March 31, 20233 yr 23 minutes ago, lynched1 said: An hour to redo a set of brakes is good time. A beer does sound like a good idea.... Good thing you didn't mix up the brake fluid and Miller lite. Again.
March 31, 20233 yr 13 minutes ago, JohnSnowsHair said: Good thing you didn't mix up the brake fluid and Miller lite. Again. hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha
March 31, 20233 yr 1 hour ago, JohnSnowsHair said: Good thing you didn't mix up the brake fluid and Miller lite. Again. STFU. You're barely qualified to put gas in your car. Have you considered life in Jersey?
March 31, 20233 yr 1 hour ago, Paul852 said: Have a few more and you might change your mind. LSD couldn't make that happen.
March 31, 20233 yr 3 minutes ago, lynched1 said: LSD couldn't make that happen. Whatever you say, buddy.
April 2, 20233 yr Oh, so Trump is innocent of the charges? He didn't falsify business records to cover up payments to a porn star? There was once a time being guilty of either would have been disqualifying. Yet he is the clear frontrunner for Republicans in 2024 despite this and many other known and indisputable behaviors that should keep him far from public office - if not in prison. We know he paid off a porn star. Question is whether be broke the law trying to cover up the payment. Bragg declined to prosecute a year ago, you Trump cucks better hope the decision to prosecute now isn't because they have enough evidence to make it airtight.
April 2, 20233 yr Author 44 minutes ago, JohnSnowsHair said: Oh, so Trump is innocent of the charges? He didn't falsify business records to cover up payments to a porn star? There was once a time being guilty of either would have been disqualifying. Yet he is the clear frontrunner for Republicans in 2024 despite this and many other known and indisputable behaviors that should keep him far from public office - if not in prison. We know he paid off a porn star. Question is whether be broke the law trying to cover up the payment. Bragg declined to prosecute a year ago, you Trump cucks better hope the decision to prosecute now isn't because they have enough evidence to make it airtight. Tell me, how do you know what he was charged with? There was no indictment released to the public, and grand jury proceedings are supposed to be secret. If you actually do know the charges, somebody is guilty of a felony for violating grand jury secrecy. Think criminal charges will be filed?
April 2, 20233 yr 8 hours ago, Procus said: Tell me, how do you know what he was charged with? There was no indictment released to the public, and grand jury proceedings are supposed to be secret. If you actually do know the charges, somebody is guilty of a felony for violating grand jury secrecy. Think criminal charges will be filed?
April 2, 20233 yr 9 hours ago, Procus said: Tell me, how do you know what he was charged with? There was no indictment released to the public, and grand jury proceedings are supposed to be secret. If you actually do know the charges, somebody is guilty of a felony for violating grand jury secrecy. Think criminal charges will be filed? I know because I've been paying attention. Paying off a porn star isn't a crime. So despite what the apologists on Fox News and elsewhere are claiming, he's not being prosecuted for that. He's being prosecuted for falsifying business records to cover up the payoff of the porn star. The open question is whether included in the charges is use of campaign funds to do so. THAT would be a BIG charge. But I'm not certain that would come out of the Manhattan DA's office unless specific local laws were broken.
April 2, 20233 yr 10 hours ago, Procus said: Tell me, how do you know what he was charged with? There was no indictment released to the public, and grand jury proceedings are supposed to be secret. If you actually do know the charges, somebody is guilty of a felony for violating grand jury secrecy. Think criminal charges will be filed? 12 hours ago, Procus said: 😂😂😂
April 2, 20233 yr The indictment is going to be unsealed on Tuesday. Then we can debate whether the charges are bogus or not.
April 2, 20233 yr Author 59 minutes ago, JohnSnowsHair said: I know because I've been paying attention. Wrong. You claim to "know", if in fact you really do "know" because grand jury information was illegally - criminally - leaked.
April 2, 20233 yr 48 minutes ago, Procus said: Wrong. You claim to "know", if in fact you really do "know" because grand jury information was illegally - criminally - leaked. Why did they get rid of the confused react? I’ll just have to use this:
April 2, 20233 yr 4 hours ago, Dave Moss said: The indictment is going to be unsealed on Tuesday. Then we can debate whether the charges are bogus or not. Considering he was named as individual 1 in the case where his lawyer already confessed and served time for this crime, we've also heard the tapes where he directed his lawyer to do it, gonna go out on limb and say they aren't bogus nor politically motivated. Hell, if there was actual evidence of Biden, fauci, or any other government figure doing something illegal, put their ass in jail too. Every true American should agree, no one is above the law.
April 2, 20233 yr 9 hours ago, Procus said: Wrong. You claim to "know", if in fact you really do "know" because grand jury information was illegally - criminally - leaked. Oh, so we're back to "the real crime is the leak" excuse for illegal behavior by Trump?
