I couldn't find an open thread about this trial and since jury selection is currently set to begin on April 15th there will be more and more in the news about it. So rather than get details on this case lumped in with his appeal on the fraud case I thought it would be best to dedicate a separate thread to this upcoming trial.........
Trump's Stormy Daniels hush money trial to start on April 15, judge rules
NEW YORK, March 25 (Reuters) - Donald Trump's criminal trial on charges stemming from hush money paid to a porn star will begin on April 15, a judge said on Monday, paving the way for the Republican presidential candidate to either be convicted or cleared before the Nov. 5 election.
The date all but ensures that Trump will become the first-ever former U.S. president to go on trial for criminal charges.
Trump lawyer Todd Blanche said it was unfair for Trump, who held the office from 2017 to 2021, to stand trial while he runs for president.
"He shouldn't have to sit for a trial now because (prosecutors) chose to bring this case a year ago and not three years ago," Blanche said in court after Merchan set the date.
Trump has pleaded not guilty to 34 counts of falsifying business records to hide his former lawyer and fixer Michael Cohen's $130,000 payment to silence adult film actress Stormy Daniels before the 2016 election about a sexual encounter she says they had a decade earlier - an encounter Trump denies.
Jury selection for the case was initially scheduled to begin on Monday, but Justice Juan Merchan on March 15 delayed it for at least 30 days after Trump's lawyers accused Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg's office, which brought the charges, of trying to bury documents that could help them challenge Cohen's credibility.
The documents came from the U.S. Attorney's office in Manhattan, which previously investigated the payment but did not charge Trump. Cohen testified that Trump directed him to make the payment and went to prison after pleading guilty to violating campaign finance laws.
At a court hearing on Monday in a New York state court in Manhattan, Merchan appeared skeptical of Trump lawyer Todd Blanche's argument that Bragg's office engaged in misconduct. The judge questioned Blanche about why he did not request documents from the U.S. Attorney's office sooner.
Blanche said at the hearing that the U.S. Attorney's office said on Sunday that it would be handing over additional documents related to Daniels, whose real name is Stephanie Clifford.
The case is one of several legal travails Trump, 77, faces as he ramps up his 2024 campaign to unseat Democratic President Joe Biden.
He faces three other criminal cases, which focus on his efforts to overturn his 2020 loss to Biden and his handling of sensitive government documents after leaving office in 2021. He has pleaded not guilty to all charges.
In the hush money case, prosecutors say the Daniels payoff was part of a broader "catch-and-kill" scheme Cohen and Trump hatched to boost his candidacy by buying the silence of people with damaging information. Daniels says she had a sexual encounter with Trump in 2006. Trump denies an encounter.
Trump's lawyers say the payment was meant to spare himself and his family embarrassment, not to benefit his 2016 campaign.
Cohen pleaded guilty in 2018 to federal charges of violating campaign finance laws through the payment.
Trump's defense lawyers in January subpoenaed the U.S. Attorney's office in Manhattan, which charged Cohen, for Cohen's bank records and phone and email accounts in January. Merchan in December denied their request to get some of those materials from Cohen himself.
The federal prosecutors handed over the material during the first two weeks of March.
In pushing Merchan for a delay, Trump's lawyers said they need more time to review the documents and accused Bragg's office, which brought the charges, of trying to bury material that they could use to undermine Cohen's credibility.
Bragg's office said it asked the federal prosecutors for information from their case against Cohen and turned the materials over to the defense last June. They said no further delay was needed because most of the new documents are irrelevant or duplicates of material Trump already had.
In another case on Monday, Trump won a bid to pause his $454 million civil fraud judgment if he posts a smaller $175 million bond within 10 days, in a victory for Trump that blocks New York state authorities from taking steps to seize his assets.
Judge issues gag order barring Donald Trump from commenting on witnesses, others in hush money case
NEW YORK (AP) — A New York judge Tuesday issued a gag order barring Donald Trump from commenting publicly about witnesses, prosecutors, court staff and jurors in his upcoming hush-money criminal trial, citing the former president’s history of “threatening, inflammatory, denigrating” remarks about people involved in his legal cases.
Judge Juan M. Merchan’s decision, echoing a gag order in Trump’s Washington, D.C., election interference criminal case, came a day after he rejected the defense’s push to delay the Manhattan trial until summer and ordered it to begin April 15. If the date holds, it will be the first criminal trial of a former president.
“Given that the eve of trial is upon us, it is without question that the imminency of the risk of harm is now paramount,” Merchan wrote in a four-page decision granting the prosecution’s request for what it deemed a “narrowly tailored” gag order.
The judge said the presumptive Republican presidential nominee’s statements have induced fear and necessitated added security measures to protect his targets and investigate threats.
Trump’s lawyers fought a gag order, warning it would amount to unconstitutional and unlawful prior restraint on his free speech rights. Merchan, who had long resisted imposing a gag order, said his obligation to ensuring the integrity of the trial outweighed First Amendment concerns.
“President Trump’s political opponents have, and will continue to, attack him based on this case,” Trump lawyers Todd Blanche and Susan Necheles said in a recent court filing. “The voters have the right to listen to President Trump’s unfettered responses to those attacks — not just one side of that debate.”
The gag order bars Trump from either making or directing other people to make public statements on his behalf about potential witnesses and jurors in the hush-money trial. It also prohibits any statements meant to interfere with or harass the court’s staff, prosecution team or their families.
It does not bar comments about Merchan, whom Trump has referred to after his arraignment last year as “a Trump-hating judge” with a family full of “Trump haters,” or Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg, an elected Democrat. But it puts Trump on notice that attacks on key figures in the case, like his former lawyer-turned-nemesis Michael Cohen or porn star Stormy Daniels, won’t be tolerated.
A violation could result in Trump being held in contempt of court, fined or even jailed.
“I want to thank Judge Merchan for imposing the gag order as I have been under relentless assault from Donald’s MAGA supporters,” said Cohen, a key prosecution witness against Trump. “Nevertheless, knowing Donald as well as I do, he will seek to defy the gag order by employing others within his circle to do his bidding, regardless of consequence.”
Blanche declined to comment. Bragg’s office also declined to comment. A message seeking comment was left for Trump’s presidential campaign.
The gag order adds to existing restrictions that prohibit Trump from using evidence in the case to attack witnesses.
Trump’s hush-money case centers on allegations that he falsely logged payments to Cohen, then his personal lawyer, as legal fees in his company’s books when they were for his work during the 2016 campaign covering up negative stories about Trump. That included $130,000 he had paid Daniels on Trump’s behalf so she wouldn’t publicize her claim of a sexual encounter with him years earlier.
Trump pleaded not guilty last April to 34 counts of falsifying business records, a felony punishable by up to four years in prison, though there is no guarantee that a conviction would result in jail time. He denies having sex with Daniels and his lawyers have said that the payments to Cohen were legitimate legal expenses, not part of any coverup.
At his arraignment, Merchan admonished Trump not to make statements that could incite violence or jeopardize safety, but stopped short of muzzling him. At a subsequent hearing, Merchan noted Trump’s “special” status as a former president and current candidate and said, “I’m bending over backwards and straining to make sure that he is given every opportunity possible to advance his candidacy and to be able to speak in furtherance of his candidacy.”
As jury selection nears, Merchan has been increasingly wary of Trump’s rhetoric disrupting the historic trial. Earlier this month, Merchan ruled to keep the names of jurors from the public. Trump will have access to them, but he risks forfeiting access if he discloses the names publicly or engages in harassing or disruptive conduct that threatens the safety or integrity of jurors, the judge said.
Now, with the gag order, Merchan is declaring scores of people involved in the case off-limits for Trump’s social media venom, courthouse diatribes and campaign rallies. Trump’s grousing to TV cameras as he entered and exited the courtroom became ritual during his New York civil fraud trial last year.
After leaving Monday’s hearing where Merchan set the trial date, Trump tore into prosecutor Matthew Colangelo at a press conference, referring to the ex-Justice Department official as a “radical left from DOJ” sent to run the Trump case “by Biden and his thugs.” The judge cited those remarks in his ruling.
Trump has repeatedly lashed out about the hush-money case. He warned on social media of “potential death & destruction” before his indictment last year and posting a photo on social media of himself holding a baseball bat next to a picture of Bragg. He has referred to Cohen as a “convicted felon, disbarred lawyer, with zero credibility” and has used a mocking nickname to describe Daniels.
Merchan is just the latest judge to put guardrails around Trump.
A federal appeals court panel in December largely upheld Trump’s gag order in his Washington, D.C., election interference case but narrowed it by freeing him to criticize special counsel Jack Smith, who brought the case. The New York gag order echoed that ruling by excluding Bragg.
At the fraud trial, Trump was fined $15,000 for twice violating a gag order imposed after he made a disparaging social media post about the judge’s chief law clerk.
In January, a federal judge threatened Trump with expulsion from court in a civil trial on writer E. Jean Carroll’s defamation claims against him after he was heard saying “it is a witch hunt” and “it really is a con job.”
Only Half of Republicans Would Vote for Donald Trump if Convicted: Poll
When broken down further, 51 percent of Republican voters said they would not vote for Trump if he becomes a convicted felon, with a further 25 percent saying they weren't sure.
New York appeals judge rejects Donald Trump’s request to delay his April 15 hush money trial
NEW YORK (AP) — A New York appeals court judge on Monday rejected Donald Trump’s bid to delay his April 15 hush money criminal trial while he mounts a last-minute fight to move the case out of Manhattan, foiling the former president’s latest attempt to put off the historic trial.
Justice Lizbeth González of the state’s mid-level appeals court ruled after an emergency hearing Monday where Trump’s lawyers asked that she postpone the trial indefinitely while they seek a change of venue.
They contended the presumptive Republican nominee faces “real potential prejudice” in heavily Democratic Manhattan and said the jury pool has been polluted by news coverage of Trump’s other recent cases, including his $454 million civil fraud judgment and the $83.3 million he’s been ordered to pay for defaming writer E. Jean Carroll. He is appealing both verdicts.
“Jury selection cannot proceed in a fair manner,” Trump lawyer Emil Bove argued, citing the defense’s polling and a review of media coverage.
Trump’s hush money trial is the first of his four criminal indictments slated to go to trial and would be the first criminal trial ever of a former president.
In a separate appellate matter, Trump’s lawyers are challenging a gag order barring him from making comments about jurors, witnesses and others connected to the case. The trial judge, Juan M. Merchan, recently expanded the gag order after Trump lashed out at his daughter, a Democratic political consultant, on social media. The appeals court will hear that matter Tuesday.
Trump, who lived in Manhattan for decades and rose to fame as a real estate developer shaping its iconic skyline, has suggested the trial should be moved to Staten Island, the only New York City borough he won in 2016 and 2020.
Steven Wu, the appellate chief for the Manhattan district attorney’s office, noted that Merchan, had already rejected Trump’s requests to move or delay the trial as untimely.
“The question in this case is not whether a random poll of New Yorkers from whatever neighborhood are able to be impartial, it’s about whether a trial court is able to select a jury of 12 impartial jurors,” Wu said.
He blamed Trump for stoking pretrial publicity with “countless media appearances talking about the facts of this case, the witnesses, and so on.”
As the appeals court fight was playing out, Merchan released his plan Monday for conducting jury selection, including what jurors will and won’t be asked about their views on Trump.
In a letter to both sides, Merchan declared that choosing jurors isn’t about whether they like or don’t like anyone in the case but whether prospective jurors can assure they will “set aside any personal feelings or biases and render a decision that is based on the evidence and the law.”
Paperwork relating to Trump’s appeals was placed under seal and not publicly available.
Trump had pledged to appeal after Merchan ruled last month that the trial would begin April 15. His lawyers had pleaded to delay the trial at least until summer to give them more time to review late-arriving evidence from a prior federal investigation into the matter. Merchan, who had already moved the trial from its original March 25 start date, said no further delays were warranted.
Trump’s lawyers filed their appeals Monday on two separate court dockets. One was styled as a lawsuit against Merchan, a legal mechanism allowing them to challenge his rulings.
In New York, judges can be sued over some judicial decisions under a state law known as Article 78. Trump has used the tactic before, including against the judge in his civil fraud case in an unsuccessful last-minute bid to delay that case last fall.
In the hush-money criminal case, he is accused of falsifying his company’s records to hide the nature of payments to his former lawyer and fixer Michael Cohen, who helped him bury negative stories during his 2016 campaign. Cohen’s activities included paying porn actor Stormy Daniels $130,000 to suppress her claims of an extramarital sexual encounter with Trump years earlier.
Trump pleaded not guilty last year to 34 felony counts of falsifying business records. He has denied having a sexual encounter with Daniels. His lawyers argue the payments to Cohen were legitimate legal expenses.
As Trump’s lawyers stressed Monday that he was facing an unprecedented level of damaging publicity in Manhattan, they also referenced a decision issued by the state’s appellate court more than 25 years ago.
In that case, the court agreed to move the trial of four New York City police officers charged with killing Amadou Diallo, an unarmed Guinean student, in the Bronx. Citing the “public clamor” in the city, the court agreed to move the trial to Albany, where the officers were ultimately acquitted.
Trump’s move to the appeals court Monday is the latest escalation in his battles with Merchan.
Last week, Trump renewed his request for the judge to step aside from the case, citing Merchan’s daughter’s work as the head of a firm whose clients have included his rival President Joe Biden, Vice President Kamala Harris and other Democrats.
The former president alleges the judge is biased against him and has a conflict of interest because of his daughter’s work. The judge rejected a similar request last August.
If the hush-money trial were to be moved out of Manhattan, it’s unlikely Merchan would go with it. In past cases, like the Diallo matter, a new judge was picked from the county where the trial ended up being held.
Trump has also made numerous other attempts to get the trial postponed, echoing a strategy he’s deployed in his other criminal cases. “We want delays,” Trump proclaimed to TV cameras outside a February pretrial hearing in his hush money case.
Merchan last week rejected his request to delay the trial until the U.S. Supreme Court rules on presidential immunity claims he raised in another of his criminal cases.
Trump also filed an eve-of-trial lawsuit against the judge in his New York civil fraud case, accusing the jurist of repeatedly abusing his authority. Among other issues, Trump’s lawyers in that case complained that Judge Arthur Engoron had refused their request to delay the trial. Their suit was filed about three weeks before the trial was slated to begin.
A state appeals court rejected Trump’s claims, and the trial started as scheduled Oct. 2.
Engoron, who decided that case without a jury, ruled that Trump, his company and key executives defrauded bankers and insurers by overstating his wealth in documents used to get loans and coverage. Trump denied any wrongdoing and is appealing the finding and staggering penalty.
Former President Donald Trump has asked a New York appeals court for emergency relief to stop the criminal hush money trial scheduled to begin on Monday so he can appeal a lower court’s ruling on presidential immunity and have the judge recused from the case.
The court filings on Wednesday are the latest in what has been a blitz of actions by Trump at the appeals court this week to try to stop the trial before its scheduled start.
Earlier this week, Trump’s legal team asked the appeals court to delay the trial so he can challenge a gag order stopping the former president from making statements about witnesses, family members of the judge and prosecutors, and jurors. Trump’s lawyers also argued that the trial can’t take place in Manhattan because of pretrial publicity. Both times, the requests to take emergency steps to delay the trial were swiftly denied.
An appellate panel is set to hear arguments on the request at 4 p.m. Wednesday.
In a brief two-page notice of petition filed earlier in the day, Trump’s lawyers said Judge Juan Merchan overstepped his authority when he issued a ruling denying Trump’s motion to postpone the trial until after the Supreme Court rules on whether the former president may claim immunity in an unrelated criminal case involving the 2020 election. Merchan denied the motion, saying Trump filed it too late.
The notice also says Trump is seeking to challenge the judge’s ability to oversee the trial. Previously, Trump filed a motion asking Merchan to recuse himself from the case saying the judge is conflicted based on work his daughter does for a political consulting firm that has worked for Democrats. The judge has not yet ruled on that motion.
After CNN reviewed the notice of petition on the public docket, the filing was sealed.
This is what it sounds like when a man refuses to tell people that every article he is referring to is nothing but editorial comments and opinion pieces. Then there's that "Joe Biden whatabout" which even his own party seems to have given up on. And let's not forget, he's cold.
Man lights himself on fire outside courthouse during Trump trial: reports
A man appeared to light himself on fire outside a New York City courthouse on Friday where a jury was being chosen for the criminal trial of former President Donald Trump, according to multiple reports.
The incident happened as reporters were gathered outside of the courthouse to cover Trump’s trial, CNN reported. On-air, reporter Laura Coates said it appeared that a man had set himself on fire.
Emergency crews rushed the man away on a stretcher, The Associated Press reported. Their condition was not immediately known.
The incident happened a short while after a full panel of 12 jurors and six alternates was chosen to deliberate in Trump’s hush money trial. Opening statements in the case are expected to start on Monday.
