(03-18-2023 02:17 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(03-18-2023 01:58 PM)shere khan Wrote:  

(03-18-2023 12:57 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(03-18-2023 12:50 PM)stinkfist Wrote:  

(03-18-2023 12:37 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  Not going to see me in court, honey. Going to see Trump in court from what it sounds like.

Had Trump not rolled over on Cohen and fked Cohen to keep his ego intact, Cohen has no reason to talk about being a bagman, let alone anything re: Trump.

But, Trump being Trump did that. Again, dead fing stupid to roll the bus over your bagman at the outset in circumstances like this. Not really anywhere being bright there.

No Cohen, not even a misdemeanor case. Let alone being able to make the stretch from misdemeanor to felony.

Really flipping stupid move by Trump 3 years ago to do that.

I have zero opinion if there is a chargeable action here. But The Smartest Man in the Known World pretty much did everything he could to make it easier for the NYC DA to bring it this far.

you misunderstood … along with plenty of his many other ‘foot in mouth’ faux pas, I agree his ‘handling’ was tard … however, engaging such by the state is tard * tard … you can’t tell me you’d charge an ex president in this situation … it’s no different than cous-cous and the ‘three’ … hence, “cya in court, honey!”

nobody wins in this scenario other than the WRH fagoos and >270 + 10A … I’m even giving AM another break…

Trump was an unindicted co-conspirator in the Cohen charges.

Look, I am agnostic about Trump being charged overall. I dont have an issue with the scenario being charged as a misdemeanor -- seems on point with previous applications of the statute.

I think it is a stretch to do a felony charge. But Trump helped them immeasurably by doing his roll the bus over Cohen. Not smart. Pretty stupid.

In short, I dont think an 'ex-president' should or shouldnt be charged simply because they are an ex-president. I think a decision to charge should be based on whether there is probable cause to charge based on the facts, notwithstanding who it is.

We agree

The fact that you have leave off an entire paragraph of opinion and reasoning to get your jack-ss comment speaks loads to you.

You continuously raise the 'jacktard' level bar to new heights. Bravo.

What a pud. Lolz.

Lot of e-peen empty ******* ad-hom talk from Tigger, zero substance. Yeah, that is different. (sarcasm mode off)

A little better. Your focus is improving

Kinzinger just doesn't realize how irrelevant he is. Just goes to show that in America, any clown can get elected if the electorate is asleep or does no research into the candidates.

He's fit for dog catcher. What a loser.

(03-18-2023 03:05 PM)shere khan Wrote:  

(03-18-2023 02:17 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(03-18-2023 01:58 PM)shere khan Wrote:  

(03-18-2023 12:57 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(03-18-2023 12:50 PM)stinkfist Wrote:  you misunderstood … along with plenty of his many other ‘foot in mouth’ faux pas, I agree his ‘handling’ was tard … however, engaging such by the state is tard * tard … you can’t tell me you’d charge an ex president in this situation … it’s no different than cous-cous and the ‘three’ … hence, “cya in court, honey!”

nobody wins in this scenario other than the WRH fagoos and >270 + 10A … I’m even giving AM another break…

Trump was an unindicted co-conspirator in the Cohen charges.

Look, I am agnostic about Trump being charged overall. I dont have an issue with the scenario being charged as a misdemeanor -- seems on point with previous applications of the statute.

I think it is a stretch to do a felony charge. But Trump helped them immeasurably by doing his roll the bus over Cohen. Not smart. Pretty stupid.

In short, I dont think an 'ex-president' should or shouldnt be charged simply because they are an ex-president. I think a decision to charge should be based on whether there is probable cause to charge based on the facts, notwithstanding who it is.

We agree

The fact that you have leave off an entire paragraph of opinion and reasoning to get your jack-ss comment speaks loads to you.

You continuously raise the 'jacktard' level bar to new heights. Bravo.

What a pud. Lolz.

Lot of e-peen empty ******* ad-hom talk from Tigger, zero substance. Yeah, that is different. (sarcasm mode off)

A little better. Your focus is improving

Funny, your ability to actual get something more than puerile shallow ad-hom comments seems to be about the same. Amazing that...