April 2, 20233 yr Author 13 minutes ago, JohnSnowsHair said: Oh, so we're back to "the real crime is the leak" excuse for illegal behavior by Trump? Well, since you are using one of these you must know more than Dershowitz. https://upnorthlive.com/news/videos/alan-dershowitz-says-trump-indictment-may-be-one-of-the-weakest-cases Alan Dershowitz says Trump indictment 'may be one of the weakest cases'
April 3, 20233 yr Ah, yes, Alan Dershowitz a man noted for objectivity in his later years I don't think anyone here has argued that the NY case is anything but the weakest of the three cases that Trump is facing. What's interesting is that there is a large enough sample size of pending or likely charges against Trump at various levels of justice to make that consideration. I also think it's hilarious that you criticize people here for discussing it but find it totally fine for Dershowitz to grift about how "weak" a case he hasn't seen any evidence presented on.
April 3, 20233 yr Author https://www.nysun.com/article/as-effort-to-get-trump-ramps-up-are-leaks-from-braggs-grand-jury-a-crime As Effort To ‘Get Trump’ Ramps Up, Are Leaks From Bragg’s Grand Jury a Crime? The protection of secrecy is as applicable to President Trump as it is to anyone else. ALAN DERSHOWITZFriday, March 31, 202313:44:51 pm It is likely that a serious felony has been committed right under District Attorney Alvin Bragg’s nose and he is not investigating it. Under New York law, it is a felony to leak confidential grand jury information, such as whether the jurors voted to indict. The protection of secrecy is as applicable to President Trump as it is to anyone else. We know that the information was disclosed while the indictment itself remains sealed and before any official announcement was made or charges brought. It is unlikely that the leak came from the Trump team, which seemed genuinely surprised. The most likely, though uncertain, scenario is that a person in Mr. Bragg’s office or a grand juror unlawfully leaked the sealed information. That would be a class E felony, subject to imprisonment. It is possible of course that an investigation is underway, but it seems more likely that Mr. Bragg is too busy making up a crime against the man he promised in his campaign to get than investigating a real crime that took place on his watch. In my new book, "Get Trump,” I predicted that partisan prosecutors would try to get Trump regardless of the lack of evidence or law. That prediction has come true. Since the indictment itself has not been leaked — at least not yet — we don’t know its specifics. We do know, based on leaks, that it involves multiple counts, almost certainly involving the payment of hush money to a porn actress. Under Mr. Bragg’s likely theory, Mr. Trump should have disclosed in his public corporate records that he paid the hush money to avoid his adulterous affair from becoming public. But no one in history has ever publicly disclosed the reason he paid money for a non-disclosure agreement. Why would Mr. Trump pay the money in the first place if he had to publicly disclose the embarrassing reason? Furthermore, no one in history has ever been indicted for listing "legal expenses” for setting a potentially embarrassing payment of hush money. Thus, even the misdemeanor allegation involving false entries is unprecedented and represents selective prosecution. It is also almost certainly barred by the two-year statute of limitations. In order to elevate this bookkeeping case into a felony, Mr. Bragg must also prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the reason Trump made the false entry — if he himself did it — was solely as a campaign contribution to help him win his election. If Mr. Trump was motivated in part by his desire to protect his wife, children, and business interests from harmful disclosures, that would not constitute the crime of making an undisclosed campaign contribution. So this too is a stretch. It is a fundamental tenet of American law that criminal law should not be stretched to fit targeted defendants. Criminal statutes must be clear and unambiguous. If there is any doubt, the age-old concept of "lenity” requires that these doubts be resolved in favor of the defendant. Thomas Jefferson once quipped that for a criminal statute to be valid, it must be so clear that a reasonable person could understand it if he read it "while running.” A nice image! I intend to read the text of the indictment, while sitting, with 60 years of experience behind me. I doubt I will find that it meets the constitutional criteria for "fair warning,” although I maintain an open mind until I have studied it carefully. The important point is that when a district attorney ran for office as a Democrat pledging to get Mr. Trump, who is a candidate for president against the incumbent Democrat, that district attorney must have an airtight case. A weak, questionable, unprecedented, and novel stitching together of two inapplicable statutes, will not, and should not, satisfy the American public that this is not a partisan targeting of a political opponent. ALAN DERSHOWITZ Mr. Dershowitz is professor emeritus at Harvard Law School. He has written 52 books, more than 1,000 articles, and has successfully litigated hundreds of cases, half of them pro bono.
April 3, 20233 yr Meanwhile idiots are heckling DeSantis at a book tour in NY to endorse Trump. I wish he would have responded maybe you can support his bail fund.
Create an account or sign in to comment