"And the gasses escaped and surrounded an unsuspecting man outside the courthouse. Then, when merely trying to enjoy a cigarette, he became engulfed in flames!"
"Yes Sarah, that's correct. And look at those flames! Have you ever seen flames that orange?? I think we all know who the real culprit is here."
Trump legal team asks state appellate court to intervene in hush money trial
Donald Trump’s legal team has filed another application with a midlevel state appeals court Friday demanding that it intervene in the case. A hearing was scheduled for 3:30 p.m.
The documents weren’t immediately publicly available, but Trump’s lawyers have gone to the appeals court before trying to get the trial delayed or moved out of Manhattan. They have argued that Trump can’t get a fair trial there because of intense publicity. The trial judge had rejected that request.
He was definitely still alive when they put him in the ambulance. Hard to watch, so I won't post it.
Not sure he deserves his 15 minutes, so I'll just leave this here instead of starting a new thread. This is what was on the pamphlets he threw in the air... another madman's manifesto:
I have set myself on fire outside the Trump Trial.
M. CROSBY APR 19, 2024 My name is Max Azzarello, and I am an investigative researcher who has set himself on fire outside of the Trump trial in Manhattan.
This extreme act of protest is to draw attention to an urgent and important discovery:
We are victims of a totalitarian con, and our own government (along with many of their allies) is about to hit us with an apocalyptic fascist world coup.
These claims sound like fantastical conspiracy theory, but they are not. They are proof of conspiracy. If you investigate this mountain of research, you will prove them too. If you learn a great deal about Ponzi schemes, you will discover that our life is a lie. If you follow this story and the links below, you will discover the rotten truth of ‘post-truth America’. You will learn the scariest and stupidest story in world history. And you will realize that we are all in a desperate state of emergency that requires your action.
To my friends and family, witnesses and first responders, I deeply apologize for inflicting this pain upon you. But I assure you it is a drop in the bucket compared to what our government intends to inflict.
Because these words are true, this is an act of revolution.
--
Last March, a billionaire named Peter Thiel started a bank run on Silicon Valley Bank. I knew enough about Thiel that I found this incredibly suspicious: My hunch was that this was intentional, though I couldn’t fathom why.
I began investigating online, and quickly found cryptocurrency’s fingerprints all over it. The bank run occurred just days after Silvergate Bank – which catered almost exclusively to crypto companies – collapsed. Meanwhile, several crypto cheerleaders were all over financial media warning of a regional banking crisis, and nobody in media was addressing the clear crypto connections.
I dug deep into the financials of Thiel’s venture capital firm Founders Fund and eventually uncovered the following, all proven many times over.
Cryptocurrency is our first planetary multi-trillion-dollar Ponzi scheme. It was expressly created for this purpose by a laundry list of rich and powerful people out of Stanford/Silicon Valley and Harvard/Facebook.
The March 2023 bank failures were all intentional: the banks were used to move out stolen Ponzi money. This signals that they’re no longer dumping cash in to keep the cryptocurrency Ponzi afloat, and that it will soon go insolvent, as all Ponzis must.
When the Ponzi scheme goes insolvent, it will take down half the stock market with it: The perpetrators used their major companies to pipe into the blockchain so they could funnel money out from the crypto exchanges. This includes Google, Tesla, Apple, PayPal, Facebook, Disney, Walmart, Target, InBev, Zoom, and countless others.
It is a Ponzi scheme so large that it created global inflation, which is why the price of Bitcoin has been a remarkable leading indicator for inflation rates. Victims who bought crypto don’t realize their money has already been stolen, so the money gets double-counted by the victims and the criminals who stole it.
As it turns out, our elites are awash in Ponzi schemes. Stanford’s StartX.com investment fund and Jeffrey Epstein’s ‘Program for Evolutionary Dynamics’ he ran at Harvard are both fake-science Ponzi factories that these schools have invested billions in: They are filled with fraudulent companies that use smoke and mirrors to promise miraculous new technology, but always collapse while the perpetrators only get richer.
Funneling trillions of dollars in stolen cash through the stock market created the largest stock-market anomaly in history. The stock chart signature of a Ponzi scheme is a massive increase (while they stack up cash) and then a massive fall (as they funnel out the stolen cash). This chart shape appeared in all the companies listed above. In order to explain the massive anomaly, our criminal government unleashed COVID on the world and told us these were the “stay at home stocks.”
--
Ponzi schemes are vicious beasts, and cryptocurrency is history’s largest Ponzi by orders of magnitude. It could best be described as an economic doomsday device, intentionally made to shatter the world economy.
The U.S. government is fully involved in this totalitarian con: To illustrate its bipartisan support, I’ll note that nearly every participant of the Clinton Global Initiative has ties to cryptocurrency, while two of the biggest tech VCs who participated are Trump associates Josh Kushner and Anthony Scaramucci.
To better understand our form of government, I will point you to one of the most astonishing pieces of stand-alone evidence I’ve found: Arkansas Governor Bill Clinton’s 1988 DNC speech where he nominated Mike Dukakis for president against George H.W. Bush. The speech is a vile, mean-spirited roast of Dukakis that makes no sense whatsoever: For Clinton to ruthlessly attack a member of his own party should have been political suicide, and he repeatedly mocks Dukakis’ noble and earnest qualities.
Notably, actor Rob Lowe, who was supporting Dukakis, was victim of a teen sex blackmail operation at the DNC that year. Since we know Clinton is a close associate with teen sex blackmail artist Jeffrey Epstein, we can suddenly make perfect sense of the nonsensical speech by applying this lens: Bill Clinton is a cocky mob boss who blackmailed Mike Dukakis because Dukakis thought his job was to help the public. He teases out the future public revelation that Kitty Dukakis drank rubbing alcohol, and offers a strange anecdote about the crack epidemic that reveals he is an exceedingly proud drug runner.
What does this revelation tell us? That our government is conning us completely. That Bill Clinton was secretly on (former CIA Director) George H.W. Bush’s side, and that the Democrat vs. Republican division has been entirely manufactured ever since: Clinton is with Bush; Gore is with Bush; Trump is with Hillary, and so on. When they present themselves in public, they are acting as characters that are against one another, practicing kayfabe as wrestlers do.
As it turns out, we have a secret kleptocracy: Both parties are run by financial criminals whose only goals are to divide, deceive, and bleed us dry. They divide the public against itself and blame the other party while everything gets worse and more expensive and handful of people take all the money.
Since it is fully parasitic, a secret kleptocracy is an incredibly unstable form of government – left to its own devices, it can only lead to fascism or failed state.
--
One of the key findings of this research is that Harvard University is one of the largest organized crime fronts in history, which is how they churn out billionaires – it’s a major hub of this sprawling criminal network.
As it turns out, dozens of the writers of The Simpsons went to Harvard. So I asked myself the question: If The Simpsons served the interests of organized crime, how would it do so?
Well, it offers a dysfunctional family suffering from moral decay, a community incapable of solving its problems, a worker drone who slaves away for an evil billionaire, and cathartic laughs for our poor collective circumstances.
There are some notable specifics as it relates to this research, too: In Marge vs. The Monorail, the townsfolk are too oafish and divided to invest in the town’s needs (fix Main Street) and fall for the charms of a dazzling showman with a bogus monorail Ponzi scheme. When we know that the show is closely linked to an organization that invests billions of dollars in Ponzi factories, this becomes quite damning.
In Lisa the Iconoclast, Lisa discovers that town founder Jebediah Springfield was a secret criminal con artist, and that the townsfolk’s lives are a lie. Realizing this is an important discovery, she desperately tries to get the townsfolk to listen to her. But they meet her with hostility, apathy, disbelief, and partisanship and she fails to get through to them. Ultimately, she realizes the town is so far gone that perhaps it’s better for them to be lied to by con artists, and she keeps the secret to herself.
And here I’ve been, like Lisa Simpson, desperately trying to get friends, family, and the public to believe the proof of a totalitarian con I’m trying to show them, and they’ve turned away with hostility, apathy, disbelief, and partisanship.
And so, we realize the criminal truth of The Simpsons: Our elites are telling us that our eroding collective circumstances are our own fault, and we can’t do anything about it, while they steal the American Dream from us. It is, for lack of a more elegant word, brainwashing.
—
Lastly, we string these major discoveries together: Cryptocurrency is an economic doomsday device; our government is a secret kleptocracy; The Simpsons exists to brainwash us. From there, the only research we need is critical thinking and we’re able to piece together the true story of our circumstances.
Consider America since 1988: Institutions like healthcare and universities have become parasitic in their skyrocketing prices. News media tells us to be angry and tribalized. Daytime television warns us of moral decay. Local news tell us to fear our neighbors. The Simpsons tells us we’re too oafish and divided to save the American Dream. Seinfeld tells us to celebrate the assholes and be irritated by all the normal people around us. “Reality” TV tells us that real life is filled with hedonism and strife.
Social media, owned by crypto criminals like Mark Zuckerberg and Elon Musk, is flooded with nonsense conspiracy theories and memes reminding us that we are hopeless, helpless, anxious, depressed, ironic, scared, apathetic, escapist, lonely, misguided, and jaded, telling us we can’t do anything but have a laugh at our circumstances.
Liberals mock the hypocrisy of conservatives; conservatives mock the hypocrisy of liberals, and our collective circumstances erode. The left shouts “All Cops Are Bastards,” which ensures they’ll be hated by the police and the public (and flies in the face of leftist theory). The public’s distrust of the government is at an all-time high, but so is the belief that we are helpless to do anything about it.
And with all this, a sharp rise in apocalyptic messaging: Climate change will kill us all; COVID will kill us all; vaccines will kill us all; AI will kill us all – no matter the bubbles we ascribe to, we’re bombarded with existential crises with no solutions. We’ve seen a surge in apocalyptic film, literature, and video games that tell us there is no way out of our poor circumstances but total societal breakdown. Zombies tell us that the public is our enemy. If you go to your nearest convenience store, you can buy a can of water called “Liquid Death.”
This is our rotten farce: For our entire lives, we have been flooded with media designed to slowly steer us into a world where the American Dream was dead, where the public was fully divided against itself, where everybody believed we were powerless to do anything about our worsening circumstances. It is all so they can organize an unprecedented, apocalyptic rug pull on the entire populace as they pivot to fascism, which is perhaps best understood as kleptocracy at the barrel of a gun.
When we piece it all together, we understand the truth: We are in a totalitarian doomsday cult.
Why on earth would our elites do this? There are many reasons, but the simplest is because capitalism is unsustainable, and they knew it: Climate change and resource extraction would catch up eventually. So, they never intended to sustain it. They knew all along that they would gobble up all the wealth they could, and then yank the rug out from under us so they could pivot to a hellish fascist dystopia.
—
Things escalated wildly in 1988 when former CIA Director George H.W. Bush got the White House, but this plan had been in action long prior:
Why is Stanley Kubrick’s comedy about mutually assured destruction called Dr. Strangelove: Or, How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Bomb? Because he was a cocky secret fascist who was getting us to stop worrying and love the bomb. Why did he make A Clockwork Orange? So we’d rejoice at ultra-violence designed to desensitize us to the horrors of the world.
Why were the Manson Family murders crawling with cover-ups and intelligence agents? Because our government wanted to make us fear for our lives and believe that hippies are deranged psychopaths.
Why did Walt Disney produce a fraudulent documentary that told us Lemmings follow each other off cliffs? So we would believe it.
Why did The Beatles tell us to fear the taxman, to scoff at revolution, chase nonsense conspiracy theories, and that happiness is a warm gun? So we would believe it.
Why did Easy Rider tell us that the hippie movement was dead? So we would believe it.
Why did Chinatown end with defeatism in the face of massive corruption? So we would believe it.
Why did George Orwell tell us of a hellish future of totalitarian control that we are powerless to stop? So we would believe it.
Why did Wall Street tell us “greed is good”? So we would believe it.
Why did Do The Right Thing tell us we’re all racially tribalized? So we would believe it.
Why did Simpsons creator Matt Groening make a comic strip called Life in Hell? So we would believe it.
And on, and on, and on, and on. When it comes to any popular media, if you ask yourself the question, “Why would secret doomsday cult kleptocrats want the public to consume this?”, you will find your answers.
—
This is obviously very bad news, but the biggest lie we’ve been told is that we are powerless. We’ve got one way out of hellworld, and that’s for the public to realize that we’ve been conned completely so we can build a united movement that shatters every lie they’ve told us, mocks this rotten farce as loudly as it deserves, and aims at nothing short of abolishing our criminal government so we can build one that serves the public.
To understand this story is to see right through the con, to become immune to the endless sea of criminal propaganda, and to feel the great joy and power that comes with freedom.
If a small number of people quickly put on these truth-colored glasses, we are in for an unimaginably bright future. If not, we get an apocalypse.
For more information, I’ve put together this booklet that includes other major findings and a map to a sea of proof, along with all the other essays on this site.
For the true history of America since the end of World War II, see here.
To see this discovery unfold in real-time, along with further explanations, hundreds of pieces of evidence not covered here, advice, inspiration, political theory, and the heart and soul of a man escaping history’s largest doomsday cult, see my Instagram story highlights. I apologize for leaving things so scattered, but this has been an exhausting affair. So long as you understand this (true) ideology, you will be able to learn the whole story.
Here is a federal lawsuit I filed against dozens of perpetrators of the cryptocurrency Ponzi – not for litigation, but just to preserve the information and attach my name to it. I was terrified and hadn’t slept in days and it shows, but it served its purpose of keeping myself alive long enough to keep learning and telling this story.
I no longer have my original research files from the crypto rabbit hole. If you want to see them, you’ll have to get my laptop back from the government. Ask them how they got it - it’s a very fun story.
I hope you know how powerful you are. I wish you a hell of a lot more than luck.
It would be merciful if he dies. He would suffer greatly for a long time if he lived.
I know it's gross to even talk about, but they should have let him burn. All his ligaments in his arms and hands are locked up and he has to be in a tremendous amount of pain. Saving him is almost inhumane.
An appeals court judge has once again denied a request by Trump’s attorneys to halt his criminal trial as they seek to have the case moved outside of Manhattan.
Justice Marsha Michael issued the ruling just minutes after a brief hearing. The arguments in the midlevel appeals court came hours after the jury selection process concluded in Trump’s criminal trial, which is currently taking place roughly two miles south.
The ruling will allow opening statements to take place as soon as Monday in Trump’s criminal trial.
TOPLINE The New York attorney general’s office argued Friday that the $175 million bond former President Donald Trump put up in the civil fraud case against him and his company is insufficient and should be thrown out, claiming the company that underwrote the bond hasn’t shown it has the “financial capacity” to pay it ahead of a Monday hearing on the bond’s fate.
TOPLINE The New York attorney general’s office argued Friday that the $175 million bond former President Donald Trump put up in the civil fraud case against him and his company is insufficient and should be thrown out, claiming the company that underwrote the bond hasn’t shown it has the “financial capacity” to pay it ahead of a Monday hearing on the bond’s fate.
They also weren't approved as a bonding agent in NY either. So it's looking like another Trump grift. I understand her thinking. But wouldn't they just have to put up the money to satisfy the bond?
I should tell you that I believe that a REAL billionaire should be able to put it up cash... JMO however.
"A grifter might be a pickpocket, a crooked gambler, scammer, or a confidence man. Grift may have come from graft, a slightly older word meaning "to acquire dishonestly."
Basically, when trump tries to sell something that isn't real or is a conspiracy, it's a grift.
In this case, he and his pal have apparently concocted a plan that says that the money(bond) that was put up was legit. Apparently the DA has determined that it isn't funded properly. So basically it's trump trying to sell a pig in a poke.
Also, you have a shocking lack of empathy for someone who was so mentally illl that they chose suicide by burning.
If you generally go around mocking people who commit suicide, maybe its your turn next.
I don’t care what ay idiot does as long as it doesn’t AFFECT MY LIFE. This guy is just another crazy blip on the radar. I won’t lose any sleep by not caring.
I thought maybe you had a list that shows he's a Trump supporter. OCDC said he was. Half the internet insisted it was true shortly after the incident. Now you can read op-eds all over the left that insist his fringe thinking is the result of far-right ideology since they can't find anything that shows he supports Trump... and the beat goes on.
From the sounds of it he thinks they're all in it together. At least that's the way his manifesto reads. I never gave it a lot of thought. I think he was a very troubled man. I however am not trying to use, nor defend some rando printed out list on reddit with zero confirmation as some credible source of information. I'm not really sure why you're trying to defend that BS either.
I did find a source that reported he worked for a couple of democratic congressmen ten years ago. But if that manifesto is any indication a lot changed in ten years.
I thought maybe you had a list that shows he's a Trump supporter. OCDC said he was. Half the internet insisted it was true shortly after the incident. Now you can read op-eds all over the left that insist his fringe thinking is the result of far-right ideology since they can't find anything that shows he supports Trump... and the beat goes on.
Do you think he's a Trump supporter?