Your posts are the food equivalent of liver and spinach-flavored cotton candy. Thanks for not disappointing us there, Tigger.

(03-18-2023 02:55 PM)shere khan Wrote:  

(03-18-2023 02:37 PM)TIGERCITY Wrote:  In response to Trump's call for protests I wonder how many people will show up and in how many cities. Thousands flooding the streets across the country?

Trumpy Dumpty"s latest truth social appeal for protest

https://imgur.io/a/i9zom4m

Well, most Trump supporters actually work so it wont be like the prog filth deadbeat instant burn and loot riots.

Those jobs sure didnt keep them from the Capitol on Jan 6. Guess you forgot that lil' ol' fact.

There’s a possibility this doesn’t happen as national Dems with skin in the game probably get word privately to the NY DA office that this will backfire big time.

If it does happen, especially trying to make this a felony when it’s not, then it will be one of the biggest boneheaded mistakes ever made.

(03-18-2023 03:21 PM)BigTigerMike Wrote:  There’s a possibility this doesn’t happen as national Dems with skin in the game probably get word privately to the NY DA office that this will backfire big time.

If it does happen, especially trying to make this a felony when it’s not, then it will be one of the biggest boneheaded mistakes ever made.

If Trump made this payment intentionally to help his campaign, it *is* a felony, mind you.

Again, amazingly stupid to throw your bagman under the bus....

So, if "Trump's campaign" had paid one of his children and they he/she paid it would have been ok? Blackmail is Blackmail. No paying a blackmailer off is a felony?

(03-18-2023 03:44 PM)Eagleaidaholic Wrote:  So, if "Trump's campaign" had paid one of his children and they he/she paid it would have been ok?

No. I suggest you look at the facts. Cohen paid off Daniels, and was repaid by Trump. Cohen got popped for the violation many years ago.

Quote:Blackmail is Blackmail. No paying a blackmailer off is a felony?

2008 -- Trump and Daniels do their dirty deeds.

May 2011 -- Daniels gives an interview to the magazine "In Touch" describing her encounters with Trump in exchange for $15,000. Two employees later tell CBS News that the interview never ran because Michael Cohen, Trump's attorney, threatened to sue when the publication asked Trump for comment. Daniels says she was never paid.

Daniels then says she was threatened a few times to 'leave Trump alone' and 'forget the story'.

June 2016: Karen McDougal, an actress and former Playboy model, begins trying to sell her story of an alleged affair she had with Trump in 2006 and 2007. She retains attorney Keith Davidson, who approaches the National Enquirer about a possible deal.

Aug. 5 2016: The National Enquirer secures the rights to McDougal's account for $150,000 but never publishes her story, a tactic known as "catch and kill." Federal prosecutors later say the agreement was meant "to suppress [her] story so as to prevent it from influencing the election."

August and September 2016: Cohen reaches an agreement with David Pecker, the chairman and CEO of the National Enquirer's parent company, American Media, Inc. (AMI), to secure the non-disclosure portion of the company's deal with McDougal for $125,000. The deal between Cohen and AMI is never finalized, but Cohen retains a copy of the draft agreement.

Oct. 8: Daniels is now also represented by Davidson, who tells Dylan Howard, the editor-in-chief of the National Enquirer, that she is willing to go on the record about her alleged affair. Howard and Pecker inform Cohen about the conversation and put Cohen in touch with Davidson.

Cohen negotiates a deal to pay Daniels $130,000 in exchange for the rights to her story and a non-disclosure agreement.

Nov. 4: The Wall Street Journal publishes a report detailing the $150,000 deal between McDougal and AMI. A Trump campaign spokeswoman calls McDougal's claims of an affair "totally untrue," and AMI says it "has not paid people to kill damaging stories about Mr. Trump."

Where exactly is the blackmail?

(03-18-2023 09:06 AM)shere khan Wrote:  

(03-18-2023 08:48 AM)bobdizole Wrote:  Liberals are so scared of Trump becoming president again they are doing everything they can to make him president again.

