to believe that Trump has broken the law and should be accountable but that hardly means he’s under Biden’s direction. I think many millions share that view.

LA - L.A. said:

Answer:

https://www.axios.com/2024/04/24/trump-allies-hush-money-prosecutor

Click to expand...

Do you mean to tell me that SFL tried to make some sort of conspiracy out of something that’s normal? lolololol

Seriously-he didn’t know this on his own. Some liar and outrage merchant told him it was fishy. Will he ever learn not to trust these propagandists? It doesn’t look like he will.

MT15 said:

Do you mean to tell me that SFL tried to make some sort of conspiracy out of something that’s normal? lolololol

Seriously-he didn’t know this on his own. Some liar and outrage merchant told him it was fishy. Will he ever learn not to trust these propagandists? It doesn’t look like he will.

Click to expand...

He is so conspiracy pilled. He needs a conspiracy for an investigation into hush money payments to a pornstar. LOL

When Michael Cohen takes the stand in the coming days as the star witness in his former boss’s criminal trial, it will mark the climax of his transformation from Donald Trump’s bullying defender to one of his loudest public enemies.


As Cohen tells and retells the story — in congressional testimony, television interviews, two books, a popular podcast and assertions to the judge in his own criminal case — he is a man on a quest for redemption. After years spent serving Trump, he says he’s ready to serve his country. A confessed liar, he says he’s now willing to risk everything for the truth.

“I am the canary in the coal mine for millions of Americans mesmerized by Trump,” Cohen said on the debut episode of his podcast, “Mea Culpa,” expressing his hope that speaking out would be a “way to right some of the many wrongs I committed at his behest.”…..

But even some on the left offer wary assessments of the man who once said he would “take a bullet” for Trump.


“Look, I think his testimony is important. I think his willingness to speak out and to incur the wrath of Trump world is significant,” said Rep. Adam Schiff (D-Calif.), a former federal prosecutor who chaired the House Intelligence Committee when it met with Cohen in 2019.


Schiff said Cohen’s admirers shouldn’t lose sight, however, of the fact that he turned onto his new path only after Trump abandoned him, leaving Cohen to his fate when he faced criminal charges in 2018.

“He would still be a loyal Trump soldier if Trump hadn’t been willing to discard him like a piece of bad fruit,” Schiff said……

J-DONK said:

He is so conspiracy pilled. He needs a conspiracy for an investigation into hush money payments to a pornstar. LOL

Click to expand...

there are people who set themselves on fire over conspiracy theories....... just saying..lol

I doubt it
=========
The Stormy Daniels hush money trial will hurt Trump's evangelical Christian base as the sexual allegations continue, a former adviser to President Joe Biden has said.

Moe Vela, a former Biden communications aide, told Newsweek that while the trial could primarily cost Trump votes among independents and women, it will also start to affect his credibility among evangelicals.

That's because the allegations of extramarital affairs with an adult film actress and a Playboy model jar with the Christian values of some of his supporters.

"I predict it will even cost him some political points with evangelicals," Mr Vela said. "The trial is a daily reminder of Mr. Trump's disregard for the sanctity of marriage and his consistent infidelity as a way of life and pattern."

" Eventually I believe that true Christians and evangelicals will recognize the incongruence between their beliefs and values and Mr. Trump's actions, history and rhetoric. This trial simply heightens and expedites that inevitable moment of truth."........

Optimus Prime said:

I doubt it
=========
The Stormy Daniels hush money trial will hurt Trump's evangelical Christian base as the sexual allegations continue, a former adviser to President Joe Biden has said.

Click to expand...

no they have accepted or denied it. they have swallowed their morals and accepted the devils advocate.

fooferdoggie said:

no they have accepted or denied it. they have swallowed their morals and accepted the devils advocate.

Click to expand...

we have had/have on this very board, self-proclaimed religious folk who look right past this for 1-2 other reasons.

The ability for them to compartmentalize is pretty remarkable. But then again, confession on Sunday makes it all better. Til the next Sunday.

Optimus Prime said:

"Eventually I believe that true Christians and evangelicals will recognize the incongruence between their beliefs and values and Mr. Trump's actions, history and rhetoric. This trial simply heightens and expedites that inevitable moment of truth."........

Click to expand...

No, what they value most is power, they believe it is their birthright, and as long as they continue to perceive Trump as a means to that end they will stick with him.

Optimus Prime said:

I doubt it
=========
The Stormy Daniels hush money trial will hurt Trump's evangelical Christian base as the sexual allegations continue, a former adviser to President Joe Biden has said.

Moe Vela, a former Biden communications aide, told Newsweek that while the trial could primarily cost Trump votes among independents and women, it will also start to affect his credibility among evangelicals.

That's because the allegations of extramarital affairs with an adult film actress and a Playboy model jar with the Christian values of some of his supporters.

"I predict it will even cost him some political points with evangelicals," Mr Vela said. "The trial is a daily reminder of Mr. Trump's disregard for the sanctity of marriage and his consistent infidelity as a way of life and pattern."

" Eventually I believe that true Christians and evangelicals will recognize the incongruence between their beliefs and values and Mr. Trump's actions, history and rhetoric. This trial simply heightens and expedites that inevitable moment of truth."........

MSN

Click to expand...

Not really. If they all think Trump is being persecuted by the deep state and that the judges are corrupt Democrats in disguise, they aren't voting for anyone else.

efil4 said:

we have had/have on this very board, self-proclaimed religious folk who look right past this for 1-2 other reasons.

The ability for them to compartmentalize is pretty remarkable. But then again, confession on Sunday makes it all better. Til the next Sunday.