PLEASE SHOW ME WHERE I SAID ANYTHING ABOUT HIS POLITICS.
Oh, I'm not defending "the list" as real or false. Nor will I call it "b.s." just because you say it is. The link above contains much more than a list though. It gives a pretty solid overview of much of his online activity. There isn't always a perfect wall of fact. In fact, 'seldom' would be the best description. That's when we have to apply common sense. In the world we live in now -- one man's common sense is another's conspiracy theory.
I'm more infatuated with the never-ending need to paint everything as MAGA. It's truly the most bizarre thing I've ever seen in my life.
Dude went off the deep end. He was probably always close, seems the loss of his mother caused him to actually jump.
Meanwhile, the media and drive-by-know-it-alls will try anything they can to link this to Trump... a dude setting himself on fire after clearly saying the entire political power palace was in cahoots to take us all over by collapsing cryptocurrency.
I'm also always enamored by the way we can ignore truth when clinging on to conspiracy... while analyzing a person consumed by conspiracy theory. Read any manifesto and you basically consume 70-80% fact, strung together into some strange fantasy by the thoughts of a 'lunatic'.
In this case, on the sad side, we shuffle through all his conspiracies and ignore the largest fact pervading today's political landscape:
"Liberals mock the hypocrisy of conservatives; conservatives mock the hypocrisy of liberals, and our collective circumstances erode," ~ Max Azzarello
While millions try to paint him as a "Trumper" or find a crumb to losely link him to far-right ideology.
I thought maybe you had a list that shows he's a Trump supporter. OCDC said he was. Half the internet insisted it was true shortly after the incident. Now you can read op-eds all over the left that insist his fringe thinking is the result of far-right ideology since they can't find anything that shows he supports Trump... and the beat goes on.
Do you think he's a Trump supporter?
PLEASE SHOW ME WHERE I SAID ANYTHING ABOUT HIS POLITICS.
I thought maybe you had a list that shows he's a Trump supporter. OCDC said he was. Half the internet insisted it was true shortly after the incident. Now you can read op-eds all over the left that insist his fringe thinking is the result of far-right ideology since they can't find anything that shows he supports Trump... and the beat goes on.
Do you think he's a Trump supporter?
PLEASE SHOW ME WHERE I SAID ANYTHING ABOUT HIS POLITICS.
Originally Posted by OldColdDawg
I wonder how many more cuckoo for conspiracy theories types will MELT DOWN now that Trump is facing justice for being the lying POS he is?
The goof, the goof, the goof is on fire, we don’t need no water let that….
That, to me, seems to be you trying to link him to Trump. Just saying.
And I think that's where things all fall apart. I have many times separated and pointed out the difference between MAGA extremists and Republicans. They certainly aren't the same things. I do however question those who ignore and show total complacency towards everything trump says and has done. Not so much in terms of his political policies, but the pure nastiness and venom he spews. The constant lies he tells over and over again and what his words have led to.
It's kind of like I question if cops who know that others in their ranks abuse people and breaking the law while saying nothing are good cops? That complacency and silence only emboldens people like trump, MTG, Gaetz and others to continue such behavior. I do understand and have stated many times that you have extremists in both parties. The difference is the extremists are ruling the Republican party because Republicans sit back and allow it.
On the other hand I see nothing that indicates you, Eve and many of your ilk see any separation in Democrats or everyone you label as liberal. You lump them all into one convenient package as if they all fit into a single box. Which is certainly a false narrative. There are many things on the far left I disagree with just as I do with the far right. But for some reason that doesn't fit your narrative.
We have gotten to a point in our society that anyone who holds the middle ground on anything gets a label, pushed into a "you are all alike" box. And it's both sides that do that.
I could dissect the entire post. No time. I'll just say this.
You clearly showed the difference in how you characterize others based on their political leanings.
On one hand, it's the fault and responsibility of people like Eve and I that MTG acts the way she does.
On the other, pointing out extremists on the left (of which you bear no responsibility for, because MAGA is a disease, 'libtard' is a bad term MAGAts use to be meanies) means were "lumping you all together".
Maybe I have, but I don't ever recall saying anything like "you're all the same" in any regard when I talk about leftist policies that are clearly contributing to many of the huge problems we have in this country.
Then again, the other end around is to insist the problems are all in our imaginations. Then when pushed to admitting they're clearly problems, blame them on Trump and MAGA (see: the border), it's clearly a disease of all you libtards and your libtardism.
Don't mean to hit and run, but I'm out the door. Have a great Sunday.
You clearly showed the difference in how you characterize others based on their political leanings.
On one hand, it's the fault and responsibility of people like Eve and I that MTG acts the way she does.
I never said anything about it being your fault. I said your silence and complacency helps it fester and increase.
Quote
On the other, pointing out extremists on the left (of which you bear no responsibility for, because MAGA is a disease, 'libtard' is a bad term MAGAts use to be meanies) means were "lumping you all together".
Maybe I have, but I don't ever recall saying anything like "you're all the same" in any regard when I talk about leftist policies that are clearly contributing to many of the huge problems we have in this country.
So maybe you have but you haven't?
I have pointed out the extremes by the left. As a matter of fact OCD and I have gone around about AOC many rimes.
Quote
Then again, the other end around is to insist the problems are all in our imaginations. Then when pushed to admitting they're clearly problems, blame them on Trump and MAGA (see: the border), it's clearly a disease of all you libtards and your libtardism.
I have blamed the only people who can change and fix our immigration laws for not changing and fixing them. I also watch others blaming people who can not change the laws for not fixing it. I know that bothers you.
Quote
Don't mean to hit and run, but I'm out the door. Have a great Sunday.
Also I dont care what Pit's opinion is. He can go drink toilet water.
Why do you insist on making this a left vs Right issue. wherever this kid worked, it's pretty clear he was a disturbed individual.
Because libtards across the internet are spreading false information that he was a right winger. I mean, just look at a OCDs post mocking him. I am setting the record straight.
Definitely don't think self-immolation is the way I want to go. It did attract attention, though.
Yes it did. It drew attention to just how bad the mental healthcare situation is and just how crazy his manifesto sounded to help drive that point home.
Definitely don't think self-immolation is the way I want to go. It did attract attention, though.
Yes it did. It drew attention to just how bad the mental healthcare situation is and just how crazy his manifesto sounded to help drive that point home.
Was the manifesto that crazy?
Setting yourself on fire? Pretty crazy. Thinking politicians/elites are playing the public? Not that crazy to me.
Is the fact that many people think the latter is crazy enough to drive a previously sane person crazy? It probably didn't help.
All sorts of things are "pretty crazy" these days.
Edit: honestly my post you replied to was more made for the bad pun/dad joke than the part you quoted.
Also I dont care what Pit's opinion is. He can go drink toilet water.
Why do you insist on making this a left vs Right issue. wherever this kid worked, it's pretty clear he was a disturbed individual.
Because libtards across the internet are spreading false information that he was a right winger. I mean, just look at a OCDs post mocking him. I am setting the record straight.
It's the old right wing woo is me thing. I've yet to hear one person say he was a right winger or MAGA guy. NOT ONE
Also I dont care what Pit's opinion is. He can go drink toilet water.
Why do you insist on making this a left vs Right issue. wherever this kid worked, it's pretty clear he was a disturbed individual.
Because libtards across the internet are spreading false information that he was a right winger. I mean, just look at a OCDs post mocking him. I am setting the record straight.
It's the old right wing woo is me thing. I've yet to hear one person say he was a right winger or MAGA guy. NOT ONE
Your limited worldview does not mean it never happened.
Also I dont care what Pit's opinion is. He can go drink toilet water.
Why do you insist on making this a left vs Right issue. wherever this kid worked, it's pretty clear he was a disturbed individual.
Because libtards across the internet are spreading false information that he was a right winger. I mean, just look at a OCDs post mocking him. I am setting the record straight.
It's the old right wing woo is me thing. I've yet to hear one person say he was a right winger or MAGA guy. NOT ONE
Your limited worldview does not mean it never happened.
Also I dont care what Pit's opinion is. He can go drink toilet water.
Why do you insist on making this a left vs Right issue. wherever this kid worked, it's pretty clear he was a disturbed individual.
Because libtards across the internet are spreading false information that he was a right winger. I mean, just look at a OCDs post mocking him. I am setting the record straight.
It's the old right wing woo is me thing. I've yet to hear one person say he was a right winger or MAGA guy. NOT ONE
Your limited worldview does not mean it never happened.
Point to someone that did
⬇️
Originally Posted by OldColdDawg
I wonder how many more cuckoo for conspiracy theories types will MELT DOWN now that Trump is facing justice for being the lying POS he is?
The goof, the goof, the goof is on fire, we don’t need no water let that….
So you think people will actually pay attention the message a man who was crazy enough to set himself on fire wrote? If you expect people to take that message seriously you need same people to send it.
So you think people will actually pay attention the message a man who was crazy enough to set himself on fire wrote? If you expect people to take that message seriously you need same people to send it.
I'm assuming you meant sane?
Aren't people immediately called INsane when they say these things? Or do you just mean they would have to tame down the message? Either way, your response is a bit confusing. I shouldn't really speak for Bull, but I think a lot of his response echoed mine. There is always plenty of truth, facts, and not-so-far-fetched ideas in these manifestos, then they're tied together with thin strings of what some may call insanity.
As soon as MSM and the online community at large calls it conspiracy, it would take take a groundswell of many many people banding together and showing actual proof.
Look at the COVID research from Israel, 10s of thousands of participants and it was called conspiracy in the rest of the world (mostly the U.S).
What I mean was abundantly clear. Yes I meant "sane".
No, people who are highly educated and aren't crying wolf at every turn have some credibility going into addressing a topic. You will have some who simply don't want to hear the message striking down the messenger. And if the messenger is someone who sees a conspiracy theory at every turn they may not be the best spokesperson. These type of people will get more people to listen and talk about the issue. That's how a groundswell begins.
I've only recently seen people claim that "showing actual proof" may be too high of an expectation.
I thought maybe you had a list that shows he's a Trump supporter. OCDC said he was. Half the internet insisted it was true shortly after the incident. Now you can read op-eds all over the left that insist his fringe thinking is the result of far-right ideology since they can't find anything that shows he supports Trump... and the beat goes on.
Do you think he's a Trump supporter?
PLEASE SHOW ME WHERE I SAID ANYTHING ABOUT HIS POLITICS.
Originally Posted by OldColdDawg
I wonder how many more cuckoo for conspiracy theories types will MELT DOWN now that Trump is facing justice for being the lying POS he is?
The goof, the goof, the goof is on fire, we don’t need no water let that….
That, to me, seems to be you trying to link him to Trump. Just saying.
Were you trying to do something else there?
Well, I was hitting the conspiracy theorist nitwits, but I can see how a suspicious GOPer mind might want to twist that. It doesn’t really matter what I think when I’m being accused regardless. But I don’t mind that, considering the number of conspiracy theorists that flocked to the far right and set up shop (breeding ignorance). Same as when I call somebody an idiot for truly doing/saying the idiotic, some GOPer immediately gets offended.
Lol. Your reputation precedes you. If you want to wax sarcastic, you of all people should use purple. I'm sure you'd have to edit 12 times to get it right, but it would avoid us all being offended.
I thought maybe you had a list that shows he's a Trump supporter. OCDC said he was. Half the internet insisted it was true shortly after the incident. Now you can read op-eds all over the left that insist his fringe thinking is the result of far-right ideology since they can't find anything that shows he supports Trump... and the beat goes on.
Do you think he's a Trump supporter?
I find this hilarious. Did I think he was a Turd supporter? Absolutely! Although I never accused him of being a Trump supporter, but that pre-human-torch manifesto like suicide note sure made me think he most likely was. But I never said that or portrayed that, even though it would not have been a stretch to assume.
I don't see how you could reach such a conclusion. I don't see how anyone could reach a conclusion he actually supported either candidate. How he felt, who he supported and how he voted in the past really has nothing to do with any of this.
At the time of the incident he made it clear in his manifesto that both parties led to the same result. That neither side stopped the rich from controlling the country. That no matter who you voted for the results would end up pretty much the same. Now one can agree with that or not but it clearly shows he wasn't a fan of either party and that he felt who you voted for made no difference.
That's why I laugh at both parties trying to claim he was on the other side. The message was clear for anyone willing to read it
After all is said and done, it’s trump that gives these lunatics a stage.
So if trump hadn't been on trial with all the media there this guy wouldn't have had a national stage to set himself on fire? Look, if there were legitimate shade to throw on trump for this I would be doing so. There is none. Crazy people were around long before trump. And I agree he has given others the example of and permission to be nasty human beings. He certainly earns that reputation.
But this incident in no way has anything to do with that.
Lol. Your reputation precedes you. If you want to wax sarcastic, you of all people should use purple. I'm sure you'd have to edit 12 times to get it right, but it would avoid us all being offended.
I edit my posts, BFD. You should do it more often, maybe I wouldn’t think so lowly of you.
I know, it’s obvious you can’t keep up. Learn the language or go back to where you come from, where your GOPerisms mean something more than “here’s your sign”.
I don't see how you could reach such a conclusion. I don't see how anyone could reach a conclusion he actually supported either candidate. How he felt, who he supported and how he voted in the past really has nothing to do with any of this.
At the time of the incident he made it clear in his manifesto that both parties led to the same result. That neither side stopped the rich from controlling the country. That no matter who you voted for the results would end up pretty much the same. Now one can agree with that or not but it clearly shows he wasn't a fan of either party and that he felt who you voted for made no difference.
That's why I laugh at both parties trying to claim he was on the other side. The message was clear for anyone willing to read it
Laugh at both parties all you want. This incident, his final performance, was produced by trump.
I get what you mean, but technically not true. He was a victim of the times, perhaps, but nuts is nuts and doesn’t have political affiliations. It’s only human to link him to Trump because it was awful and that’s what Trump brings… Awful, horrific, disgusting, stupid, ignorant, dangerous, and deranged are all triggers that now invoke Trump or Trump supporters in most American minds. Just saying…
Laugh at both parties all you want. This incident, his final performance, was produced by trump.
This really flew over your head didn't it? I didn't laugh at both parties. I simply explained the gist of his manifesto. And it contained nothing to promote either party or trump. Since you seem so convinced otherwise please point to where it did.
The cra cra finds a stage to make a final performance. This one used the trump stage. Just pointing that out. Yeah he could have picked another but no. He made it political by his choice.
He found a place where the most press was assembled to get the biggest audience and attention he could to his cause. The media was there and cameras were everywhere. And he succeeded at it.
Since you see so well, please explain anything in his manifesto that relates to trump or anything trump says.
I will not be participating in your hoops today, because I don’t care that you don’t understand.
You aren't participating because there nothing you can point to that indicates this had anything to do with trump. You serve a nothing burger without even having any condiments.
He did. While doing it where the most press was assembled in the nation to garner the most attention. It didn't matter what the event was that the press was there to cover.
He did. While doing it where the most press was assembled in the nation to garner the most attention. It didn't matter what the event was that the press was there to cover.
Thank you for proving my point. He chose the trump stage.
I only come at you when you get as cra cra as the other side. You have provided nothing but unsubstantiated claims. No evidence, not even a hint that anything you have said is accurate or credible. And we both know who that sounds like.
He did. While doing it where the most press was assembled in the nation to garner the most attention. It didn't matter what the event was that the press was there to cover.
Thank you for proving my point. He chose the trump stage.
And if the press had been concentrated elsewhere at the time he would have chosen to have done it there instead.
He did. While doing it where the most press was assembled in the nation to garner the most attention. It didn't matter what the event was that the press was there to cover.
Thank you for proving my point. He chose the trump stage.
And if the press had been concentrated elsewhere at the time he would have chosen to have done it there instead.
Maybe, but that’s not what happened. Dude made it political by choosing the trump stage.
Trump did not commit crimes, defense says in hush money case
NEW YORK, April 22 (Reuters) - Donald Trumpdid not commit any crimes, his lawyer said on Monday in the first day of a historic trial that will determine whether the former president illegally covered up a hush money payment to a porn star during the 2016 election.
"There’s nothing wrong with trying to influence an election. It’s called democracy. They put something sinister on this idea, as if it’s a crime,” Trump lawyer Todd Blanche said.
Blanche spoke shortly after prosecutors laid out their case arguing that Trump broke the law by deceiving voters.
“This case is about a conspiracy and a cover-up, an illegal conspiracy to undermine the integrity of a presidential election, and then the steps that Donald Trump took to conceal that illegal election fraud,” prosecutor Matthew Colangelo said.
Colangelo told the jury that they would hear Trump working out the details of the scheme in his own voice on recorded conversations.
Both lawyers made their opening statements in what may be the only one of Trump's four criminal prosecutions to go to trial before his Nov. 5 election rematch with Democratic President Joe Biden.
Colangelo told jurors that Trump engaged in a "catch and kill" conspiracy with his former lawyer Michael Cohen and tabloid publisher David Pecker to cover up unflattering information about Trump and help him defeat Democrat Hillary Clinton.