The SS will escort him to New York, he will be fingerprinted, mugshots, and released to hold probably his greatest campaign speech to date.


Idiots

They are truly are idiots. This is just what Trump needs. I hope they cuff him and perp walk him.

They dont read books, they arent self aware and have a poor understanding of history.

The filth may actually get the insurrection they crave. It wont go as they think it will

Yeah if they thought Jan 6th was an "insurrection" well.... LOL.

Sent from my Pixel 3 using Tapatalk

(03-18-2023 05:08 PM)b2b Wrote:  

(03-18-2023 09:06 AM)shere khan Wrote:  

(03-18-2023 08:48 AM)bobdizole Wrote:  Liberals are so scared of Trump becoming president again they are doing everything they can to make him president again.

The SS will escort him to New York, he will be fingerprinted, mugshots, and released to hold probably his greatest campaign speech to date.


Idiots

They are truly are idiots. This is just what Trump needs. I hope they cuff him and perp walk him.

They dont read books, they arent self aware and have a poor understanding of history.

The filth may actually get the insurrection they crave. It wont go as they think it will

Yeah if they thought Jan 6th was an "insurrection" well.... LOL.

Sent from my Pixel 3 using Tapatalk

My advice is that if you want to talk so boldly about it -- grab a gun and head to the demonstration. I cant think of a better end game (for a lot of reasons....)

Jonathan Turley Destroys the DA's Case Against Trump, It's All About Theatrics

Quote:The timing of the reported indictment about to drop against President Donald Trump can only be called suspicious, given the Stormy Daniels issue has been lying fallow for years, with President Donald Trump now a declared candidate for the 2024 presidential nomination.

It’s about the perp walk and the theatrics. Just like they tried the Jan. 6 Committee prior to the midterms, this is going to be the continuing thing that they will throw out there to attack Trump and the Republicans in the presidential race. It’s about the optics to move the middle/the independents away from Republicans.

But what about the legal case against Trump? George Washington law professor Jonathan Turley called it what it is: “legally pathetic.”

Although it may be politically popular, the case is legally pathetic. Bragg is struggling to twist state laws to effectively prosecute a federal case long ago rejected by the Justice Department against Trump over his payment of “hush money” to former stripper Stormy Daniels. In 2018 (yes, that is how long this theory has been around), I wrote how difficult such a federal case would be under existing election laws. Now, six years later, the same theory may be shoehorned into a state claim.

It is extremely difficult to show that paying money to cover up an embarrassing affair was done for election purposes as opposed to an array of obvious other reasons, from protecting a celebrity’s reputation to preserving a marriage. That was demonstrated by the failed federal prosecution of former presidential candidate John Edwards on a much stronger charge of using campaign funds to cover up an affair.

In this case, Trump reportedly paid Daniels $130,000 in the fall of 2016 to cut off or at least reduce any public scandal. The Southern District of New York’s U.S. Attorney’s office had no love lost for Trump, pursuing him and his associates in myriad investigations, but it ultimately rejected a prosecution based on the election law violations. It was not alone: The Federal Election Commission (FEC) chair also expressed doubts about the theory.

Prosecutors working under Bragg’s predecessor, Cyrus Vance Jr., also reportedly rejected the viability of using a New York law to effectively charge a federal offense.

Why didn’t they bring it earlier? Because they knew that it was a tenuous case at best. They’re only pulling it out of the hat, now that 2024 is about to be upon us.

As Turley notes, even Bragg himself wasn’t hot for this case when he came in, and two prosecutors quit because Bragg was refusing to go along with this. But desperation can go a long way. Turley points out that one of the prosecutors even wrote a book trying to lay out the case against Trump, which Turley said was “shocking” because it was “unprofessional and improper.” But now, Bragg ultimately appears to have caved into Democratic pressure and is going ahead with this charade.

However, Turley also makes another important point when it comes to the question of disparity of treatment here.

While we still do not know the specific state charges in the anticipated indictment, the most-discussed would fall under Section 175 for falsifying business records, based on the claim that Trump used legal expenses to conceal the alleged hush-payments that were supposedly used to violate federal election laws. While some legal experts have insisted such concealment is clearly a criminal matter that must be charged, they were conspicuously silent when Hillary Clinton faced a not-dissimilar campaign-finance allegation.