Click to expand...

the devil is getting his due with trump he is bringing them down. when they knock on heavens door they are going to see a arrow pointing down.

Prosecutors are off to a strong start in the Manhattan trial of Donald Trump. Their evidence is aimed at proving that the former president committed crimes by falsifying business records to cover up a pre-election payoff in 2016 meant to keep women who would have otherwise revealed some of his sexual scandals ahead of that presidential election silent.

Some critics, including some very smart legal minds who have no love for Trump, don’t like the case. Boston University Law School Professor Jed Shugerman — who previously described to Salon “Trump abuses” at the Department of Justice as “using the system of prosecution to reward your political allies and to punish your opponents” — took major issue with the first criminal case against Trump to reach trial in an April 23 New York Times guest essay:

After listening to Monday’s opening statement by prosecutors, I still think the Manhattan D.A. has made a historic mistake. Their vague allegation about “a criminal scheme to corrupt the 2016 presidential election” has me more concerned than ever about their unprecedented use of state law and their persistent avoidance of specifying an election crime or a valid theory of fraud.

Click to expand...

Shugerman went on to publicly accuse prosecutors of engaging in “an embarrassment of prosecutorial ethics and apparent selective prosecution.” But if you are to call the criminal prosecution of Donald Trump for election interference a “historic mistake,” you ought to have arguments that are as close to airtight as humanly possible. The ones in Professor Shugerman’s essay, lamentably, are not even legally persuasive.

Let’s put aside his description of the prosecution’s opening statement as “vague.” That’s not how former Trump impeachment counsel Norm Eisen reported it from the courtroom for CNN, or how reporters for The New York Times and the Washington Post described it.

The core of Shugerman’s faulty argument is that he sees “three red flags raising concerns about selective prosecution upon appeal” because of the “unprecedented” way in which the grand jury used the statute at issue – New York Penal Code §175.10 – to charge Trump with a felony. That offense – falsifying business records – becomes a felony only when committed with an “intent to commit or conceal another crime.”

As former prosecutors and as current defense lawyers, we know that the claim of selective prosecution is notoriously difficult for defendants to prove. Justice Juan Merchan, the seasoned judge presiding over the trial, rejected Trump’s claim, finding that he did not carry his burden of showing that the DA had discriminated against him by not prosecuting any other similarly situated individual.

The reasoning is not mentioned in Shugerman’s Times essay yet it is a necessary element of proving selective prosecution in New York. Merchan also found that prosecutors had demonstrated that they had brought many other actions charging defendants with “falsifying business records with the intent to commit or conceal the commission of another crime.”

But, Shugerman writes, there’s “no previous case of any state prosecutor relying on the Federal Election Campaign Act either as a direct crime or a predicate crime.” That, he says, is a “sign of overreach.”

Wait! The case is unprecedented? Now there’s an understatement!

Have we ever had a presidential candidate from New York against whom prosecutors have assembled strong evidence of falsifying information in business records to cover up a scandal on his way to winning election? Have we ever had such a man now seeking the voters’ approval for a return White House run? .............

Booker said:

No, what they value most is power, they believe it is their birthright, and as long as they continue to perceive Trump as a means to that end they will stick with him.

Click to expand...

Yup, also any of them still supporting Trump aren't true Christians....IMO....

SFIDC3 said:

Yup, also any of them still supporting Trump aren't true Christians....IMO....

Click to expand...

Pretty much.

The tabloid publisher behind a “catch and kill” scheme to bury compromising stories aboutDonald Trump testified in court that he previously had a similar arrangement with Hollywood actor turned ex-governor of California Arnold Schwarzenegger.

David Pecker, the former publisher of tabloid giant National Enquirer, is testifying for the third day of the former president’s historic criminal trial.….

On Thursday, Mr Pecker explained why he was skeptical to buy up politically linked stories – and in doing so revealed a similar plan not to publish negative stories about Schwarzenegger.

The former tabloid boss set the scene back to 2002, when health and fitness publications run by bodybuilder-turned-publisher Joe Weider went up for sale.

With Mr Pecker’s American Media poised to take up those titles, Schwarzenegger asked Mr Pecker to name him an editor-at-large of the publications, according to Mr Pecker’s testimony.

Mr Pecker claimed that Schwarzenegger also wanted an “agreement” regarding the tabloids Globe and National Enquirer.

“I’ve had a number of litigation and lawsuits in both magazines because you always run negative stories about me,” Mr Pecker recalled Schwarzenegger saying.

“I plan on running for governor and I would like you to not publish any negative stories about me now and in the future, and I’ll continue being the editor of Muscle & Fitness and Flex and be a spokesperson.”

Mr Pecker said he agreed to the arrangement.

The Terminator actor announced his gubernatorial bid on NBC’s The Tonight Showwith Jay Leno in August 2003.

Mr Pecker testified that “a number of women called up the National Enquirer” after that announcement, claiming they had stories to sell on “different relationships, or contacts, or sexual harassment that they felt that Arnold Schwarzenegger did”.

“The agreement I had with Arnold is I would call him and advise him of other stories that were out there and I would acquire them, buy them for a period of time,” the former publisher told the court.

After Schwarzenegger was elected governor, one of the women whose story had been acquired by American Media took her story to The Los Angeles Times.

“It was very embarrassing,” Mr Pecker testified. “Most of the press approached Arnold when he was governor. And his comment was: ‘Ask my friend David Pecker.’”

The ordeal “made me sensitive about buying any stories in the future. That’s how I became sensitive about this topic,” Mr Pecker told the court.…..