That included payments to women who said they had sexual encounters with Trump, including a $130,000 payment to porn star Stormy Daniels, at a time when he was facing other revelations of sexual misbehavior, he said.
Bragg's office last year charged Trump with falsifying business records to cover up a $130,000 payment that Cohen made to Daniels in the waning days of the 2016 campaign for her silence about a sexual encounter she says she had with Trump a decade earlier. Trump has pleaded not guilty.
As the trial opened, Justice Juan Merchan ruled that prosecutors would be able to ask Trump, if he testifies, about two other court cases: one that found he fraudulently misstated the value of his real estate assets, and another that found he defamed writer E. Jean Carroll after she accused him of rape.
Merchan also said prosecutors would be able to show jurors a transcript of a tape from the 'Access Hollywood' TV show in which Trump makes vulgar comments about grabbing women's genitals, though jurors will not be allowed to see the tape itself.
Wearing a blue tie and dark blue suit, the Republican presidential candidate stared at the judge and occasionally spoke to his lawyer. A Secret Service agent wearing an earpiece sat directly behind him. Jurors watched Colangelo without expression as he gave his opening statement.
The case is seen by many legal experts as the least consequential of the Trump prosecutions. A guilty verdict would not bar him from taking office, but it could hurt his candidacy. Reuters/Ipsos polling shows half of independent voters and one in four Republicans say they would not vote for Trump if he is convicted of a crime.
'CATCH AND KILL'
Colangelo said Trump falsified checks, invoices and other documents to disguise his reimbursements to Cohen as legal expenses. Those payments totaled $420,000 in all, a sign that the tight-fisted Trump was desperate to cover up his conduct, Colangelo said.
Pecker is the first witness prosecutors plan to call after opening statements, the New York Times and CNN reported on Sunday. According to prosecutors, Pecker agreed during an August 2015 meeting with Trump and Cohen to act as the campaign's "eyes and ears" by looking out for negative stories about Trump.
“Pecker was not acting as a publisher, he was acting as a co-conspirator,” Colangelo said.
American Media, which published the National Enquirer, in 2018 admitted that it paid $150,000 to former Playboy magazine model Karen McDougal for rights to her story about a months-long affair with Trump in 2006 and 2007. American Media said it worked "in concert" with Trump's campaign, and it never published a story.
The tabloid reached a similar deal to pay $30,000 to a doorman who was seeking to sell a story about Trump allegedly fathering a child out of wedlock, which turned out to be false, according to prosecutors. Trump has said the payments were personal and did not violate election law. He has also denied the affair with McDougal.
In the New York trial, Trump is charged with falsely recording his 2017 reimbursement of Cohen for the Daniels payment as a legal expense in his real estate company's books. Prosecutors say he did so to conceal the fact that Cohen's payment exceeded the $2,700 limit on individual campaign contributions at the time.
Testimony about those payments could help prosecutors establish that Cohen's payment to Daniels was part of a broader pattern.
Prosecutors plan to call at least 20 witnesses total, according to Trump's defense team. The trial could last six to eight weeks.
Before the trial began Monday, Trump called for supporters to protest peacefully at courthouses "all over the Country," but few were on hand to greet him when he arrived at the downtown courthouse. Trump suggested tight security measures were responsible for the sparse turnout, but the streets surrounding the courthouse were open to the public.
"Lower Manhattan surrounding the Courthouse, where I am heading now, is completely CLOSED DOWN. SO UNFAIR!!!" he wrote on social media.
Trump faces three other criminal indictments stemming from his efforts to overturn his 2020 election defeat and his handling of classified documents after leaving the White House in 2021.
Trump has pleaded not guilty in those cases, and he portrays all of them as a broad-based effort by Biden's Democratic allies to undercut his campaign.
Merchan, who is overseeing the hush money trial, imposed a limited gag order on Trump after he criticized witnesses, prosecutors, the judge and his daughter. Prosecutors are pressing Merchan to penalize Trump for violating that order.
Also I dont care what Pit's opinion is. He can go drink toilet water.
Why do you insist on making this a left vs Right issue. wherever this kid worked, it's pretty clear he was a disturbed individual.
Because libtards across the internet are spreading false information that he was a right winger. I mean, just look at a OCDs post mocking him. I am setting the record straight.
It's the old right wing woo is me thing. I've yet to hear one person say he was a right winger or MAGA guy. NOT ONE
Your limited worldview does not mean it never happened.
Point to someone that did
⬇️
Originally Posted by OldColdDawg
I wonder how many more cuckoo for conspiracy theories types will MELT DOWN now that Trump is facing justice for being the lying POS he is?
The goof, the goof, the goof is on fire, we don’t need no water let that….
[/quote]
Ok, One Person... Got any others or are we just going to label things because one poster says it?
Also I dont care what Pit's opinion is. He can go drink toilet water.
Why do you insist on making this a left vs Right issue. wherever this kid worked, it's pretty clear he was a disturbed individual.
Because libtards across the internet are spreading false information that he was a right winger. I mean, just look at a OCDs post mocking him. I am setting the record straight.
It's the old right wing woo is me thing. I've yet to hear one person say he was a right winger or MAGA guy. NOT ONE
Your limited worldview does not mean it never happened.
Point to someone that did
⬇️
Originally Posted by OldColdDawg
I wonder how many more cuckoo for conspiracy theories types will MELT DOWN now that Trump is facing justice for being the lying POS he is?
The goof, the goof, the goof is on fire, we don’t need no water let that….
[/quote]
Ok, One Person... Got any others or are we just going to label things because one poster says it?[/quote]
I already posted one link discussing it. Google is a thing. I understand you operate at a kindergarten level so perhaps google is too complicated for you.
Wow, Twitter/"X" is something. ...I guess one could say something stinks about this trial.
...and giving up DatButtStank while falling asleep?
Perhaps 'Don Snoreleone' needs to bring a Thermos of covfefe to the proceedings.
That is pathetic. We have a choice between 2 demented octogenarians for president. Our broken two party power mongering system makes it impossible for either to come up with a viable opponent.......who in a legit process would defeat the other in a landslide.
I don't think Biden is demented or a doddering ole fool like Trump. Biden isn't dangerous, Trump is. Trump and his Croonies will sell us out to Putin and Russia and China. Biden won't.
Would I prefer a strong young leader in office, Yeah. But don't forget with age comes experience and wisdom. Something that Trump has never had. He's a crook. I'll take Biden every time
Or sell out to Russia or cause civil unrest when lying about losing the election for years, or continually lie and call everyone he disagrees with nasty names and makes up lies about them often time making them a target of his followers by means of threatening to kill them or........
Sure the bar is low but claiming Biden is the same as the one who lowered the bar to where it is now is disingenuous at best. Sadly most of the people claiming that even know it.
Trump uses court break to slam Judge Merchan on social media
The former president is blasting the judge and the gag order he is under as Merchan weighs whether the former president’s posts and comments count as violations.
“HIGHLY CONFLICTED, TO PUT IT MILDLY, JUDGE JUAN MERCHAN, HAS TAKEN AWAY MY CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT TO FREE SPEECH,” Trump wrote on his social media site during a brief court break. “EVERYBODY IS ALLOWED TO TALK AND LIE ABOUT ME, BUT I AM NOT ALLOWED TO DEFEND MYSELF. THIS IS A KANGAROO COURT.”
trump is a 77 year old petulant orange farting brat. Career criminal who is unfit and unqualified for office. If Mitch McConnnell wasn't a weak hypocrite trump would have been impeached.
I don't think Biden is demented or a doddering ole fool like Trump.
He's not like Trump, but he is a demented, doddering ole fool. I agree with the rest of your post (which I think was your overarching point), though.
Add: I think the US has a better chance of surviving another Biden term than it does another Trump term. Both are awful options.
Not sure he's (Biden) is quite that bad yet. He has his moments and he's declining "rapidly".... Shame on the Democratic Party. Yes both are beyond awful options. But as a comparison.... Not even close. Dont forget that whoever is elected not only heads the Govt but surrounds themselves with othets of a similar ilk..... Trump is a corrupt mean vindictive [censored]... We dont need him subverting the government to enact his spiteful self interest agenda.
I think what I am most worried about is that the last time he was elected, he had a cabinet put in place with people who at least had business being in the post, like Mattis (Flynn and DeVos being the exceptions). The amount of turnover due to resignations that happened was egregious though, mostly from those people, like Mattis et al, that refused to put head of state over country or be "yes men." I feel very confident that the next time around he would place only stark loyalists in those posts. He does not want to be held in check by his cabinet if he gets another bite at the apple. That is evident through the crazy amount of firings and resignations that happened the last round, combined with the fact he kicked Pence to the curb.
I feel very confident that the next time around he would place only stark loyalists in those posts. He does not want to be held in check by his cabinet if he gets another bite at the apple. That is evident through the crazy amount of firings and resignations that happened the last round, combined with the fact he kicked Pence to the curb.
You have every right to be confident. He has made it clear you are correct......
Feeling betrayed, Trump wants a second administration stocked with loyalists
Trump's fixation on loyalty appears to be growing as he contemplates a second term in the White House.
I was just listening to the news lady reading from the transcript of the trial. There was a part that they were talking about Pecker would get a call from Cohen and he's say, trump wants you to start a rumor about Hillary that she's a devil worshiper and cult leader. Pecker said they would do that and they embellished the story with all made up data proving Hillary did those things. Or that Ted Cruz was having affairs with 5 different women. Is that where the nutballs that voted for trump get the info they yell and scream about.
Pit dropping truth-bombs all over their heads and the Tweedle Bros can't handle it.
You two were made for each other. No wonder you spend days in here snuggling each others bottoms. Pit is like PeeWee Herman with a dog got a bone attitude. Nevermind, he probably looks genius to you. Him and donnie.
Pit dropping truth-bombs all over their heads and the Tweedle Bros can't handle it.
You two were made for each other. No wonder you spend days in here snuggling each others bottoms. Pit is like PeeWee Herman with a dog got a bone attitude. Nevermind, he probably looks genius to you. Him and donnie.
Fact check: Trump falsely claims police turned away ‘thousands’ from Manhattan courthouse and that supporters ‘can’t get near’
Former President Donald Trump is a famed exaggerator of the size of his crowds. For years, he has lied about how many supporters attended his presidential inauguration and numerous campaign rallies.
Now he’s pushing a wildly inaccurate claim about how many supporters have attempted to show up at his first criminal trial – and he’s making additional false claims about security measures around the Manhattan courthouse, which he is baselessly blaming for keeping these supposed supporters away.
After The New York Times published a story that said Trump was unhappy with the meager crowd he saw when he arrived at the courthouse for opening statements on Monday, Trump posted on social media on Tuesday to deny the story, denigrate a Times reporter and make this claim: “Thousands of people were turned away from the Courthouse in Lower Manhattan by steel stanchions and police, literally blocks from the tiny side door from where I enter and leave. It is an armed camp to keep people away.”
Trump also wrote on social media on Monday that “Lower Manhattan surrounding the Courthouse, where I am heading now, is completely CLOSED DOWN.” And he told reporters inside the courthouse on Tuesday: “For blocks you can’t get near this courthouse.”
Facts First: Trump’s claims are all false. The police have not turned away “thousands of people” from the courthouse during his trial; only a handful of Trump supporters have shown up to demonstrate near the building. And while there are various security measures in place in the area, including some street closures enforced by police officers and barricades, it’s not true that “for blocks you can’t get near this courthouse.” In reality, the designated protest zone for the trial is at a park directly across the street from the courthouse – and, in addition, people are permitted to drive right up to the front of the courthouse and walk into the building, which remains open to the public. If people show up early enough in the morning, they can even get into the trial courtroom itself or the overflow room that shows near-live video of the proceedings.
CNN journalists reporting from the courthouse area have seen a smattering of visibly pro-Trump demonstrators present in the designated protest zone at Collect Pond Park across from the building, but nowhere even close to “thousands.” There were well under 100 visible Trump supporters gathered there at the outset of the trial in mid-April, and there have often been three or fewer there on subsequent days.
Trump may have been suggesting that thousands would have been present if not for repressive security measures. But that’s nonsense. Trump supporters are free to walk into not only the protest zone but also the courthouse itself, though they, like everyone else, have to observe decorum rules if they go inside.
Security isn’t as restrictive as Trump has claimed
Police have prohibited public access to some of the streets and sidewalks near the courthouse during the approximate hours that court is in session, and there are additional blockages during the brief periods of heightened security when Trump’s motorcade is arriving and departing for the day.
But aside from those coming-and-going periods, there is nothing close to a complete closure of the area. In fact, the cars of members of the public can regularly be seen traveling right in front of the courthouse in CNN’s live television coverage from the scene during court hours.
George Conway, the conservative attorney and vocal Trump critic, wrote on social media on Wednesday: “I took an Uber right to the front entrance of the courthouse yesterday morning. It’s all very peaceful and orderly, the court officers and police officers are nice, and if you walked your dog down the street the two of you would outnumber the Trump supporters there.”
Fact check: Trump’s false courthouse claims about his trial
Former President Donald Trump delivered a barrage of false claims to media cameras this week as he entered and exited the Manhattan courtroom where he is on trial on charges of falsifying business records in relation to a hush money scheme during the 2016 presidential election.
Here’s a fact check of four of the claims he made about the trial. (For this particular article, we’ll leave aside the false claims he made in the courthouse about a variety of other subjects.)
Courthouse security
After The New York Times published a story that said Trump was unhappy with the meager crowd he saw when he arrived at the courthouse for opening statements on Monday, Trump told reporters inside the courthouse on Tuesday: “For blocks you can’t get near this courthouse.”
He added on social media on Tuesday: “Thousands of people were turned away from the Courthouse in Lower Manhattan by steel stanchions and police, literally blocks from the tiny side door from where I enter and leave. It is an armed camp to keep people away.” And he said in comments inside the courthouse on Thursday: “This courthouse is locked down; there’s not a person within five blocks.”
Facts First: Trump’s claims are all false. The police have not turned away “thousands of people” from the courthouse. And while there are various security measures in place in the area, including some street closures enforced by police officers and barricades, it’s not true that “this courthouse is locked down,” that “for blocks you can’t get near this courthouse” or that “there’s not a person within five blocks.” In reality, there is a designated protest zone for the trial at a park directly across the street from the courthouse – and people are permitted to drive right up to the front of the courthouse and walk into the building, which remains open to the public. If people show up early enough in the morning, they can even get into the trial courtroom itself or the overflow room that shows near-live video of the proceedings.
The reality is that few of Trump’s supporters have chosen to show up. There were well under 100 visible Trump supporters gathered in the protest zone at the outset of the trial in mid-April, and there have often been three or fewer there on subsequent days, according to CNN journalists who have been reporting from the courthouse area.
Michael Cohen’s crimes and Trump
On Monday, Trump said upon leaving the courtroom that the crimes committed by his former lawyer and fixer Michael Cohen “had nothing to do with me.”
Cohen is expected to be a key witness for the prosecution. Trump said: “The things he got in trouble for were things that had nothing to do with me. He got in trouble; he went to jail. This has nothing to do with me. This had to do with the taxicab company that he owned, which is just something he owned – and medallions and borrowing money and a lot of things – but it had nothing to do with me.”
Facts First: Trump’s claim that Cohen’s prison sentence “had nothing to do with me” is false. Cohen’s three-year sentence in 2018 was for multiple crimes, some of which were directly related to Trump. Most notably, Cohen was sentenced for campaign finance offenses connected to a hush money scheme during the 2016 presidential campaign to conceal Trump’s alleged extramarital relationships – the same hush money scheme that is central to this prosecution against Trump. Cohen was also sentenced to two months in prison, to run concurrently with the three-year sentence, for lying to Congress in 2017 in relation to previous talks about the possibility of building a Trump Tower in Moscow, Russia, including about the extent of Trump’s involvement in the aborted Moscow initiative and about when in 2016 the discussions ended. (The discussions continued into June 2016, the month after Trump became the presumptive Republican nominee, and did not conclude in January 2016 before the first votes were cast, as Cohen had claimed.)
Referring to Trump as “Individual-1,” Cohen said at the time of his 2018 guilty plea for making false statements to the US Senate Select Committee on Intelligence: “I made these statements to be consistent with Individual-1’s political messaging and out of loyalty to Individual-1.” When Cohen pleaded guilty in 2018 to the campaign finance violations, he said he broke the law “in coordination and at the direction of a candidate for federal office,” Trump.
The gag order on Trump
Upon leaving the courtroom on Tuesday, Trump approached the cameras, began talking, and complained that he is “not allowed to talk.”
Trump was criticizing Judge Juan Merchan’s gag order on him. Merchan had held a hearing on Tuesday morning to consider prosecutors’ allegations that Trump violated the gag order with a series of online posts, including some in which the presumptive Republican presidential nominee shared others’ articles related to the case on social media.