That was the funding of the Steele dossier, which the Clinton campaign falsely declared as a “legal expense.” The FEC fined the Clinton campaign over that false filing. Not only did her team publicly lie about it, but they also promoted the false Russia collusion claims to the FBI and the media. Yet, where is the action against Clinton or the campaign for prosecution? Strangely missing. Talk about the disparity.

Turley pointed out other issues with the prosecution.

A Section 175 charge would normally be a misdemeanor. The only way to convert it into a Class E felony requires a showing that the “intent to defraud includes an intent to commit another crime or to aid or conceal the commission thereof.” That other crime would appear to be the federal election violations which the Justice Department previously declined to charge.

The linkage to a federal offense is critical for another reason: Bragg’s office ran out of time to prosecute this as a misdemeanor years ago; the statute of limitations is two years. Even if he shows this is a viable felony charge, the longer five-year limitation could be hard to establish.

Of course, none of these legalistic problems will be relevant in the coming frenzy. It will be a case that is nothing if not entertaining, one to which you can bring your popcorn — so long as you leave your principles behind.

“The season opener of ‘America’s Got Trump’ might be a guaranteed hit with its New York audience — but it should be a flop as a prosecution,” Turley declared.

He also pointed out the banana republic look of the action, “The criminal justice system can be a terrible weapon when used for political purposes, an all-too-familiar spectacle in countries where political foes can be targeted by the party in power.”

Of course, we also have to account for the bias of the likely very liberal jury in New York. But, if it’s truly about the law, this case is ridiculous at its base and should go down to defeat.

That’s the thing here. The continuing effort against Trump isn’t about the law, principles, or even convicting Trump. It’s always about power and how the Democrats can win, and they’ve already shown they’re willing to do anything. They may know that they will ultimately lose, and that they might even have to drop the case. But the Democrats want to utilize it to attack Trump.

This may end up galvanizing more Americans around Trump. Twitter head Elon Musk is saying if they go ahead with this, he thinks Trump wins in a landslide. We’re already seeing some of those who were on the fence, now saying they would support Trump because of this action. We’ll have to see, but he just may be right.

Here are the facts.

Robert Mueller investigated Trump over this alleged Stormy Daniels payment and found that Michael Cohen was NOT a credible witness and that there was NOT enough evidence to support charges.

Then, the leftwing SDNY looked into the matter and also concluded Cohen wasn't trustworthy and that there was insufficient evidence to support charges.

Now,
@AlvinBraggNYC
, a Soros funded DA who routinely releases and reduces charges for violent offenders, has decided to elevate a misdemeanor offense (if guilty) under New York Law to a felony to indict Trump.

Bragg knows a leftist NY grand jury will automatically vote indict regardless of the evidence and the legal basis for doing so.

Anyone screaming about the "rule of law" is lying to you about what is actually transpiring.

They are cheering on a blatant and politically motivated act of prosecutorial misconduct all because of their personal hatred for President Trump.

Using the courts to harass and imprison your political enemies, is NOT how you "save democracy. It's how you destroy your republic forever.

They ALWAYS overplay their hand.

Sent from my Pixel 3 using Tapatalk

(03-18-2023 05:21 PM)CrimsonPhantom Wrote:  Jonathan Turley Destroys the DA's Case Against Trump, It's All About Theatrics

Quote:The timing of the reported indictment about to drop against President Donald Trump can only be called suspicious, given the Stormy Daniels issue has been lying fallow for years, with President Donald Trump now a declared candidate for the 2024 presidential nomination.

It’s about the perp walk and the theatrics. Just like they tried the Jan. 6 Committee prior to the midterms, this is going to be the continuing thing that they will throw out there to attack Trump and the Republicans in the presidential race. It’s about the optics to move the middle/the independents away from Republicans.

But what about the legal case against Trump? George Washington law professor Jonathan Turley called it what it is: “legally pathetic.”

