I haven't seen a lot. Has DJT whined about how he has to follow the same court rules as everybody (e.g., not talk over witnesses the way he interrupts debate opponents but instead have to leave questioning to his counsel and wait for his turn to take the stand, if he chooses to do so), but just calls it being treated unfairly?
Any chance he has run afoul of the gag order and plans to keep pushing to force the judge's hand so that he has to uphold the law, so that then DJT can whine again about how he's being treated unfairly?
The gag order has nothing to do with Trump speaking out in court...
I haven't seen a lot. Has DJT whined about how he has to follow the same court rules as everybody (e.g., not talk over witnesses the way he interrupts debate opponents but instead have to leave questioning to his counsel and wait for his turn to take the stand, if he chooses to do so), but just calls it being treated unfairly?
Any chance he has run afoul of the gag order and plans to keep pushing to force the judge's hand so that he has to uphold the law, so that then DJT can whine again about how he's being treated unfairly?
He appears to have behaved in court, except one time during jury selection that he tried to talk to a juror.
He has violated the gag order multiple times, and a motion to have him sanctioned is currently pending. Yes, he is crying and pretending he is the only criminal defendant in American history to ever have a gag order imposed, and this it is un-Constitutional, etc. The gag order in the case is actually pretty narrow - he can't trash talk jurors, prosecutors (with the exception of D.A. Bragg) or witnesses. He seems to have most trouble with the latter, and has come up with the idiot argument that if he merely re-posts something attacking a witness, that is not a violation. The judge is unlikely to buy that.
Pennsylvania Republican Primary yesterday; 16% of Republicans (it is a closed primary) voted for Nikki Haley!
When he's convicted, can the GOP pivot and dump Trump?
7% of Democrats voted for Dean Phillips and no one even knows who he is.
When Trump is convicted by a corrupt court for a fake crime by political activists Trump's poll numbers will go up.
Ah, I see.
The talking point is no longer that this is a weak case that he will easily win.
Now it is pre-excusing why he is going to be found guilty (other than the fact that, you know, he actually is a criminal who did the crime part of the whole thing).
Kind of like, the election is only fair if he wins, but if he loses it was rigged?
A lot of the Pecker testimony about Ted "Snowback" Cruz has nothing to do with the charges against Trump, but it will definitely leave the jury with the impression that Trump is a lying, slandering sleaze with no conscience at all.
Here is what I believe came out yesterday:
1. Pecker and National Enquirer runs photos and article suggesting Ted Cruz's dad was in cahoots with Lee Harvey Oswald.
2. During 2016 GOP primaries campaign, Trump repeatedly raises the Cruz-Oswald connection, and pretends he just saw it mentioned in the media.
3. Cruz accuses Trump of being behind the story. (At the time, Cruz correctly pointed out that "He doesn’t know the difference between truth and lies. He lies practically every word that comes out of his mouth. And in a pattern that I think is straight out of a psychology textbook, his response is to accuse everyone else of lying.")
4. True to form, Trump lies and denies being behind the story, and continues to repeat the suggestion that Cruz's dad and Oswald were connected.
5. In 2024, National Enquirer Pecker testifies under oath that National Enquirer fabricated the Cruz-Oswald story, and sent a draft of it to Cohen (Trump's agent and intermediary) who approved the fake story. Cohen informed Trump of everything he was setting up and Trump had final approval. This was all part of a pre-election deal between Pecker Necker and Trump to fabricate stories about his opponents and to bury stories about Trump having sex with prostitutes.
I can't understand why Cruz isn't defending his deceased father's honor and suing the fvck out of all involved. I guess the cult of Trump is too strong and Cruz has gone into subservient simp mode. "Thank you Sir, may I have another!"
A lot of the Pecker testimony about Ted "Snowback" Cruz has nothing to do with the charges against Trump, but it will definitely leave the jury with the impression that Trump is a lying, slandering sleaze with no conscience at all.
Here is what I believe came out yesterday:
1. Pecker and National Enquirer runs photos and article suggesting Ted Cruz's dad was in cahoots with Lee Harvey Oswald.
2. During 2016 GOP primaries campaign, Trump repeatedly raises the Cruz-Oswald connection, and pretends he just saw it mentioned in the media.
3. Cruz accuses Trump of being behind the story. (At the time, Cruz correctly pointed out that "He doesn’t know the difference between truth and lies. He lies practically every word that comes out of his mouth. And in a pattern that I think is straight out of a psychology textbook, his response is to accuse everyone else of lying.")