Trump claimed, “Can’t even allow articles to be put in.” He claimed the articles he is referring to say “the case is a sham.” He added, “I don’t even know if you’re allowed to put them in.” He also claimed that although others are permitted to lie and speak about him, “I’m not allowed to say anything.”
“I’d love to talk to you people, I’d love to say everything that’s on my mind, but I’m restricted because I have a gag order,” Trump said.
Facts First: As he has before, Trump made Merchan’s gag order sound far broader than it is. The gag order does not prohibit Trump from declaring the case a sham or from sharing others’ claims that the case is a sham. It also does not prohibit Trump from speaking to the media about the case, from defending his conduct at issue in the case, from denouncing the judge and district attorney involved in the case, or from campaigning for the presidency with speeches, media interviews and online posts.
Rather, the gag order forbids Trump from three specific categories of speech:
1) Speaking publicly or directing others to speak publicly about known or foreseeable witnesses, specifically about their participation in the case
2) Speaking publicly or directing others to speak publicly about prosecutors (other than Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg), members of the district attorney’s staff and the court staff, or family members of any of these people including Bragg, if those statements are made with the intent to interfere with the case
3) Speaking publicly or directing others to speak publicly about jurors or prospective jurors
In his comments on Tuesday, Trump made the point that an article may have a certain headline that generally denounces the case but, “somewhere deep” in the body of the text, may mention somebody’s name he is not permitted to mention because of the gag order.
It’s not clear how Merchan would view Trump having shared an article in which, say, a witness’s name was only mentioned deep in the text. To date, though, articles that prosecutors have alleged Trump violated the gag order by sharing featured headlines that made it entirely clear the articles discussed likely witness Cohen.
Biden and the case
On Tuesday, Trump said upon leaving the courtroom: “By the way, this trial is all Biden. You know, this is all Biden, just in case anybody has any question.” He added, “He’s the one that has us in all these different lawsuits.” He said upon his departure Friday: “This is all a Biden indictment.”
Facts First: There is no basis for Trump’s claims. There is no evidence that Biden has had any role in launching or running Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg’s prosecution - and Bragg is a locally elected official who does not report to the federal government. The indictment in the case was approved by a grand jury of ordinary citizens.
Trump has repeatedly invoked a lawyer on Bragg’s team, Matthew Colangelo, while making such claims; Colangelo left the Justice Department in 2022 to join the district attorney’s office as senior counsel to Bragg. But there is no evidence that Biden had anything to do with Colangelo’s employment decision. Colangelo and Bragg had been colleagues before Bragg was elected Manhattan district attorney in 2021.
Before Colangelo worked at the Justice Department, he and Bragg worked at the same time in the office of New York’s state attorney general, where Colangelo investigated Trump’s charity and Trump’s financial practices and was involved in bringing various lawsuits against the Trump administration.
Trump making up a bunch of fairytales. How is that news.
Now trump telling the truth about something, that would be news
Each and Every Day,,, Trump tells us all or tells those that will listen it's Biden's fault. it's this persons fault or it's that persons fault, it's never his fault. EVERYDAY.
SO, what's wrong with repeating over and over again that Trump is full of crap?
Hitler said that if you tell a lie enough times,(paraphrasing) people will believe it's true. So, what's wrong with telling the Truth over and over again.
Judge in hush money trial threatens Trump with jail after holding him in contempt for violating gag order
Judge Juan Merchan warned that if Trump continues to violate the order, he could impose “an incarceratory punishment.”
The judge presiding over Donald Trump’s hush money case on Tuesday held the former president in criminal contempt over a series of posts on Truth Social that he said violated a gag order barring any attacks on jurors and witnesses and warned Trump he could be jailed for further violations.
Judge Juan Merchan ruled Trump in contempt for nine violations of his gag order, with a fine of $1,000 for each instance. He warned in the decision that he would not tolerate further violations of the order and said "if necessary and appropriate under the circumstances," he would impose "an incarceratory punishment" on the former president.
The judge explained that because the fines, which are limited by state law, were relatively little in comparison to Trump's wealth, they might be unlikely to deter the former president from abiding by the court's order. While Merchan said he would prefer to impose commensurately larger fines, he instead had to consider "whether in some instances, jail may be a necessary punishment."
The gag order prohibits the former president from "making or directing others to make public statements about known or reasonably foreseeable witnesses concerning their potential participation in the investigation or in this criminal proceeding," and "public statements about any prospective juror or any juror."
Merchan said Tuesday that his order was "lawful and unambiguous," and that Trump violated it with social media posts about witnesses and public comments about jurors. He ordered Trump to remove seven of the posts at issue from his Truth Social account and two other offending posts from his campaign website by 2:15 p.m. Tuesday.
The judge also said in response to Trump's complaints about the comments of expected witnesses Michael Cohen and Stormy Daniels outside of court that he might consider modifying the gag order to remove them from its protections if he finds it necessary in the future.
Cohen said in a statement in response to the judge's decision that the small fine "is irrelevant. Judge Merchan’s decision elucidates that this behavior will not be tolerated and that no one is above the law.”
Merchan had indicated on April 23 that he was not impressed by the arguments from the defense, telling one of Trump's attorneys that he was “losing all credibility” when he suggested that Trump was exercising caution to comply with the gag order.
Prosecutors from the Manhattan District Attorney’s Office had accused Trump of violating Merchan's April 1 order at least 10 times since it went into effect, including a post that called expected witnesses Michael Cohen and Stormy Daniels "sleaze bags." Another appeared to be a quote from Fox News personality Jesse Watters that read, “They are catching undercover Liberal Activists lying to the Judge in order to get on the Trump Jury.”
The DA sought the maximum $1,000 fine for each post they considered a violation, along with an order that Trump remove the posts. Prosecutors had also asked Merchan to warn Trump that any future violations could be met with additional fines and up to 30 days in jail.
The possibility of Trump's imprisonment is likely to be seized upon by the former president's campaign and supporters — particularly as a fundraising tool. Already, Trump has sent a number of fundraising appeals connected to the trial and the consequences he may face. Last year, the mugshot he took after being charged in Georgia over his efforts to overturn the 2020 presidential election sparked a fundraising bonanza for Trump.
Prosecutor Chris Conroy said during an April 23 morning hearing that Trump “seems to be angling” to be locked up for political purposes.
Trump’s legal team countered that the former president had not willfully violated the order and that he was simply responding to a “barrage of political attacks.”
Pressed by the judge, however, Trump attorney Todd Blanche had trouble identifying what attacks Trump was supposedly responding to. “I keep asking you over and over to give me an example and I’m not getting an answer,” the judge said.
Trump attorney Emil Bove previously said that some of the posts were responses to remarks by Cohen, Trump’s former lawyer, and that others were reposted from people and news outlets, which he said did not violate the gag order. Merchan asked for case law to back that position, and Blanche said he did not have any. "It's just common sense, your Honor," Blanche said.
Trump has pleaded not guilty to 34 counts of falsifying business records related to his reimbursement to Cohen for the lawyer's hush money payment to Daniels in the closing days of the 2016 campaign. Daniels claims she had a sexual encounter with Trump in 2006, an allegation he denies.
Trump faces up to four years in prison if he’s convicted.
That's certainly a possibility and it's also one reason I don't think it will happen. I would say there is also a pretty big portion of our nation that doesn't support flaunting your disrespect for the legal system. But then there are those who think it's perfectly okay to do so depending on who you are.
Or they claim to stand by the police depending on who those police officers work for and who is attacking them. In some cases they go as far as uphold people attacking them and calling them patriots and hostages for paying the penalty for those actions. It's a strange time we're living in.
He has been warned. Violate the law and pay the price.
May be an issue also in his pre trial bond agreements in the other cases that he not break any state or federal laws. Contempt is violation of a New York state law.
Also, I heard this morning coming into work that trump is complaining about his legal team not being aggressive enough, not listening to his suggestions (there has been lots of notes being passed to the lawyers) and that his lawyers are too expensive.
And let's not forget...... He's cold. It's cold in that courtroom.
Former President Trump again complained about the temperature in the courtroom during his ongoing hush money trial Friday, suggesting it is being kept cold “on purpose.” “We have another day in court in a freezing courthouse,” Trump said in the hallway just before the fourth day of testimony in his trial commenced.
I remember when I had a client pass me notes, speak over me in the court room, and insist that he could do a better job. Dude turned a probationary plea deal into 90 days in the clinker. Great stuff. I can't imagine Trump being any different.
And let's not forget...... He's cold. It's cold in that courtroom.
Former President Trump again complained about the temperature in the courtroom during his ongoing hush money trial Friday, suggesting it is being kept cold “on purpose.” “We have another day in court in a freezing courthouse,” Trump said in the hallway just before the fourth day of testimony in his trial commenced.
It's because he's old.
My dad would keep his apartment temp set at 88 and complain that the furnace wasn't working. Meanwhile my sister has to step into the hall because it is so hot in there that she's getting nauseous.
Put him in jail for talking about the trial, his support goes even higher, maybe to the point of no return for Biden. j/s
And this exemplifies the the blindness of the right. He isn't being threatened with jail for talking about the trial. He is allowed to talk about the trial. The contempt is threatening and or intimidating talk directed at the courts employees and the jury
Also, I heard this morning coming into work that trump is complaining about his legal team not being aggressive enough, not listening to his suggestions (there has been lots of notes being passed to the lawyers) and that his lawyers are too expensive.
Foreshadow much
I wouldn't have taken his case if he didn't pay upfront.
Put him in jail for talking about the trial, his support goes even higher, maybe to the point of no return for Biden. j/s
And this exemplifies the the blindness of the right. He isn't being threatened with jail for talking about the trial. He is allowed to talk about the trial. The contempt is threatening and or intimidating talk directed at the courts employees and the jury
While I understand what you're saying and I didn't see any "direct threats" per say, are you trying to say his hateful rhetoric doesn't inspire threats to the life of those he refers to? That it isn't the inspiration for the crazies to come out of the closet?
We saw it play out in real life before our very eyes. From election workers to election officials to prosecutors and judges. Surely you aren't trying to indicate that this is what the gag order is designed to protect people from and rightfully so. I understand that all politicians have their minions and die hard followers. But never before that I can recall has a politician weaponized his message to accomplish this level of danger against his opponents.
He knows what he's doing. He knows what it leads to and he uses it as a weapon in a very divided America. That's dangerous.
Sorry, I don't really see it that way. Everybody has their own opinions. When it comes to Trump, people find outrage in their own blind hatred. Not saying you, just saying a lot of people. It doesn't take much to see that in many of the posters here.
I don't considerreposting what others are saying about the trialas "hateful rhetoric", "weaponizing his message", threatening or intimidating.
The increasing number of threats on all the positions i mentioned which surround the very people that trump includes in his hateful rhetoric seems to make the picture perfectly clear for me. Those statistics have been posted on this very board. The threats to those officials have been posted on this very board. It would be impossible for me to ignore all of that and pretend that his words aren't the catalyst for this. The timing isn't simply coincidental. How else do you explain all of that?
Sorry, I don't really see it that way. Everybody has their own opinions. When it comes to Trump, people find outrage in their own blind hatred. Not saying you, just saying a lot of people. It doesn't take much to see that in many of the posters here.
I don't considerreposting what others are saying about the trialas "hateful rhetoric", "weaponizing his message", threatening or intimidating.
You don't see it that way because FOX news, OAN and Newsmax don't inform you with Truth.
Sorry, I don't really see it that way. Everybody has their own opinions. When it comes to Trump, people find outrage in their own blind hatred. Not saying you, just saying a lot of people. It doesn't take much to see that in many of the posters here.
I don't considerreposting what others are saying about the trialas "hateful rhetoric", "weaponizing his message", threatening or intimidating.
You don't see it that way because FOX news, OAN and Newsmax don't inform you with Truth.
None of that has anything to do with the reasons he was fined. I know you like to go to the same tired rhetoric and ignore facts but that doesn't change them.
The increasing number of threats on all the positions i mentioned which surround the very people that trump includes in his hateful rhetoric seems to make the picture perfectly clear for me. Those statistics have been posted on this very board. The threats to those officials have been posted on this very board. It would be impossible for me to ignore all of that and pretend that his words aren't the catalyst for this. The timing isn't simply coincidental. How else do you explain all of that?
Not with psycho-analyzing a gag order, or lack thereof. Remember what we were discussing or not? What does anything you just posted have to do with the gag order?
And again, I'll remind you, the gag order was for posting other people's stories, so constantly bringing up his hateful rhetoric ALSO has nothing to do with the gag order.
The following are posts from Truth Social that Trump was forced to take down. I’m not posting this as some kind of comment. I am just posting information.
I think this needs to be level set. To your point, dissecting what was actually in the posts is a fair ask.
Part of the order is this: Trump "violated the Order by making social media posts about known witnesses pertaining to their participation in this criminal proceeding and by making public statements about jurors in this criminal proceeding."
That’s a big no-no. You can’t do that if you’re Joe Schmoe and you especially can’t do that if you have a big platform and you are an influential figure that could interfere with witness testimony.
Furthermore, the judge set the orders in March and did something that all judges should do. He gave him a lot of leeway before cracking down. Trump was clear on what the gag order said and what it prohibited. He didn’t listen. Hell, the gag order still didn’t even prevent Trump from spouting off or reposting things about Bragg or Merchan.
Trump’s attorney made the counter assertion that Trump was merely responding to political attacks in his post. The judge gave more rope, asking the attorney what attacks he was responding to. Trump’s attorney had no answer. Bad look.
I can’t find the exact posts because they were deleted, but according to CBS News, he actually referred to jurors as liberal activists. The bottom line is you just don’t do that kind of stuff.
All that being said, he’s currently looking at $9K. Not much for a billionaire or whatever he really is. He’s wealthy and that’s not much. The judge still gave him more rope and basically said that he could be sent to jail next time. If there is a next time, and it is legit, I don’t think there’s any real argument that he didn’t deserve it.
Maybe that would help his campaign like you said. I don’t know. It also doesn’t help to violate laws and not be held accountable. In my opinion, the guy has gotten away with a ton of crap over the years, extending far before his presidency. Validating that type of behavior through no consequences I think is also a bad practice.
That post is obviously slanted, but it goes to the original point which was that there was a gag order in place specifically not to post about the witnesses. It was not appealed. It was not contested to my knowledge. He did it anyway.
Yes, some of those are worse than others for sure. One appears to have been reposted multiple times. Also, some of those are just plain bad and prima facie violations. He tried to get around it by quoting Jesse Waters, but that is bad. Really bad. The one where he actually posts something in his words too is also a prima facie violation.
I will add that the judge admonished Cohen without using his name. He mentioned that a witness was going on TV and bad mouthing Trump ( those are my words). The fact is Cohen is attacking Trump all over TV. Hell the judge’s daughter (a Democratic operative) had a picture of Trump behind bars on her social media page. I have to side with Trump when it comes to those two examples, especially with regards to Cohen.
I have to side with Trump when it comes to those two examples,
Of course you do. I’m not sure but Cohen isn’t under a gag order and the judge’s daughter has nothing to do with Trump and stormey. Trump is a snowflake that can’t handle those two examples and still broke the gag order he was under and was held in contempt because of it. Bad boy bad boy. whatcha going to do? He has more alleged gag order violations to face tomorrow. Jail time is on the table.
I will add that the judge admonished Cohen without using his name. He mentioned that a witness was going on TV and bad mouthing Trump ( those are my words). The fact is Cohen is attacking Trump all over TV. Hell the judge’s daughter (a Democratic operative) had a picture of Trump behind bars on her social media page. I have to side with Trump when it comes to those two examples, especially with regards to Cohen.
I can't side with Trump in those examples. Does it seem like there is asymmetry as you mention? Sure. But the order was clear. Trump violated it.
The response to that is that dynamic may not be fair. However, in the case of Cohen, Trump would actually be better served by letting his attorneys take all that evidence to impeach Cohen as a witness on the stand. That's what I would do anyway, but that would be if what Cohen said on TV was exaggerative or far beyond the lines of what his testimony is or would be. I say that because I have not seen Cohen on any recent segments, so I don't know what he's been saying on TV.
I think we all know that Cohen is a scumbag. He already was a "fixer" who did all kinds of crap, and most likely would remain a scumbag if Trump hadn't thrown him under the bus. I would speculate that he specifically went on TV around the trial time in part to bait Trump to say something, because 1) He knows Trump can't keep his mouth shut and 2) It seems pretty clear in this case, like civil case that happened before, that Trump wants to find out exactly where his limits are with the judge and to push them as far out as possible.
If he had an inkling of restraint, he would let his attorneys take Cohen's entire body of work, all the TV appearances and whatnot, and impeach him as a witness. Like I said, it wouldn't be hard to do, and the judge already admonished him. Use that too. All it would take in that scenario is for Trump to show a hint of restraint and just NOT violate a clear order, but he couldn't do that.
