Crime Donald Trump Hush Money Fraud Trial (5/30 Update: Trump Found Guilty on All 34 Felony Charges)

[Hog-train]

Keep repeating the same stupid shit lol.

You didn't hear it on TV? Lol. That's why you use phrasing that is verbatim from half the Republican party that's been doing interviews lmao. "Novel legal strategy" is the exact verbage used by every single Republican talking head at this point. You picked it up from somewhere, because this shit ain't novel and the only people saying that are the right wing grifters that want Trump to win and keep spouting the phrase all over television and YouTube.

I don't watch TV. Why do you keep questioning that. All the info I'm saying is literally in NY Times article I just posted.

WTF just read the article.

 

[Loiosh]

Keep repeating the same stupid shit lol.

You didn't hear it on TV? Lol. That's why you use phrasing that is verbatim from half the Republican party that's been doing interviews lmao. "Novel legal strategy" is the exact verbage used by every single Republican talking head at this point. You picked it up from somewhere, because this shit ain't novel and the only people saying that are the right wing grifters that want Trump to win and keep spouting the phrase all over television and YouTube.

Quit kicking him, he's dead.

 

[idrankyourbeer]

this is a great video explaining things. yale law school professor.

23 minutes, no cliffs. a fresh new youtube account with 66 subscribers. yeah i'm sure that guy's gonna call it down the middle and not just regurgitate nonsensical and whackadoodle republican talking points. i'll be sure to check that out.

what do the legal scholars rudy giuliani and sidney powell have to say on this matter?

 

[CantCucktheTuck]

Keep repeating the same stupid shit lol.

You didn't hear it on TV? Lol. That's why you use phrasing that is verbatim from half the Republican party that's been doing interviews lmao. "Novel legal strategy" is the exact verbage used by every single Republican talking head at this point. You picked it up from somewhere, because this shit ain't novel and the only people saying that are the right wing grifters that want Trump to win and keep spouting the phrase all over television and YouTube.

You lost

 

[king hippo]

23 minutes, no cliffs. a fresh new youtube account with 66 subscribers. yeah i'm sure that guy's gonna call it down the middle and not just regurgitate nonsensical and whackadoodle republican talking points. i'll be sure to check that out.

what do the legal scholars rudy giuliani and sidney powell have to say on this matter?

don't be stubborn lol.

23 mins? ok you don't have watch.

fresh new account?

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1797690905664852220

 

[idrankyourbeer]

don't be stubborn lol.

23 mins? ok you don't have watch.

fresh new account?

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1797690905664852220

oh. a former lawyer. just like rudy, sidney, and jenna.

and a staunch member of team bootlickers is peddling his nonsense. yeah, i'm sure his opinion is worth two fucks lol. i'll be sure to check it out later. right after they get done releasing obama's birth certificate and overturning that election.

 

[nostradumbass]

You putting out the notion this conviction could be overturned because you feel some testimony included some irrelevant details is hilarious.

That's not grounds for an appeal dummy. It doesn't even make sense to argue it is. Why would it be?

Not sure what an "appeal dummy" is, but yes, testimony that has nothing to do with the charges allowed only because it's salacious and might prejudice the jury is grounds for reversal, and has gotten another high profile case reversed by the same court very recently.

Regardless of how interested in old men's penises you are, it is not related to campaign finance nor business records.

 

[Hugh G Rection]

• Homie, Trump falsifyied the documents to [U][B][U]cover up an in-kind campaign contribution[/U][/B][/U]. This isn't complicated at all and is exactly why Michael Cohen had been on TV for 4+ years saying this was going to be an easy conviction for the prosecution. I keep hearing these Republicans clowns go on television claiming this is a "novel legal strategy" which is a hilarious lie. There is nothing novel about it. Every state in the United States has laws against concealing campaign contributions and you have to sign shit that says you understand just that in every single state. And no, the statue of limitations had not passed. The statue of limitations on such crimes was extended under Cuomo, which was absolutely in his power to do so.

Don't regurgitate stupid bullshit you hear on TV, because it makes you look like a dipshit.

If that was the case why didn't the fec charge Trump for campaign violations?
And why was the fec commissioner stopped from explaining why it wasn't a campaign violation in the trial?
Not trying to be a dick.... genuinely curious as I don't understand the intricusie of us law.

 

[king hippo]

oh. a former lawyer. just like rudy, sidney, and jenna.

and a staunch member of team bootlickers is peddling his nonsense. yeah, i'm sure his opinion is worth two fucks lol. i'll be sure to check it out later. right after they get done releasing obama's birth certificate and overturning that election.

leave it on in the background while you're watching brazzers

 

[44nutman]

23 minutes, no cliffs. a fresh new youtube account with 66 subscribers. yeah i'm sure that guy's gonna call it down the middle and not just regurgitate nonsensical and whackadoodle republican talking points. i'll be sure to check that out.

what do the legal scholars rudy giuliani and sidney powell have to say on this matter?