Although it may be politically popular, the case is legally pathetic. Bragg is struggling to twist state laws to effectively prosecute a federal case long ago rejected by the Justice Department against Trump over his payment of “hush money” to former stripper Stormy Daniels. In 2018 (yes, that is how long this theory has been around), I wrote how difficult such a federal case would be under existing election laws. Now, six years later, the same theory may be shoehorned into a state claim.

It is extremely difficult to show that paying money to cover up an embarrassing affair was done for election purposes as opposed to an array of obvious other reasons, from protecting a celebrity’s reputation to preserving a marriage. That was demonstrated by the failed federal prosecution of former presidential candidate John Edwards on a much stronger charge of using campaign funds to cover up an affair.

In this case, Trump reportedly paid Daniels $130,000 in the fall of 2016 to cut off or at least reduce any public scandal. The Southern District of New York’s U.S. Attorney’s office had no love lost for Trump, pursuing him and his associates in myriad investigations, but it ultimately rejected a prosecution based on the election law violations. It was not alone: The Federal Election Commission (FEC) chair also expressed doubts about the theory.

Prosecutors working under Bragg’s predecessor, Cyrus Vance Jr., also reportedly rejected the viability of using a New York law to effectively charge a federal offense.

Why didn’t they bring it earlier? Because they knew that it was a tenuous case at best. They’re only pulling it out of the hat, now that 2024 is about to be upon us.

As Turley notes, even Bragg himself wasn’t hot for this case when he came in, and two prosecutors quit because Bragg was refusing to go along with this. But desperation can go a long way. Turley points out that one of the prosecutors even wrote a book trying to lay out the case against Trump, which Turley said was “shocking” because it was “unprofessional and improper.” But now, Bragg ultimately appears to have caved into Democratic pressure and is going ahead with this charade.

However, Turley also makes another important point when it comes to the question of disparity of treatment here.

While we still do not know the specific state charges in the anticipated indictment, the most-discussed would fall under Section 175 for falsifying business records, based on the claim that Trump used legal expenses to conceal the alleged hush-payments that were supposedly used to violate federal election laws. While some legal experts have insisted such concealment is clearly a criminal matter that must be charged, they were conspicuously silent when Hillary Clinton faced a not-dissimilar campaign-finance allegation.

That was the funding of the Steele dossier, which the Clinton campaign falsely declared as a “legal expense.” The FEC fined the Clinton campaign over that false filing. Not only did her team publicly lie about it, but they also promoted the false Russia collusion claims to the FBI and the media. Yet, where is the action against Clinton or the campaign for prosecution? Strangely missing. Talk about the disparity.

Turley pointed out other issues with the prosecution.

A Section 175 charge would normally be a misdemeanor. The only way to convert it into a Class E felony requires a showing that the “intent to defraud includes an intent to commit another crime or to aid or conceal the commission thereof.” That other crime would appear to be the federal election violations which the Justice Department previously declined to charge.

The linkage to a federal offense is critical for another reason: Bragg’s office ran out of time to prosecute this as a misdemeanor years ago; the statute of limitations is two years. Even if he shows this is a viable felony charge, the longer five-year limitation could be hard to establish.

Of course, none of these legalistic problems will be relevant in the coming frenzy. It will be a case that is nothing if not entertaining, one to which you can bring your popcorn — so long as you leave your principles behind.

“The season opener of ‘America’s Got Trump’ might be a guaranteed hit with its New York audience — but it should be a flop as a prosecution,” Turley declared.

He also pointed out the banana republic look of the action, “The criminal justice system can be a terrible weapon when used for political purposes, an all-too-familiar spectacle in countries where political foes can be targeted by the party in power.”

Of course, we also have to account for the bias of the likely very liberal jury in New York. But, if it’s truly about the law, this case is ridiculous at its base and should go down to defeat.

That’s the thing here. The continuing effort against Trump isn’t about the law, principles, or even convicting Trump. It’s always about power and how the Democrats can win, and they’ve already shown they’re willing to do anything. They may know that they will ultimately lose, and that they might even have to drop the case. But the Democrats want to utilize it to attack Trump.