4. True to form, Trump lies and denies being behind the story, and continues to repeat the suggestion that Cruz's dad and Oswald were connected.
5. In 2024, National Enquirer Pecker testifies under oath that National Enquirer fabricated the Cruz-Oswald story, and sent a draft of it to Cohen (Trump's agent and intermediary) who approved the fake story. Cohen informed Trump of everything he was setting up and Trump had final approval. This was all part of a pre-election deal between Pecker Necker and Trump to fabricate stories about his opponents and to bury stories about Trump having sex with prostitutes.
I can't understand why Cruz isn't defending his deceased father's honor and suing the fvck out of all involved. I guess the cult of Trump is too strong and Cruz has gone into subservient simp mode. "Thank you Sir, may I have another!"
That is all essential testimony to prove that the actions by the Pecker/Cohen/Trump group were intended to influence the election, and that the porn star payoff was not just to "protect Melania" as the defense will claim.
7% of Democrats voted for Dean Phillips and no one even knows who he is.
When Trump is convicted by a corrupt court for a fake crime by political activists Trump's poll numbers will go up.
Ah, I see.
The talking point is no longer that this is a weak case that he will easily win.
Now it is pre-excusing why he is going to be found guilty (other than the fact that, you know, he actually is a criminal who did the crime part of the whole thing).
Kind of like, the election is only fair if he wins, but if he loses it was rigged?
In a deep blue district with a deep blue judge the merits of the case have nothing at all to do with the verdict.
On legal grounds the case is laughable.
The prosecution's argument is that Trump committed election fraud by paying the Enquirer not to run negative stories.
1. It's not illegal to buy the rights to stories.
2. It's not election fraud to try to make yourself look good during a campaign.
Even more troubling Democrats are bringing this ridiculous case after using the FBI and all of social and main stream media to suppress the Hunter Biden laptop story for the express purpose of protecting Biden in the 2020 election. If the media was even remotely honest about what's happening this case would destroy Biden's chances in November.
This post was edited 2 minutes after it was posted.
I haven't seen a lot. Has DJT whined about how he has to follow the same court rules as everybody (e.g., not talk over witnesses the way he interrupts debate opponents but instead have to leave questioning to his counsel and wait for his turn to take the stand, if he chooses to do so), but just calls it being treated unfairly?
Any chance he has run afoul of the gag order and plans to keep pushing to force the judge's hand so that he has to uphold the law, so that then DJT can whine again about how he's being treated unfairly?
The gag order has nothing to do with Trump speaking out in court...
Thanks. There were two paragraphs. The first broadly mentioned "court rules"; the second referred to the gag order. Can you please favor us with more of your insights about how other people are idiots?
The talking point is no longer that this is a weak case that he will easily win.
Now it is pre-excusing why he is going to be found guilty (other than the fact that, you know, he actually is a criminal who did the crime part of the whole thing).
Kind of like, the election is only fair if he wins, but if he loses it was rigged?
In a deep blue district with a deep blue judge the merits of the case have nothing at all to do with the verdict.
Nah. That hypothesis is way too sweeping and has way too many actual instances where it is wrong to be of any help at all, even as a general rule of thumb. It's stupid and could probably apply to every criminal case in the country. You're just trying to get out in front of a possible adverse verdict for your savior with the usual, endless pre-fab excuses/whines.
On legal grounds the case is laughable. The prosecution's argument is that Trump committed election fraud by paying the Enquirer not to run negative stories. 1. It's not illegal to buy the rights to stories. 2. It's not election fraud to try to make yourself look good during a campaign.
That is an incorrect summary of the prosecution's argument. You haven't read any of the relevant motions, responses, exhibits or orders from the court, so you are yet again expressing opinions on things you know little or nothing about. I'll never understand why people do that. You could easily look this stuff up. You look so foolish and stupid when you talk about stuff you have never read.
For anyone actually interested in what the prosecution's argument is, you can refer to my post on the previous page (post # 4557) which links the prosecution's November 9, 2023 response to a motion to dismiss. That is the prosecution's argument (pages 21 to 43).
You can also see the prosecution's argument summarized in this Order from Judge Merchan at pages 11-18.
Even more troubling Democrats are bringing this ridiculous case after using the FBI and all of social and main stream media to suppress the Hunter Biden laptop story for the express purpose of protecting Biden in the 2020 election. If the media was even remotely honest about what's happening this case would destroy Biden's chances in November.