As far as the judge's daughter goes, she is in no way tied to the case. The order was only extended after Trump brought her into the fray. From what the judge said - and I don't know the full story - the posts didn't belong to her. I know she works with a firm that also works with Democratic candidates, but I was unaware that she was an operative. Regardless, this is what I found on the image, that was central to Trump's posting:
What about the image of Trump in jail? While Trump accurately noted Loren Merchan’s ties to prominent Democratic politicians, his claim that she tweeted a doctored image of him in prison is extremely dubious. He used the image to argue that Loren Merchan and her father are biased against him. His lawyers included these claims and images in Friday’s public filing, arguing that they reflect “hostility toward President Trump.”
The claim originated from Laura Loomer, a prominent right-wing conspiracy theorist.
But court officials in New York said in a statement that the account with the Trump-in-jail photo did not belong to Loren Merchan and was, in fact, an imposter trying to frame her.
“The X, formerly Twitter, account being attributed to Judge Merchan’s daughter no longer belongs to her since she deleted it approximately a year ago,” court spokesman Al Baker said last week. “It is not linked to her email address, nor has she posted under that screen name since she deleted the account. Rather, it represents the reconstitution, last April, and manipulation of an account she long ago abandoned.”
A forensic review published by The Spectator, a conservative-leaning British outlet, bolstered Baker’s denial and undercut Trump’s attempt to tie the tweets to Merchan.
I have to side with Trump when it comes to those two examples,
Of course you do. I’m not sure but Cohen isn’t under a gag order and the judge’s daughter has nothing to do with Trump and stormey. Trump is a snowflake that can’t handle those two examples and still broke the gag order he was under and was held in contempt because of it. Bad boy bad boy. whatcha going to do? He has more alleged gag order violations to face tomorrow. Jail time is on the table.
Not sure why you have to attack P individually. He is a well thought-out poster who brings a lot of reason and rationale to his posts, while maintaining respectful decorum. I may not always agree with him, but I value and appreciate my conversations with him.
LOL. If what you did was not attacking, then what I did was certainly not attacking. I don't want to clog the thread, so I will just say that your posting history speaks for itself, and move on.
Saying I side with Trump is bad wording. I think he is guilty of breaking the gag order, I just don’t blame him for it when it comes to Cohen. The daughter isn’t part of the gag order that I saw but I understand why he would lash out. I agree completely with you that even mentioning jurors is out of bounds. I also agree that if he finds the gag order illegal he should fight it in court.
I will also say that I don’t believe this particular case is a sham. All it does is strengthen Trump in the polls and help people to think that people are just out to get Trump. With serious cases out there that I believe Trump may be guilty of and should automatically disqualify him for office and forfeit his freedom.
Saying I side with Trump is bad wording. I think he is guilty of breaking the gag order, I just don’t blame him for it when it comes to Cohen. The daughter isn’t part of the gag order that I saw but I understand why he would lash out. I agree completely with you that even mentioning jurors is out of bounds. I also agree that if he finds the gag order illegal he should fight it in court.
I will also say that I don’t believe this particular case is a sham. All it does is strengthen Trump in the polls and help people to think that people are just out to get Trump. With serious cases out there that I believe Trump may be guilty of and should automatically disqualify him for office and forfeit his freedom.
I agree. It's blowing my mind that for everything the lying shyster has done, they're going after him for hush money paid to a porn star.
He has a plethora of other indictments and court cases going on. This just happens to be the first because it is more straightforward and harder to delay, tactically.
The increasing number of threats on all the positions i mentioned which surround the very people that trump includes in his hateful rhetoric seems to make the picture perfectly clear for me. Those statistics have been posted on this very board. The threats to those officials have been posted on this very board. It would be impossible for me to ignore all of that and pretend that his words aren't the catalyst for this. The timing isn't simply coincidental. How else do you explain all of that?
Not with psycho-analyzing a gag order, or lack thereof. Remember what we were discussing or not? What does anything you just posted have to do with the gag order?
And again, I'll remind you, the gag order was for posting other people's stories, so constantly bringing up his hateful rhetoric ALSO has nothing to do with the gag order.
It has everything to do with a gag order. The gag order was to protect people from an onslaught of threats as is always the case when he attacks people on social media. And common sense dictates that when trump retweets something on his profile it's him endorsing the message. He isn't suppose to be doing any of that.The content of what he posted contains material concerning people he isn't suppose to be posting about.
I agree. It's blowing my mind that for everything the lying shyster has done, they're going after him for hush money paid to a porn star.
He has a plethora of other indictments and court cases going on. This just happens to be the first because it is more straightforward and harder to delay, tactically.
Probably why the SCOTUS isn’t ruling on total immunity for Trump. So Biden doesn’t have it now.
Saying I side with Trump is bad wording. I think he is guilty of breaking the gag order, I just don’t blame him for it when it comes to Cohen. The daughter isn’t part of the gag order that I saw but I understand why he would lash out. I agree completely with you that even mentioning jurors is out of bounds. I also agree that if he finds the gag order illegal he should fight it in court.
I will also say that I don’t believe this particular case is a sham. All it does is strengthen Trump in the polls and help people to think that people are just out to get Trump. With serious cases out there that I believe Trump may be guilty of and should automatically disqualify him for office and forfeit his freedom.
There are far more serious cases but I believe it's becoming ever more clear that none of them will ever come to trial before the election. And while it's your contention that "All it does is strengthen Trump in the polls and help people to think that people are just out to get Trump.", I think that's quite short sighted. There has been no evidence of that happening. The "They're just out to get me" point would take people believing that in four jurisdictions, in four courts everyone has some huge conspiracy out to get trump. That 88 criminal counts were all manufactured and there is no validity to any of it. I think only died in the wool trumpians would buy into that mind set.
As for the gag order portion. I understand why people feel trump has the right to lash out because somehow they think Cohen and the judges daughter are on some kind of equal footing with trump. But they're not. I have never seen any evidence that Cohen's or the judges daughter have millions of followers. I've never seen Cohen or the judges daughter deride and attack people on social media that led to death threats. Because that's what the gag order is for. It's because his social media attacks on his opponents and detractors have led to multiple death threats against multiple people he has gone after on social media and in public. When anything that Cohen or the judges daughter posts or say rise to that level please let me know.
I agree. It's blowing my mind that for everything the lying shyster has done, they're going after him for hush money paid to a porn star.
It's actually for filing false business records. There is nothing illegal about paying off a porn star. But you can't write it off on your taxes or falsify the paperwork surrounding those payments.
Trump hush money trial: What criminal charges does he face? By Luc Cohen April 22, 20245:08 PM EDTUpdated 10 days ago
NEW YORK, April 22 (Reuters) - Opening statements are set to take place on Monday in Donald Trump's criminal trial, the first ever of a former U.S. president, on charges of falsifying business records to conceal hush money paid to porn star Stormy Daniels before the 2016 election. Trump, the Republican candidate challenging Democratic President Joe Biden in the Nov. 5 U.S. election, has pleaded not guilty. Here is an explanation of the charges brought by Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg and Trump's possible defenses.
WHAT IS TRUMP ACCUSED OF DOING?
Bragg's office last year charged Trump with 34 counts of falsifying business records to cover up a $130,000 payment that Trump's former personal lawyer and fixer Michael Cohen made to Daniels in the waning days of the 2016 campaign for her silence about a sexual encounter she says she had with Trump a decade earlier. Prosecutors have said that was part of a broader "catch-and-kill" scheme to suppress negative news stories about Trump before the 2016 election in which Trump defeated Democrat Hillary Clinton.
Cohen has also said he and Trump discussed a $150,000 payment made by American Media, publisher of the National Enquirer tabloid, to former Playboy model Karen McDougal to keep quiet about an affair she says she had with Trump. The tabloid never published a story. Trump denies both sexual relationships and has called the case a politically motivated "witch hunt." He has admitted to reimbursing Cohen for his payment to Daniels, whose real name is Stephanie Clifford.
WHAT LAWS WOULD THAT VIOLATE?
According to prosecutors, Trump disguised his 2017 reimbursement checks to Cohen for the Daniels payment as retainer fees for legal services in records maintained by his New York-based family real estate company, the Trump Organization. Each of the 34 counts stem from a check, ledger entry or invoice from Trump's reimbursement to Cohen. It is against New York state law to make a false entry, opens new tab in a company's records. While falsification of business records on its own is a misdemeanor, it is considered a felony punishable by up to four years in prison if it is done to conceal or further other crimes.
In this case, Bragg said those other crimes include alleged election law violations and tax law violations. Federal law in 2016 capped individual contributions to campaigns at $2,700, and New York state law makes it a misdemeanor to conspire to promote a candidacy by "unlawful means." Bragg said Trump's 11 checks to Cohen in 2017 totaled $420,000. That included reimbursements for the Daniels payment and $50,000 for other expenses Cohen incurred while working on Trump's campaign, as well as $180,000 to account for taxes Cohen would have had to pay for falsely reporting the money as income rather than a reimbursement, according to prosecutors. The checks also included a $60,000 bonus for Cohen's work for the Trump Organization, prosecutors said.
WHAT COULD TRUMP'S DEFENSE BE?
Trump may argue that Cohen acted on his own when paying Daniels. He may also argue that the purpose of silencing Daniels and McDougal was to spare him and his family the embarrassment of public attention to alleged extramarital affairs, not to help his campaign. He may also try to undercut Cohen's credibility as a witness, including by pointing out that he has admitted to perjuring himself before Congress. Cohen pleaded guilty in 2018 to federal charges of causing an unlawful campaign contribution and making an excessive campaign contribution tied to the hush money scheme. The U.S. Attorney's office in Manhattan has not charged Trump, who it referred to in its charging document against Cohen as "Individual-1," with any crime. In an interview with Reuters in December 2018, Trump said the payment to Daniels "wasn't a campaign contribution" and "there was no violation based on what we did."
HOW COULD BRAGG OVERCOME TRUMP'S ARGUMENTS?
While Cohen's perjury conviction could provide fertile ground for Trump's lawyers, Cohen has already been sentenced and served time. That could blunt any attempt by Trump to argue that Cohen is falsely implicating him to try to win a lenient sentence, a common argument criminal defendants make against cooperating witnesses. Cohen also recorded a conversation he and Trump had about the McDougal payment. Prosecutors have said the two of them met with former AMI chief executive David Pecker to plot the "catch-and-kill" scheme. Testimony from Pecker and Cohen's recording, if played for the jury, could undermine Trump's arguments. American Media reached a non-prosecution agreement with federal prosecutors in 2018 after admitting it worked with Trump's campaign to make the payment to McDougal.
WHAT WOULD BE THE CONSEQUENCES IF TRUMP IS CONVICTED?
Felony falsification of business records carries a maximum sentence of four years in prison. However, others convicted of that offense alone have been sentenced to less than one year. Any sentence would be determined by the judge in the case, Justice Juan Merchan, based on a range of factors. Trump would almost certainly appeal any conviction.
I for one, am thoroughly enjoying watching the fall of the MAGA fascist movement. Trump deserves to be buried under the jail. I hope he gets what he deserves sooner rather than later.
Perhaps someone braver than you will come along a share what law he broke.
It doesn't take bravery to respond to perhaps the stupidest question ever. You don't want to know do you? You just wanna see if you can catch someone in a "Gotcha" moment.
Simply put, he committed campaign finance fraud. This case has been mischaracterized from the start. It's not about Hush Money. Who cares about a guy paying off his mistress so she doesn't tell his wife. I certainly don't.
That is VERY SIMPLY PUT> there is much more to it. But if you can read, you can find it by yourself. You don't need any of us to explain it to you.
So trump told the bold faced lie that he couldn't testify because of the gag order. Maybe if he could stay awake long enough to know what's going on.......
Trump trial judge shoots down former president's claim that gag order prevents him from testifying
In remarks outside the courtroom Thursday, Trump said, "I’m not allowed to testify. I’m under a gag order."
The judge presiding over Donald Trump's criminal trial told him Friday he has an "absolute right" to testify after the former president complained to reporters the gag order in the case prevented him from doing so.
In remarks outside the courtroom Thursday, Trump said, "I'm not allowed to testify. I'm under a gag order" that he said he would be appealing. "I'm not allowed to testify because this judge who's totally conflicted, has me under an unconstitutional gag order," he reiterated.
At the beginning of court proceedings Friday, Judge Juan Merchan said that it had come to his attention that Trump may have misunderstood his order. "It does not prohibit you from taking the stand,” Merchan said. Commonly known as a "gag order," the judge's decision is actually called an order "restricting extrajudicial statements" — statements made outside of court.
“As the name of the order indicates, it only applies to extrajudicial statements,” Merchan said. Trump then mouthed, "Thank you."
On the way into court Friday, Trump complained “This judge has taken away my constitutional right.” “We’re filing, I think today, a constitutional motion,” he said.
After the judge made his statement, jurors were brought back in to hear continued testimony from the forensic analyst who inspected data from the phones of former Trump attorney Michael Cohen, including text messages and secret recordings.
Cohen is a key figure in Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg's case against Trump. Prosecutors say Cohen and Trump conspired with National Enquirer publisher David Pecker to suppress scandalous stories about the Trump during his 2016 campaign. The scheme resulted in Cohen’s paying porn star Stormy Daniels $130,000 to keep quiet about a sexual encounter she said she had with Trump in 2006. Trump has denied the claim.
Trump later repaid Cohen in payments the DA says he falsely classified as legal expenses. Trump has pleaded not guilty to all 34 counts of falsifying business records.
Douglas Daus, a forensic analyst for the DA’s office, began his testimony Thursday, revealing he found over 39,000 contacts on Cohen's phone, including those for Trump and his wife, Melania; text messages with Trump allies, including former White House communications director Hope Hicks; photos of Cohen in the White House; and some recordings.
One of the recordings was a snippet of a conversation Cohen had with Trump in September 2016 about how they should handle repaying Pecker for the $150,000 he spent to buy the silence of Karen McDougal. McDougal, a former Playboy model, has claimed she had a monthslong affair with Trump that began in 2006, an allegation Trump denies.
In a recording played in court — first reported in 2018 — Trump can be heard saying, “So what do we got to pay for this — 150?” He then tells Cohen to “pay with cash,” and Cohen responds, “No, no, no. I got it.”
Pecker, who initially demanded to get the money back, later relented and told Cohen not to pay him for fear it could get him in legal trouble.
Prosecutors played another of Cohen's surreptitious recordings earlier in the day when Keith Davidson, the attorney who negotiated the Daniels and McDougal deals, was on the stand.
On the tape, Cohen tells Davidson that Trump, whom he didn’t name, had repeatedly complained to him about Daniels’ settlement: “I can’t even tell you how many times he said to me, you know, ‘I hate the fact that we did it,’” and “my comment to him was ‘but every person you spoke to said it was the right thing to do.’”
Davidson said he understood that “he” referred to Trump and that “we did it” referred to the payment to Daniels.
During cross-examination, Trump's attorney Emil Bove pressed Davidson about other scandalous tabloid stories he'd been involved with over the years, including his representing clients who peddled sex tapes featuring wrestler Hulk Hogan and influencer Tila Tequila, as well as another who allegedly leaked information about actor Lindsay Lohan’s stint in rehab. He was also asked about representing clients who were paid by actor Charlie Sheen. Davidson was evasive, saying he couldn’t remember details about specific cases and clients.
Cross-examining Daus at the end of the court day Thursday, Bove raised questions about whether data on the phone could have been manipulated. Daus acknowledged the FBI seized the same phones and examined them before the DA's office did.
It's unclear who will testify after Daus. The DA's office has been tight-lipped about coming witnesses. It previously told the judge presiding over the case, Juan Merchan, that it is hesitant about giving much notice for fear Trump will post about the witnesses on social media despite a partial gag order.
Merchan this week found Trump in criminal contempt and fined him $9,000 for violating that order with nine of his social media and campaign posts. Prosecutors argued Thursday he should be held in contempt for additional alleged violations. Merchan has yet to rule on the motion.
The court day will end slightly early Friday. Merchan said it will stop at 3:45 p.m. ET instead of his traditional 4:30 p.m. because one of the jurors has an appointment.
His assertion that he can't testify doesn't make any sense. You have a constitutional right to testify. You also have a constitutional right NOT to testify. 99 times out of 100, I would basically tell my clients back in the day that they weren't going to say anything. It doesn't go well when they do. If there was any "gag order" imposed, it would have been by Trump's attorneys telling him he's not testifying, which would be a smart move, honestly.
Here is my simplistic take on this trial. Feel free to correct me if needed:
1, Did Trump pay off hush money - Yes Is that a crime - no
2, did he cook the books to hide it - clearly yes Is that a crime - yes => business fraud This is a misdemeanor
3, can he be tried for business fraud - not in this case Why - past the statue of limitations
4, so why is he on trial" Committing one crime to cover up, facilitate blah blah blah another crime is a felony
5, what is that other crime - elections fraud The accusation is that the 1st crime (business fraud) was committed to hid the information from the public to prevent them from casting an informed vote (election fraud)
6, What does the prosecution need to prove beyond reasonable doubt? there is no doubt the business fraud occurred Prosecution need to prove that trump new about it - which they have
They also need to prove that the intention was election related - TBD
They haven't put forth any evidence in the trial that Trump cooked the books. Don't they have to prove he did it, versus someone lower down the food chain?