This may end up galvanizing more Americans around Trump. Twitter head Elon Musk is saying if they go ahead with this, he thinks Trump wins in a landslide. We’re already seeing some of those who were on the fence, now saying they would support Trump because of this action. We’ll have to see, but he just may be right.

Here are the facts.

Robert Mueller investigated Trump over this alleged Stormy Daniels payment and found that Michael Cohen was NOT a credible witness and that there was NOT enough evidence to support charges.

Then, the leftwing SDNY looked into the matter and also concluded Cohen wasn't trustworthy and that there was insufficient evidence to support charges.

Now,
@AlvinBraggNYC
, a Soros funded DA who routinely releases and reduces charges for violent offenders, has decided to elevate a misdemeanor offense (if guilty) under New York Law to a felony to indict Trump.

Bragg knows a leftist NY grand jury will automatically vote indict regardless of the evidence and the legal basis for doing so.

Anyone screaming about the "rule of law" is lying to you about what is actually transpiring.

They are cheering on a blatant and politically motivated act of prosecutorial misconduct all because of their personal hatred for President Trump.

Using the courts to harass and imprison your political enemies, is NOT how you "save democracy. It's how you destroy your republic forever.

I’ll take John’s reasoning over Tanq’s. Makes much more sense and is not influenced by unreasoned hatred of all things Trump.

BTW, who is going to arrest Donald J Trump? The sheriff of the county of his residence at ML? If so, will he-she ignore the warrant? I find it hard to believe that a straight up sheriff would arrest Trump on these charges from a liberal Soros DA in NYC.

Pelosi, Dems calls Trump's arrest warning 'reckless,' accuse him of fomenting 'unrest'

Billy Baldwin Taunts Protesters Outraged About Coming Trump Arrest: ‘It Will Be Over in Two Ashli Babbitt’s’

Quote:Billy Baldwin, the second-youngest of the Baldwin brothers, had an expletive-laden warning for any protesters set to be inflamed by the expected arrest of former President Donald J. Trump.

Baldwin taunted MAGA nation in a post on Saturday:

“’Protest, take our nation back!’ Trump inciting violence againm” Baldwin tweeted. “Any uprising by the Gravy Seals will be over in 2 Ashli Babbitt’s or better known as… a half a Scaramucci. **** around…”

Ashli Babbitt is the Trump supporter who was shot and killed by Capitol Police Officer Michael Byrd on January 6. Babbitt was the only person to be provably killed during the Capitol Riots. Michael Byrd was never charged over the incident.

Baldwin continued to express his thoughts about the upcoming Trump indictment and arrest, should it be carried out as expected.

In a now-deleted tweet, Baldwin claimed that while the Capitol Police and National Guard were not prepared for January 6, they would be prepared this time for Trump’s arrest.

“He incited a violent and deadly insurrection,” he added. “Some died and many have gone to prison as a result. He’s doing it again because he knows he’s about to be indicted. Is Donald Trump really the hill you want to die on?”

GOP Chairwoman Releases Weak Statement but Won’t Mention Trump by Name After Democrats Announce Plans to Arrest Leading GOP Presidential Contender

Quote:What a farce the Republican Party has become. Their weakness plays right into the collapse of our civil liberties our economy and our civilization.

Democrats are pushing a Communist hell on America with street crime soaring, inflation at dangerous levels, a banking system near collapse, and stolen elections where their candidates are so sure of their selection that they no longer bother to debate. And we have a GOP that refuses to engage or even speak out.

We are losing our country while the Republican Party kneels to the DNC mob.

President Trump announced today he will be arrested on Tuesday and charged by a Soros-funded New York official.

Read: One Way To Keep Your Family Fed In A Crisis

GOP Chair Ronna Romney McDaniel tweeted this:

Ronna Romney McDaniel: From his “Day One” memo, the radical Manhattan DA has made no secret his priority is pursuing his far-left agenda no matter the costs. Major crimes are up 22% in NYC but he is outrageously using his office for political vengeance instead of keeping Americans safe.

This is all the GOP can offer.

They will not support you.

It’s time we all realize this.