Hunter Biden, his laptop, the FBI, and Biden have absolutely nothing to do with anything in this case, and certainly have nothing to do with the prosecution's arguments, which you remain completely ignorant of, that Trump violated New York Penal law 175.10.
A lot of the Pecker testimony about Ted "Snowback" Cruz has nothing to do with the charges against Trump, but it will definitely leave the jury with the impression that Trump is a lying, slandering sleaze with no conscience at all.
Here is what I believe came out yesterday:
1. Pecker and National Enquirer runs photos and article suggesting Ted Cruz's dad was in cahoots with Lee Harvey Oswald.
2. During 2016 GOP primaries campaign, Trump repeatedly raises the Cruz-Oswald connection, and pretends he just saw it mentioned in the media.
3. Cruz accuses Trump of being behind the story. (At the time, Cruz correctly pointed out that "He doesn’t know the difference between truth and lies. He lies practically every word that comes out of his mouth. And in a pattern that I think is straight out of a psychology textbook, his response is to accuse everyone else of lying.")
4. True to form, Trump lies and denies being behind the story, and continues to repeat the suggestion that Cruz's dad and Oswald were connected.
5. In 2024, National Enquirer Pecker testifies under oath that National Enquirer fabricated the Cruz-Oswald story, and sent a draft of it to Cohen (Trump's agent and intermediary) who approved the fake story. Cohen informed Trump of everything he was setting up and Trump had final approval. This was all part of a pre-election deal between Pecker Necker and Trump to fabricate stories about his opponents and to bury stories about Trump having sex with prostitutes.
I can't understand why Cruz isn't defending his deceased father's honor and suing the fvck out of all involved. I guess the cult of Trump is too strong and Cruz has gone into subservient simp mode. "Thank you Sir, may I have another!"
That is all essential testimony to prove that the actions by the Pecker/Cohen/Trump group were intended to influence the election, and that the porn star payoff was not just to "protect Melania" as the defense will claim.
He's claiming that he never ever had sex with the porn star, and if he did, he lied to protect Melanoma.
This post was edited 35 seconds after it was posted.
Nah. That hypothesis is way too sweeping and has way too many actual instances where it is wrong to be of any help at all, even as a general rule of thumb. It's stupid and could probably apply to every criminal case in the country. You're just trying to get out in front of a possible adverse verdict for your savior with the usual, endless pre-fab excuses/whines.
That is an incorrect summary of the prosecution's argument. You haven't read any of the relevant motions, responses, exhibits or orders from the court, so you are yet again expressing opinions on things you know little or nothing about. I'll never understand why people do that. You could easily look this stuff up. You look so foolish and stupid when you talk about stuff you have never read.
For anyone actually interested in what the prosecution's argument is, you can refer to my post on the previous page (post # 4557) which links the prosecution's November 9, 2023 response to a motion to dismiss. That is the prosecution's argument (pages 21 to 43).
You can also see the prosecution's argument summarized in this Order from Judge Merchan at pages 11-18.
Hunter Biden, his laptop, the FBI, and Biden have absolutely nothing to do with anything in this case, and certainly have nothing to do with the prosecution's arguments, which you remain completely ignorant of, that Trump violated New York Penal law 175.10.
Thanks for nicely identifying and clarifying the false arguments of Trump supporters. The Prosecution does not have to prove that Trump is guilty of election fraud. Whenever a Trumper claims this it is a clear indicator that they are shooting from the hip.
The prosecution only has to prove that Trump falsified business records. And they have to show that he did that with the goal of hiding another crime. That kicks it up to a felony. They do not have to prove that such a crime (which was their goal) went through to it's successful completion. Sometimes the secondary crime is charged. Sometimes it is not. In this case it is not.
Some commenters are taking note that Trump is not attacking Pecker. That is totally out of character for Trump. He would typically have about 50 Truth social posts slandering him and all of the fox news talking heads would be burying him. Yet nothing.
Now ask yourself this. Why would Trump attack Cohen but not Pecker? Here are a couple of theories.
1. Pecker has way, way worse dirt on Trump than this Stormy stuff.
2. Pecker could easily start getting negative stories on Trump started.
7% of Democrats voted for Dean Phillips and no one even knows who he is.