You've pretty much confirmed my thoughts on the matter in regards to him testifying. It was my understanding that no defense attorney wants to put their client on the stand unless it's a hail Mary because the prosecution has them dead to rights. And especially when their client is confrontational and inflammatory. That doesn't look good to a jury.
But I think trump sort of backed himself into a corner here. I don't believe it was his actual statement that put him in that corner but more the perception of that statement that did so. I never heard trump state "I will testify" but I did hear him say, "I'm willing to testify." Not only did the media twist that statement into " trump said he will testify" but from what I witnessed many of his supporters took it to mean that as well.
So I think he was in the position he needed to find someone to blame for deciding not to testify. And you will have some of his ardent supporters that will believe that.
Asking the question of what is the crime? Tells the whole story.
The State of New York is taking a former president of the US to court on a felony.
Understand what that means. In order to bring charges under these circumstances requires many legal professionals.
Not understanding that and asking the question demonstrates a lack of understanding how the legal system and law and order works.
Really? So simple, eh?
Explain any of this...
How is an indictment filed on a case that starts more than 5 years after alleged crimes occurred, which is the statute of limitations for felonies in New York?
How is a business in violation for checks written on, and recorded in, a personal account not a business account?
If invoices were intended to obscure a violation of Federal campaign laws, explain why bodies actually responsible for enforcing those laws did not allege Trump violated those laws.
How does an indictment that alleges "intent to defraud" do absolutely nothing to resolve or address that accusation?
If all these legal gymnastics are taking place to prove campaign fraud, why would the judge prevent campaign finance experts from testifying?
Explain how prosecutors suggest that the payments violated state tax laws when the actually increased net tax collections by the state.
Explain how a personal claim that existed long before Trump ran for the presidency, suddenly became a new claim, which would be the litmus test for calling the payment a campaign violation.
While you're at it, go ahead and explain how a case that resolves all of the gymnastics above, is a cut-and-dried case of violating campaign finance law, resulted in no time in a court, no legal expenses and a $6000 fine. Remember, $hillary fabricating a lie and funding the Steele Dossier? And then listing it as a campaign legal defense? lmao.
"demonstrates a lack of understanding how the legal system and law and order works" 🤣
They haven't put forth any evidence in the trial that Trump cooked the books. Don't they have to prove he did it, versus someone lower down the food chain?
I'm glad you've heard all of the testimony and know they haven't provided any evidence to substantiate their claims. First you didn't even know what crimes he was accused of and now suddenly you know they haven't provided any evidence he committed any of the 34 counts he is charged with in this case. How quickly things change.
Many crimes aren't brought to trial for not just years, but decades. As more evidence is brought to light, the stronger a case becomes. Many times a case that a former prosecutor did not pursue is pursued by a new prosecutor. All of that is very common.
then the guy who claims he hates whatabouts throws in the Hillary whatabout.
trump appointed his own commission after he was elected to try to find something to charge Hillary with. Even they couldn't find anything.
Yes Eve - They do need to prove that, though from what I have heard from multiple sources, he was aware and they have proven that Though admittedly I am not following close enough to know the details.
My understanding is that it will all come down to whether or not it can be proven that the motive was election related.
I am not following this close enough because I think this is a stretch. I don't think this should have gone to trial. (from what I know about it.)
The other trials are where the meat is. Those are the significant ones. This trial is a speed bump, those are brick walls
January 6th trial - from what I have read and heard, he is more likely guilty than not.
Fulton county and classified documents trial - again from what I have read and heard he is absolutely guilty
Trumps only hope in these trial is that he wins this election and as president makes them go away And it is clear he and his lawyers know this by their delay delay delay tactics.
Caveat - my opinions are based on what I have read and heard. I acknowledge that I have not seen or heard all the evidence and arguments. There certainly may be new information that comes to light that changes my mind
Many crimes aren't brought to trial for not just years, but decades. As more evidence is brought to light, the stronger a case becomes. Many times a case that a former prosecutor did not pursue is pursued by a new prosecutor. All of that is very common.
then the guy who claims he hates whatabouts throws in the Hillary whatabout.
trump appointed his own commission after he was elected to try to find something to charge Hillary with. Even they couldn't find anything.
Ah, a statute of limitations doesn't matter then?
The Hillary case is a textbook example of the crime being alleged. It's not a whatabout as much as a perfect example, interesting that you follow that with another whatabout though lmao.
Instead of crying foul, why don't you try to defend it... or anything else I posted.
Instead of crying foul, why don't you try to defend it... or anything else I posted.
Defend what? You make a list of questions about a trial that from my understanding, it isn't even half over, with tons of testimony still to come.
And you may wish to check a blanket statement you made which isn't true...
Quote
a case that starts more than 5 years after alleged crimes occurred, which is the statute of limitations for felonies in New York?
You may or may not be correct about this particular felony. But are you claiming that rape and murder has a five year statute of limitations in New York? Often times making such a blanket statement proves to be false.
New York Law provides that if a person leaves the State the Statute of Limitations is suspended and does not run when they are absent from the State.
That being the case the statue would have been suspended for almost all of the four years (2017–2020 and part of 2021) Trump was President and residing in Washington DC and traveling in other states; further would not run once he left office and moved to Florida. It might run for the times he was present in New York over those years but I doubt they would amount to enough time to matter.
His assertion that he can't testify doesn't make any sense. You have a constitutional right to testify. You also have a constitutional right NOT to testify. 99 times out of 100, I would basically tell my clients back in the day that they weren't going to say anything. It doesn't go well when they do. If there was any "gag order" imposed, it would have been by Trump's attorneys telling him he's not testifying, which would be a smart move, honestly.
I think you are looking at this through lawyers eyes. trump stepped in it saying he wanted to testify and his lawyers probably told him he is friggin nuts, there is no way he is testifying...and now trump is coming out playing the victim saying he wants to testify but the mean gag order won't let him
Instead of crying foul, why don't you try to defend it... or anything else I posted.
Defend what? You make a list of questions about a trial that from my understanding, it isn't even half over, with tons of testimony still to come.
And you may wish to check a blanket statement you made which isn't true...
Quote
a case that starts more than 5 years after alleged crimes occurred, which is the statute of limitations for felonies in New York?
You may or may not be correct about this particular felony. But are you claiming that rape and murder has a five year statute of limitations in New York? Often times making such a blanket statement proves to be false.
What in the world do rape and murder have to do with my statement??
Go ahead and pick anything from my list where the answer is dependant on whether we are at the beginning, middle or end of the trial. Testimony doesn't change a statute of limitations, it doesn't change a personal check into a business check, an indictment precedes the case, the judge already denied the testimony of campaign finance experts, you can't make tax payments move to the other side of the spreadsheet even with DNA evidence, etc, etc...
It would be better to say you don't want to argue any of my points.
But don't worry, someone will come along and dispel them all any minute now.
New York Law provides that if a person leaves the State the Statute of Limitations is suspended and does not run when they are absent from the State.
That being the case the statue would have been suspended for almost all of the four years (2017–2020 and part of 2021) Trump was President and residing in Washington DC and traveling in other states; further would not run once he left office and moved to Florida. It might run for the times he was present in New York over those years but I doubt they would amount to enough time to matter.
5 years after alleged crimes occurred, which is the statute of limitations for felonies in New York?
Either this is a true statement or it's not. It's not. Don't blame me for that. I'm not the one who made the statement.................
Quote
Is the statute of limitations tolling out of state in NY?
The statute of limitations may also be tolled – a legal term meaning suspended – under certain circumstances, including where a defendant has been out of the state during the statute of limitations period or where the defendant's whereabouts are unknown.
5 years after alleged crimes occurred, which is the statute of limitations for felonies in New York?
Either this is a true statement or it's not. It's not. Don't blame me for that. I'm not the one who made the statement.................
Quote
Is the statute of limitations tolling out of state in NY?
The statute of limitations may also be tolled – a legal term meaning suspended – under certain circumstances, including where a defendant has been out of the state during the statute of limitations period or where the defendant's whereabouts are unknown.
Don't blame you? You're the one who posted it lol. Do you want me to blame Eve? OCD?
It took a quick search to see 500 articles about the statute being "tolled" by Cuomo -- for less than eight months -- during COVID. And has yet to hold up in a court of law.
You're talking about something that happened during covid. I'm talking about settled law in the state of New York. What I posted has nothing to do with covid.
You said you wanted a link that proves that while a person is out of state that time limit on the statute of limitations is paused. I gave you just that. Anything you keep ranting about beyond that is little more than a tantrum because you were shown to be wrong.
This has zero to do with a pause during covid and you know that. All you need to do is read the context at the link.
So let's be clear here, are you saying that felonies in the state of New York have a 5 year statute of limitations or not? Or are you saying that some felonies in the state of New York have a 5 year statute of limitations? Because that's the question here. You made a blanket statement which is false. I just called you out on it.
Weren't you just carrying on about personal responsibility a couple of days ago?
For some reason I knew your use of common sense in posting wouldn't last.
Some felonies have a 5 year statute of limitations. Some do not. When you're out of state that time pauses. Those are very basic facts. But then some people's version of the truth are not based on the facts.
You're talking about something that happened during covid. I'm talking about settled law in the state of New York. What I posted has nothing to do with covid.
You said you wanted a link that proves that while a person is out of state that time limit on the statute of limitations is paused. I gave you just that. Anything you keep ranting about beyond that is little more than a tantrum because you were shown to be wrong.
This has zero to do with a pause during covid and you know that. All you need to do is read the context at the link.
So let's be clear here, are you saying that felonies in the state of New York have a 5 year statute of limitations or not? Or are you saying that some felonies in the state of New York have a 5 year statute of limitations? Because that's the question here. You made a blanket statement which is false. I just called you out on it.
Weren't you just carrying on about personal responsibility a couple of days ago?
For some reason I knew your use of common sense in posting wouldn't last.
Some felonies have a 5 year statute of limitations. Some do not. When you're out of state that time pauses. Those are very basic facts. But then some people's version of the truth are not based on the facts.
Cool. Now I'm throwing a tantrum. So predictable lmao. You offered no proof other than a vague statement from a law firm's site. Probably purposely vague to solicit calls.
Real simple then, explain why Bragg is trying to sell this as a federal felony in order to bypass the statute.
Or just call him and tell him you have the insides scoop from Dewey, Cheatham and Howe and he's doing waaay to much legwork.
You ask for receipts and get them. Then offer none of your own.
I have shown you the law. Now it's up to you to show that's wrong. You don't just keep to keep firing questions with zero accountability in return. I know you would love it if that's the way this worked.
Also, if a person tries to "evade" (avoid) arrest for a crime, the law gives the prosecutor extra time to file charges. In New York, the statute of limitations is tolled—up to five years—while a defendant continuously remains out of state or otherwise can't be found.
You ask for receipts and get them. Then offer none of your own.
I have shown you the law. Now it's up to you to show that's wrong. You don't just keep to keep firing questions with zero accountability in return. I know you would love it if that's the way this worked.
Like I said, call Alvin Bragg and tell him Pit@Dawgtalkers cracked the case. You'll be a national hero!!
So once again you can't show anything to refute the information my sources contained. That's what I thought. At this point your meaningless drivel is all you have left.
There is noting you have provided that counteracts anything I posted. You keep carrying on about Bragg but it seems as though the case against trump has continued and nothing the defense has presented has shown any valid reason for the trial not to continue. It seems as though there is no confusion over this case other than you continuing to cry out Bragg's name at this point. There are a lot of trumpians still doing that.
Yes Eve - They do need to prove that, though from what I have heard from multiple sources, he was aware and they have proven that Though admittedly I am not following close enough to know the details.
While driving today, I heard a legal expert talking aboout the case (For those who this might make a difference for, I listen to POTUS radio on sirius/xm), and he said prosecution still need to prove trump knew about the "cooking the books" (my words).
My interpretation is that I have heard things about that and it proved it to me but as of yet has not been presented in court. Just presenting this info for balance of what may have been a statement I made that was not completely accurate
The legal scholar, known for his previous endorsements of Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama, suggested that at most, the alleged actions of the Trump organization could amount to a misdemeanor, “barred by the statute of limitations.”
Dershowitz challenged Bragg’s legal premise: Trump’s alleged payments to his former attorney Michael Cohen—who in turn paid Stormy Daniels and McDougal—constitute a felony due to so-called violations of federal campaign law.
However, Trump has not faced any charges related to these alleged payments.
“You can’t suddenly resurrect that and turn that into a crime by invoking a federal statute which the federal government refused to invoke and that the Federal Election Commission refused to invoke,” Dershowitz argued. “There is no crime.”
But, but, Pit@Dawgtalkers says you don't need to turn the misdemeanor into a felony to breach the statute, you can do it just because he found a vague example on a law website...
Yes, different attorney's have different opinions on it. But you seem to be basing a lot on something Dershowitz suggested and his opinion. Bless your heart.
And Vivek, another attorney with way less knowledge of the law than Pit@Dawgtalkers:
Ramaswamy further explained that the case, where Trump is being tried on felony charges for falsifying business documents related to alleged “hush money” payments made to porn star Stormy Daniels.
“Falsifying business records in New York is a misdemeanor, not a felony,” Ramaswamy said. “And it falls outside the statute of limitations, meaning it happened so far long ago that Alvin Bragg can’t bring the case unless he charges it as a felony.”
"But, but he was in DC part of that time" doesn't even apply to this case.
Now you introduce a far right political hack into the mix? Desperation when you have nothing official to refute my legal sources has officially set in.
Now you introduce a far right political hack into the mix? Desperation when you have nothing official to refute my legal sources has officially set in.
Your legal sources: Dupée & Monroe, Attorneys at Law... and their blistering language such as "may", "in certain cases", "under certain circumstances" and "generally".
EDIT: Oh wait, they have 84 Giggle reviews, nevermind.
Now you introduce a far right political hack into the mix? Desperation when you have nothing official to refute my legal sources has officially set in.
Your legal sources: Dupée & Monroe, Attorneys at Law... and their blistering language such as "may", "in certain cases", "under certain circumstances" and "generally".
EDIT: Oh wait, they have 84 Giggle reviews, nevermind.
The difference is they explained the laws that are currently on the books. It had nothing to do with their opinions or political slant. My sourced were based on law. Yours were based on opinion. I'm sure you knew the difference. Things were going so well there for a short period of time. Did you run out of your meds?
A Proclamation on National Mental Health Awareness Month, 2024
Biden is trying to offer you help. Won't you do everyone a favor and accept it?
Mine are based on lawyers interpreting law, duh. Granted, not stalwarts like Dupée & Monroe.
How 'bout legal scholars??
Elite legal scholar better bow down! Pit@Dawgtalkers is in the hizzy!
Jonathan Turley is a nationally recognized legal scholar who has written extensively in areas ranging from constitutional law to legal theory to tort law.
Turley says case "is an embarrassment" "What is clear is in this case, Trump is right--this is an embarrassment," Breitbart quoted Turley as telling Fox News on Monday.
"The fact that we are actually talking about this case being presented in a New York courtroom leaves me in utter disbelief," Turley continued.
"You had this misdemeanor under state law that had [the statute of limitations] run out. They zapped it back into life by alleging that there was a campaign finance violations under the federal laws that doesn't exist. The Department of Justice doesn't view it this way," he pointed out.
It's odd how you've shifted to what attorney's think of the overall case and moved away from the statute of limitations part. Well it's not really odd. That's a battle you lost so it was time you shifted away from it.
You're trying to make a point that I never argued from the beginning. I think it's a case that most likely should never have been brought in the first place. And if so I'm not sure they can prove the felony part of it. I guess we'll see how that plays out. But then that has nothing to do with your statute of limitations argument now does it?
Dear Lord. If I took you seriously you would be exhausting.
Do you believe that the State of New York given all the circumstances would put a former president on trial for a felony without firmly believing that they had sufficient evidence to prove his guilt?
I have no legal background and have never played an attorney on TV.
Every. single. quote. mentioned the statute. Again, I know they can't match vague language from Dupée & Monroe in Goshen. And you're the one that latched on to the statute and wouldn't breath a word about any other part of my post. Business as usual.
Now you're going to pivot to there shouldn't be a case in the first place?
We'll just call that a circuitous route to progress.
Do you believe that the State of New York given all the circumstances would put a former president on trial for a felony without firmly believing that they had sufficient evidence to prove his guilt?
I have no legal background and have never played an attorney on TV.
Well, that's a lot better than acting like anyone that questions it is stupid and doesn't understand law and order.
Again, I know they can't match vague language from Dupée & Monroe in Goshen.
