The Maggots have already decided that a finding of guilty means the jury and judge is corrupt, and a finding of not guilty is the only valid conclusion. Just as they believe that Trump could not lose the election unless it was rigged. A disturbingly large segment of the US population is this stupid.
There are obvious reasons for those positions that have not been refuted. Zero evidence was provided that the payment was authorized by Trump, other than the testimony of perjurer Michael Cohen. Zero evidence was provided that the payment was election-related (there are many reasons someone would pay a mistress to keep quiet not having to do with an election). The prosecution did not disclose what crime Trump was supposedly covering up with the payment until their closing argument, an obvious violation of The Sixth Amendment right of a defendant to know the charges against them.
you just proved my point. You probably still believe that the election was stolen despite every legal challenge failing miserably. You probably still believe that the Dominion voting machines were hacked, and Fox News paid a record breaking settlement because Fox has sold out to Soros and is now controlled by lefties.
LMAO at these nutjobs. Trump sure has a way of channeling the crazy out of the mouths of his supporters.
These people really are stupid. You know one way to turn a non prison sentence into a maximum prison sentence?? I mean maybe he gets convicted and the judge has to put him away for a month or so because of being held in contempt, but doing a few weeks in his position isn’t a crazy task. He’ll have people waiting on him hand and foot. There will be no danger and he’ll probably have constant guest and communication privileges.
Here is the thing. I will say it slowly so that perhaps you can follow. - You believe a finding of not guilty is the correct result. - I believe a finding of not guilty is the correct result because I believe reasonable doubt exists. I detest Trump but my ability to analyze and reason remains intact. - A jury finding of guilty can mean many things. Perhaps the jury was too stupid to remember all the testimony accurately. Perhaps the jury failed to apply the facts to the law correctly, as the charge is complicated. Perhaps the jury found that Cohen was not credible overall, but there was enough cevidence of Trump caring about the politics of the stormy Daniels story (Pecker testimony) and Trump always getting in the weeds when it came to highly public issues (testimony of Hope Hicks) that the jury concluded there was no reasonable doubt in their minds that Trump knew about and authorized the hush money payments because it is simply insane to believe otherwise. Perhaps the jury disliked Trump. Plenty of juries reach results that people disagree with. It happens. It is part of our legal system. It will remain part of our legal system. Your problem is that you have surrendered the willingness and ability to think. Your knee jerk is to praise Trump almighty and attack anything and anyone who fails to do so. You cannot conceive of a reality in which Trump is not right, where reasonable people can and do dislike or criticize Trump for entirely valid reasons. You can’t conceive of how a jury could possibly find Trump guilty except through the theory that the jury is corrupt - they can’t be just dumb, or just viewed the evidence differently, or they got confused, or anything else. Nope, it is that the jury is corrupt. This is why maggots are dumb asses.
Let's explain this like you are a toddler. 1. Cohen plead guilty to campaign finance violations. So we know the payments to the women were deemed as a campaign finance violation. The question is did Cohen do this out of the goodness of his heart or at the behest of Trump. If you think he got a 2nd mortgage on his house out of the goodness of his heart with no promise of repayment you are nuts. The underlying crime for Trump is a campaign finance violation. If Cohen was guilty of it and Trump told him to do it, Trump is guilty. 2. Yes Cohen admittedly lied to Congress. Now what did Cohen lie to Congress about and who was he covering for with those lies? Donald J. Trump 3. Costello was helping Trump. Prosecutor Susan Hoffinger produced an email in which Costello wrote to his law partner about the need to get Cohen “on the right page without giving him the appearance that we are following instructions from Giuliani or the president"
I'm reading the transcript of Costello's cross examination right now. It's very interesting. Very damning, IMHO. Clearly Cohen was being pressured to stay quiet. I would also like to ask the toddlers, why the pressure if Trump had nothing to hide or fear???
The courts have gone the other way and said that, with a limiting instruction, we presume that the jurors will not consider what they are told not to consider. It of course raises the issue that an attorney can sneak in a forbidden argument and have the jury hear it and then be told to pretend they didn't hear it. The reason the courts have gone this way is probably to avoid having to declare a mistrial as the alternative solution (and thus giving lawyers an easy ejection switch they can flip if the case isn't going their way). Harshly sanctioning attorneys that make illegal closing arguments would be a good start toward cleaning this stuff up.
Democrats break 250 years of precedent in criminally prosecuting a former president and they pick a flimsy case with no evidence and the star witness being a serial perjurer. BUT, they got their go-to liberal judge (born in Colombia) and a deep blue jury pool. And they chose a case that the Southern District of NY and the FEC had already passed on bringing charges... And the misdemeanor charges brought were past the statute of limitations. But the Trump deranged liberal tells me it's OBVIOUSLY A FAIR CASE! It's a political show trial reminiscent of the Soviet Union or 1930's Germany.
THIS is my personal struggle...Joe vs Don...they both have questionable "truths", I see more physical and mental limitations with Joe, Don has made me cringe many times, and Joe is often times an embarrassment as well. Presently our country is worse off financially and security wise than it has ever been, we are bleeding money to foreign wars and illegal immigration. Trump has been accused of SO many things, yet nothing has really come to pass. Biden has a lot of questionable activities that have been brought up, yet nothing has come to pass. One is currently president, one is past, and we have only them as possible next. It's a lot to take in, and deciding based on mainstream biased narratives blurs it even more. What I see with my own eyes is two men past their prime, one career politician clearly showing more difficulties with the day to day...the other, more business oriented than politician, pissing a lot of politicians off by being abrasive and non "political" in many ways. Which is best for our recovery? I don't hate either personally, I do not approve of either as morality examples...but comparing 4yr terms, excluding pandemic, and wars. I'm leaning Trump based on border security, american industrial rebuild, and the simple fact that he has been attacked continuously for things others have done as well, and has been legally attacked for the same...which honestly makes me think he is a threat to their bi partisan club. Both sides exaggerate the others "wrongs" when in reality they are the same, trying to distract us from the fact that neither side has our best interest in mind...only what the club wants. How does one sift through all the bs?
This point often gets glanced over but the most important aspect of the Cohen criminal lie is in the details of what he was lying about. Cohen lied about the amount of conversations he had with Trump at a certain period, BUT what this was in relation to is important…. Trump Tower Moscow. Keep in mind that in 2016 it was being reported that Russia was interfering in the election to help Trump. Hillary was bringing up ties to Russia that could be troubling but there wasn’t hard evidence. Then after the election not only do we get the bombshells about the extent of that help, but we get the letter of intent from Trump directly with the Kremlin to build Trump Tower Moscow. Had this dropped prior to the election it would have been huge and it was still thought to be huge enough after the election when Cohen was testifying to Congress that he tried to conceal to protect Trump. So this case at its heart keeps going back to election, election, election. Which is important for the intent question the jury has to consider. If you have to consider doubt based on Cohen’s testimony look at what he lied about and the documentary evidence to support to infer intent. The Trump Tower Moscow Letter of intent is a huge piece of that equation.
Curious how accurate that is. Especially with the history of the “sources” you often cite. You’d also need to look at Marco Rubio’s campaign first. Because Hillary’s campaign did not start the dossier intelligence gathering so from a paperwork and filing standpoint there might be a historical explanation. That was the Republicans and specifically Rubio’s campaign. But yeah if Hillary’s campaign or Marco Rubio committed election fraud, their campaigns should be investigated, and a grand jury should be called to review and indict if there is evidence to support an indictment. I think transparency and following the law is important to maintain a Democracy.