Yep. "I'm gonna make a protest vote because I think you're giving me worse options than I want" is exactly the same as "In the general, I'm gonna vote for the worst candidate I've seen for high office instead of the guy I'd prefer my party wasn't leaving on the ticket."
Some commenters are taking note that Trump is not attacking Pecker. That is totally out of character for Trump. He would typically have about 50 Truth social posts slandering him and all of the fox news talking heads would be burying him. Yet nothing.
Now ask yourself this. Why would Trump attack Cohen but not Pecker? Here are a couple of theories.
1. Pecker has way, way worse dirt on Trump than this Stormy stuff.
2. Pecker could easily start getting negative stories on Trump started.
I don't know the answer, and it is out of character of Trump not to attack someone, but here are a couple more theories:
3. Trump didn't know until yesterday how bad Pecker was going to be. Unlike Cohen, Pecker has said nothing about this case until yesterday (as far as I know). And we won't know until Thursday if Pecker will really deliver the goods against Trump. So far all he's done is the Cruz stuff, which doesn't really hang Trump on the charges. Trump may be waiting to see what Pecker ultimately says before he goes after him. Pecker could still help Trump.
4. The gravity of violating the gag order on witness bashing was finally impressed upon Trump yesterday by his lawyers. At the sanction hearing, Blanche went far out on a limb saying that Trump would comply with the gag order, and the Judge told Blanche his credibility before the Court was at stake now. That is a very serious comment by the Judge. I'll bet Blanche told Trump after court yesterday that Trump better knock it the fvck off or very bad things are going to start happening. So Trump (for now) is sufficiently scared to start trashing and lying about Pecker publicly.
Nah. That hypothesis is way too sweeping and has way too many actual instances where it is wrong to be of any help at all, even as a general rule of thumb. It's stupid and could probably apply to every criminal case in the country. You're just trying to get out in front of a possible adverse verdict for your savior with the usual, endless pre-fab excuses/whines.
That is an incorrect summary of the prosecution's argument. You haven't read any of the relevant motions, responses, exhibits or orders from the court, so you are yet again expressing opinions on things you know little or nothing about. I'll never understand why people do that. You could easily look this stuff up. You look so foolish and stupid when you talk about stuff you have never read.
For anyone actually interested in what the prosecution's argument is, you can refer to my post on the previous page (post # 4557) which links the prosecution's November 9, 2023 response to a motion to dismiss. That is the prosecution's argument (pages 21 to 43).
You can also see the prosecution's argument summarized in this Order from Judge Merchan at pages 11-18.
Hunter Biden, his laptop, the FBI, and Biden have absolutely nothing to do with anything in this case, and certainly have nothing to do with the prosecution's arguments, which you remain completely ignorant of, that Trump violated New York Penal law 175.10.
The prosecution only has to prove that Trump falsified business records. And they have to show that he did that with the goal of hiding another crime. That kicks it up to a felony. They do not have to prove that such a crime (which was their goal) went through to it's successful completion. Sometimes the secondary crime is charged. Sometimes it is not. In this case it is not.
You have to be careful with the "kicks it up to a felony" language because it feeds another erroneous Trump-lover claim that this case is really about a misdemeanor that has been unfairly/illegally manufactured into a felony. That is not true or an accurate description of how the New York Penal Law statute or any statute works. There is no up (or down) looking analysis.
New York Penal Law 175.10 says: "A person is guilty of falsifying business records in the first degree when he commits the crime of falsifying business records in the second degree, and when his intent to defraud includes an intent to commit another crime or to aid or conceal the commission thereof. Falsifying business records in the first degree is a class E felony."
That is what Trump is charged with because the prosecution thinks they can prove he did that. It is totally irrelevant that there are also misdemeanor charges ("second degree") in the New York Penal Law for falsifying business documents. Saying that Trump's felonies are just a manufactured misdemeanors is no different than saying that all first degree murder charges are just manufactured manslaughter charges. The logic fails. Two different crimes with different elements and proofs.
Some commenters are taking note that Trump is not attacking Pecker. That is totally out of character for Trump. He would typically have about 50 Truth social posts slandering him and all of the fox news talking heads would be burying him. Yet nothing.
Now ask yourself this. Why would Trump attack Cohen but not Pecker? Here are a couple of theories.
1. Pecker has way, way worse dirt on Trump than this Stormy stuff.
2. Pecker could easily start getting negative stories on Trump started.
1. Ivanka
2a. Underage teenage beauty contestants 2b. Pedo Island vacations