There was nothing vague about anything in either one of my two sources in terms of the law on the statute of limitations in New York. Not in what the law stated nor the wording of it.
You're the one who not only stressed the statute part, you put in in bold.
If Mickey Mouse says a vaccine doesn't prevent COVID, it doesn't matter that Mickey Mouse said it, dig?
Go ahead and tell me which part is untrue or you're just moving goalposts...
A democrat judge, with a daughter working for democrats, a trial in a deeply democrat city, within a democrat state, brought by a democrat prosecutor, with an assistant prosecutor on loan from a democrat president’s DOJ, in a state with a democrat AG who ran on prosecuting Trump, and with a jury pool selected from majority democrats?
Yes Eve - They do need to prove that, though from what I have heard from multiple sources, he was aware and they have proven that Though admittedly I am not following close enough to know the details.
While driving today, I heard a legal expert talking aboout the case (For those who this might make a difference for, I listen to POTUS radio on sirius/xm), and he said prosecution still need to prove trump knew about the "cooking the books" (my words).
My interpretation is that I have heard things about that and it proved it to me but as of yet has not been presented in court. Just presenting this info for balance of what may have been a statement I made that was not completely accurate
So when most company checks are written there is an attachment for accounting purposes, in duplex typically. The stub would reference the internal account that the check was logged against. Typically the recipient sees one stub, and the other is retained by accounting.
Here is another quandary that has not been explained.
I noticed that the checks were drawn against an account that was labeled Donald J. Trump. That seems curious, it would be more typical to have the account associated with the corporate entity. So I would call it highly unusual to see a corporate account with the name of an individual on it. So if it was a corporate account, then they had checks printed for Donald J. Trump. So someone is going to have to explain why a corporate account had an individual name on it. That could be positive or negative. In terms of knowledge. It that was Donalds personal corporate checkbook, then he was in direct control.
Like the totally bias, one sided source you used a Twitter post from? You do understand that when you post something you're using that as a point of reference.
Quote
A democrat judge, with a daughter working for democrats, a trial in a deeply democrat city, within a democrat state, brought by a democrat prosecutor, with an assistant prosecutor on loan from a democrat president’s DOJ, in a state with a democrat AG who ran on prosecuting Trump, and with a jury pool selected from majority democrats?
Maybe if you don't wish to put your FATE in the hands of a bunch of democrats you shouldn't be committing criminal activity in a Democratic stronghold and then try to blame everyone else because you were a moron for doing it.
Quote
The out-of-town provision is one of several legal maneuvers authorities could consider, as they look to build a case and make charging decisions that would allow them to look beyond the traditional five-year statute of limitations for many New York felonies.
“There are numerous procedural tools in the proverbial woodshed that prosecutors could wield when enforcing the law. Depending on the circumstances, merely because your conduct appears to be outside what is otherwise a strict five-year statute of limitations does not mean you’ll get a pass,” said Jeremy Saland, a former assistant district attorney in Manhattan.
The provision at issue says, “In calculating the time limitation applicable to commencement of a criminal action, the following periods shall not be included: (a) Any period following the commission of the offense during which (i) the defendant was continuously outside this state.”
The law caps the extension at five years.
During Trump’s four years in Washington, he spent very little time at his home in New York, choosing instead to take breaks in Florida at Mar-a-Lago or his golf course in Bedminster, New Jersey. After leaving office he relocated to Florida and this week made his first visit to his New York home and office.
If prosecutors invoke that section of the law, it means they could argue that the time Trump has been out of New York, would not count in the calculation of the statute of limitations.
For example, if prosecutors found evidence of wrongdoing in 2015, the typical statute would expire in 2020. But under this tolling provision, the clock could stop for the periods of time Trump was out of New York during the five-year period, effectively allowing them to consider earlier conduct. How provision was used with Weinstein
The district attorney’s office invoked the out-of-state tolling extension in its criminal case against Weinstein. Prosecutors charged Weinstein with multiple crimes, including rape in the third degree for an alleged assault that occurred in March 2013. Weinstein was charged in May 2018, two months after the five-year statute of limitations on that offense would have expired.
Weinstein challenged the charge, arguing it fell outside the statute of limitations and as a resident of New York state the extension wouldn’t apply to him.
Prosecutors used records from “United States Customs and Border Control” to show that Weinstein had been out of New York for 193 days during that five-year period– more than the 68 days needed to capture the earlier conduct.
The judge rejected Weinstein’s argument and allowed the charge to stand. Weinstein was convicted on charges of sexual assault and is serving a 23-year sentence.
“I’m not sure in this case that they would need to go to those lengths but it’s another mechanism they might be able to avail themselves of,” said Peter Katz, a former assistant district attorney in Manhattan. “They will try to use the laws to the fullest extent.”
Multiple legal experts tell CNN that prosecutors could extend the statute by pursuing conspiracy charges, which would allow them to charge older conduct that falls outside the statute of limitations if they can prove it was part of an ongoing conspiracy.
Another statute available is the state equivalent of a racketeering charge, which is known as enterprise corruption. Under that theory, prosecutors could include older conduct if they can prove a long pattern of illegal conduct committed as part of a criminal enterprise.
Saland, the former prosecutor, added, “Prosecutors would be doing themselves a disservice by making a case more difficult than it need be. Giving Trump a soapbox to challenge an exception to the statute of limitations would allow him to sow confusion.”
Instead, he says, if prosecutors simplify the case and focused on false filings, assuming they were made, “then the former President could very likely find himself the recipient of both a felony record and Scarlett Letter for defrauding the people of the State of New York.”
You do realize that Matthew Colangelo worked for the state of New York BEFORE he worked at the DOJ, right? And that he was no longer working for the DOJ when he went back to work for the state of New York. It looks a lot more like the DOJ borrowed him from the state of New Yotk than the other way around. But you keep posting those Jim Jordan approved bullet points.
Because this trial is dragging on and they havent produced any evidence of wrong doing.
This trial was expected to last between four to six weeks before it ever started. So if you consider it going as expected "dragging on" then you would be correct.
Tarasoff testifies 'only Mr. Trump' could sign checks from his personal bank account, regardless of amount
Deborah Tarasoff, an accounts payable supervisor in the accounting department of the Trump Organization, testified that after 2015, any invoice above $10,000 had to be approved by Trump or one of his sons Don Jr. or Eric Trump. This is notable because each reimbursement payment made to Michael Cohen was for $35,000 or more.
According to CNN, Tarasoff would receive an approved invoice, put it in the system and would cut a check. For anything coming from Trump's personal account, Trump would sign the check himself, regardless of the amount, Tarasoff testified.
"If he didn't want to sign it, he didn't sign it," Tarasoff said, according to CNN, adding that he would write "VOID" on the check and send it back if it wasn't approved.
When asked how she knew it was Trump who signed it, she said it was because he used a black Sharpie marker.
This matters because the prosecution needs to prove that Trump knew about the hush money payments made to adult film star Stormy Daniels, who alleged she had an affair with Trump.
The thing I want to see is Trump testify. I wanna see him up on the stand. He has said he's innocent. He has called this a Witch Hunt. OK Don, get up there and be your best salesman., show the jury that you are innocent...
I don't expect that to happen. He is not that dumb. Or his lawyers aren't.
He beats his chest, acting as if he's Godzilla. He's not! I'd still like to see it. For him, it's all BLUSTER.
There's no way. His attorneys would withdraw first before allowing him on the stand. That's not even a knock on him, either. It could be almost anyone and I would rather withdraw than have to deal with my client taking the stand, against my own advice.
Trump is above the law- any other client would be in slammer for defying the judge----Republicans- Fox News= trial mostly theater- paying off sex workers and falsifying business records/ normal, everyone does it- no substance at all--- if you click your boots for the leader.
IT wasn't a specific instance I was referring to. It was the comment by Dawglover05 in the post right above mine that I meant to reply to rather that the original post by Pit
IT wasn't a specific instance I was referring to. It was the comment by Dawglover05 in the post right above mine that I meant to reply to rather that the original post by Pit
Gotcha.
It’s hard to believe that trump’s ego won’t demand a performance on the stand. Especially if things are looking bad for him. And they are already in week 3.
As of now I don't see it as looking that bad for him. Maybe 05 could give a better take on it than I can. Showing he paid the money to Daniels really has nothing to do with what he's being accused of as I understand it. What my understanding is that what needs to be proven is that he did it to hide that fact from the voters. As to not damage his election. That's going to be a little tougher to prove.
I've seen former prosecutors explain that what these prosecutors are trying to do is paint the entire picture. From the beginning to the end. And that would seem to makes sense. That seems to be the route they're taking. First showing that it was trump who made the payments. That he knew Cohen made the payment and that the payment was on trump's behalf. That not only did trump know it, but he repaid that money to Cohen. So far I think they've pretty well established that.
But what I think the case hinges on is that his motivation was related to the election. There has also been testimony that he had all newspapers, at least the Washington Post from being delivered to the White House so Melania wouldn't see the story. So proving his motive was election related verses not wanting his wife to find out may be a little tougher for the prosecution. But if painting the picture is what their goal is, they are getting close to the point they'll need to prove that motive.
Yeah we’ll see. I disagree though. It’s not looking good for him. Claiming he never had the affair to begin with, makes him the liar here. The prosecutor is hitting on all cylinders.
How have they proven he had sex with her? She says they did and he says they didn't. The claim is even though he didn't have sex with her the story would still have been damaging so they paid her for her silence. Even though I'm not crazy about how the following sounds I believe it's true. What you seem to be saying is that a jury of 12 people will take the word of a porn star over the word of a former president and I don't believe it's quite that cut and dry. Believe me I think trump is guilty as sin but that's not the point here.
How have they proven he had sex with her? She says they did and he says they didn't. The claim is even though he didn't have sex with her the story would still have been damaging so they paid her for her silence. Even though I'm not crazy about how the following sounds I believe it's true. What you seem to be saying is that a jury of 12 people will take the word of a porn star over the word of a former president and I don't believe it's quite that cut and dry. Believe me I think trump is guilty as sin but that's not the point here.
Pit, Whether or not they had sex does not mean much to this case; However, Stormy is on the stand under oath saying they did and trump is at a rally saying he doesn't know these women. Let him put his hand on a bible and say it
That sounds great in theory but no defendant has to take the stand and usually only very desperate ones do. When it comes down to it, the only time a lie is a crime is if you lie under oath. And I don't see trump's attorneys taking that risk. I know I wouldn't if I were them. See what I'm trying to do here is take my feelings out of it. A jury can only weigh the evidence that's been presented to them. And there's no way trump can be forced to testify under oath in this trial.
Trump attorney: "We move for a mistrial based on the testimony of this witness"
"We move for a mistrial based on the testimony of this witness," said Trump attorney Todd Blanche says following this morning's testimony from Stormy Daniels.
He says the court set "guardrails" and her testimony went over them.
"A lot of the testimony that this witness talked about today is way different than the story she was peddling in 2016," Blanche says.
------------------------------------------
Blanche says there's no way to properly remedy testimony Daniels gave jury in the morning
In his argument for a mistrial, Todd Blanche says the defense attorneys can't think of a way to properly remedy the testimony Stormy Daniels gave to the jury this morning.
"A lot of the testimony this witness talked about today is way different than the story she was peddling in 2016," he says.
Blanche is raising parts of her testimony including that she said she "blacked out," didn't wear a condom when one was required by her employer, the bodyguard outside, their height difference, and the power dynamic.
-------------------------------------
"How can you unring the bell?" Blanche alleges Daniels is telling a different story
Toddy Blanche says Stormy Daniels is telling a different story.
"She talked about a consensual encounter with President Trump that she was trying to sell. ... and that's not the story she told today," the attorney says.
He says that the judge was aware there would be an issue establishing "guardrails" for the testimony.
"But now we’ve heard it. And it is an issue. How can you unring the bell?" Blanche says.
-------------------------------------
Prosecution argues Daniels' testimony is "highly probative" of Trump's intent for payment
Prosecutor Susan Hoffinger said Stormy Daniels' testimony is "highly probative of defendant’s intent" and Trump's "motive for paying this off."
"This is not new. This is not a new account," Hoffinger said.
As of now I don't see it as looking that bad for him. Maybe 05 could give a better take on it than I can. Showing he paid the money to Daniels really has nothing to do with what he's being accused of as I understand it. What my understanding is that what needs to be proven is that he did it to hide that fact from the voters. As to not damage his election. That's going to be a little tougher to prove.
I've seen former prosecutors explain that what these prosecutors are trying to do is paint the entire picture. From the beginning to the end. And that would seem to makes sense. That seems to be the route they're taking. First showing that it was trump who made the payments. That he knew Cohen made the payment and that the payment was on trump's behalf. That not only did trump know it, but he repaid that money to Cohen. So far I think they've pretty well established that.
But what I think the case hinges on is that his motivation was related to the election. There has also been testimony that he had all newspapers, at least the Washington Post from being delivered to the White House so Melania wouldn't see the story. So proving his motive was election related verses not wanting his wife to find out may be a little tougher for the prosecution. But if painting the picture is what their goal is, they are getting close to the point they'll need to prove that motive.
We'll see.
Without having seen the trial firsthand, I think that's a fair assessment. Add in that the threshold is beyond a reasonable doubt, and I think it could get hard to prove on that front. It's one of those where we definitely know he did bad things, and that he definitely did it to hide it from the public, but the standard of proof is the real crux of where it all lies.
Thanks 05. I'm not an attorney and I don't even play one on TV. I've just been listening to a lot of what I consider to be non bias former prosecutors and defense attorneys. I always appreciate you adding your expertise on such things.
No problem! I have definitely veered into desk jockying by doing acquisition and contracts now with the DoD, but it's nice to try and keep up with my courtroom days. I do miss certain aspects about that life, although there are other aspects I'm glad to have left behind.
Trump is above the law- any other client would be in slammer for defying the judge----Republicans- Fox News= trial mostly theater- paying off sex workers and falsifying business records/ normal, everyone does it- no substance at all--- if you click your boots for the leader.
The Judge basically said that today. He made mention that Trump was the form POTUS and may well end up being POTUS again and he found it hard to put him in jail and that he didn't want to do that. But, he will is forced to do so.
To the supporters of trump the outcome of this trial means nothing. Guilty or not.
Now a trump appointed judge has postponed the "document case" indefinitely.
The stacked SCOTUS has already pushed the Jan 6th trial to the point where the case may not be tried before the election.
What a disservice to the citizens of the United States. A Democracy is supposed to represent the will of its citizens.
The voters have the right to know if the courts will find trump guilty or innocent before the election. So they can determine if a convicted felon or an innocent former president should run the country.
Personally I am disgusted by what is taking place.
The article contains many of the same old, same old we already know about so I won't bother with that portion but you can always read the entire article at the link if you so choose......
Judge said he won’t tolerate Trump’s cursing and headshaking during Daniels’ testimony, transcript shows
“I understand that your client is upset at this point, but he is cursing audibly, and he is shaking his head visually and that’s contemptuous,” Judge Juan Merchan said to Trump’s defense attorney Todd Blanche during a mid morning break. “It has the potential to intimidate the witness and the jury can see that.”
Merchan told Blanche they were speaking at the bench because the judge did not want to embarrass Trump.
Blanche responded that he would talk to Trump.
“You need to speak to him. I won’t tolerate that,” Merchan said.
Blanche again said he would talk to Trump.
“One time I noticed when Ms. Daniels was testifying about rolling up the magazine, and presumably smacking your client, and after that point [Trump] shook his head and he looked down. And later, I think he was looking at you, Mr. Blanche, later when we were talking about The Apprentice, at that point he again uttered a vulgarity and looked at you this time,” Merchan said.
To the supporters of trump the outcome of this trial means nothing. Guilty or not.
Now a trump appointed judge has postponed the "document case" indefinitely.
The stacked SCOTUS has already pushed the Jan 6th trial to the point where the case may not be tried before the election.
What a disservice to the citizens of the United States. A Democracy is supposed to represent the will of its citizens.
The voters have the right to know if the courts will find trump guilty or innocent before the election. So they can determine if a convicted felon or an innocent former president should run the country.
Personally I am disgusted by what is taking place.
![[Linked Image from media0.giphy.com]](https://media0.giphy.com/media/l1LbUHrJb7GpuOHK0/giphy.gif)
![[Linked Image from i0.wp.com]](https://i0.wp.com/25.media.tumblr.com/eea3c65240d3ec42ef0a019adb1d96fc/tumblr_mkj2v6R1m61r5c736o1_500.gif)
![[Linked Image from i.pinimg.com]](https://i.pinimg.com/originals/3d/12/4f/3d124f67efd8e08b6fd3f0e748255a95.gif)
![[Linked Image from media-cldnry.s-nbcnews.com]](https://media-cldnry.s-nbcnews.com/image/upload/t_fit-560w,f_avif,q_auto:eco,dpr_2/newscms/2019_09/2767086/190227-donald-trump-michael-cohen-check-1-cs-752a.jpg)