After the Rubes got duped by 2000 mules, they still cling to any opinion that validates their opinion with little to no research. I mean how many times do you need to get burned on the stove, before you stop putting your hand on it.
It has gotten so bad they have resorted to quoting that Pedo Dershowitz because he says nice things about Dear Leader Trump.

 

[AWilder]

You lost

Lmao, cope and seeth loser
Bahahahaha

 

[shockaholic12]

Not sure what an "appeal dummy" is, but yes, testimony that has nothing to do with the charges allowed only because it's salacious and might prejudice the jury is grounds for reversal, and has gotten another high profile case reversed by the same court very recently.

Regardless of how interested in old men's penises you are, it is not related to campaign finance nor business records.

The weinstein case was appealed because those witnesses were not a part of the case.

Daniels was a part of this case. If they had called other women trump had paid off for sex at different times, you'd have a point, but they didn't. I'm not sure why you can't keep up here it's not complicated why these circumstances are different.

 

[idrankyourbeer]

leave it on in the background while you're watching brazzers

no thanks, i'm busy watching some other shit on there. check out the captions and thumbnails:


Angry Orange Felon Gets Fucked By 12 New Yorker's

Devoted Christian Family Man Satisfies A Porn Star

 

[Limbo Pete]

bUt WhAt'S tHe CrImE?

Eating a meal? A succulent Chinese meal?!?

 

[idrankyourbeer]

Not sure what an "appeal dummy" is, but yes, testimony that has nothing to do with the charges allowed only because it's salacious and might prejudice the jury is grounds for reversal, and has gotten another high profile case reversed by the same court very recently.

his shitty lawyers never objected to much of anything during the stormy daniels testimony. and during the opening statements, todd blanche suggested that the defendant denies that the affair happened, which opened up the door for the prosecutors to introduce specific and graphic evidence that the encounter did occur. so have fun trying to raise that argument on appeal teehee!

even the honorable judge juan merchan ridiculed him for that and pointed out their mistakes during the frivolous motion for mistrial that he laughed out of the courtroom immediately afterwards. the lawyers had every opportunity to start calling objections, but they sat on their hands. they didn't have to hear the graphic details about the stormy daniels affair, but instead they chose to tell the jury that the defendant maintains that the affair never happened.

but hey, they don't get a do-over just because they made mistakes. i guess they can try to appeal this case on the grounds of an incompetent counsel and try to get a retrial, but if they have any objections with her testimony they had every opportunity to raise that issue and make their case before the trial and during her testimony, and they never did shit. that's their own damn fault. that was their own choice. maybe get some better lawyers the next time you dip into your campaign funds to try to defraud elections.

the defense shouldn't have even bothered to cross examine her. they didn't even have to mention her name or the affair. but they chose to attack her on trump's orders. todd blanche even admitted that during his post-verdict interview on cnn.

the best thing about it is that the prosecution didn't even need to call stormy daniels as a witness to prove their case. i mean sure the fraudy orange felon got michael cohen to pay the hush money upfront to stormy daniels, but all of those checks from the trump campaign and signed by donald trump were written out to michael cohen, not the whores that the devoted christian family man raw dogged.

 

[Dr Curtis Love]

Eating a meal? A succulent Chinese meal?!?

I didn't even know Stormy was Asian.

 

[FIMN]

Getting a non bias jury pool in Manhattan is impossible. It's overwhelmingly Democrat and the judge is donates money to the DNC.

Judge Merchan presided over the Allen Weisselberg tax-fraud case in 2022 and is going to be the judge in the case against Steve Bannon. Explain how this judge gets to preside over Trump and people very close to him?

Because there aren't that many judges and there are a metric fucking shit ton of crimes committed by Trump's criminal enterprise. There will be overlap.

 

[Hog-train]

Honestly baffled people don't seem to give two shits about the actual even application of the law.

No care about the actual laws. Only that someone they don't like or politically oppose is found guilty at all costs.

That's a dangerous precedent to set because it could be turned around on anybody then.

 

[nostradumbass]

The weinstein case was appealed because those witnesses were not a part of the case.

Daniels was a part of this case. If they had called other women trump had paid off for sex at different times, you'd have a point, but they didn't. I'm not sure why you can't keep up here it's not complicated why these circumstances are different.

No, she wasn't part of the case, which is what you can't get through your head. The case was about BUSINESS RECORDS, not who some hooker had sex with. The existence of an NDA was not in dispute, and the subject of the NDA has no relevance to anything at all, and nothing to do with how paying for the NDA was categorized in quickbooks.

We've already established that you don't know anything at all about the case, the law, and are barely literate, so you just claiming "there's no grounds for appeal" is worth less than nothing. Did you think the lawyers or appellate judges were going to read your karate forum posts and decide "well, there's a guy on sherdog named alcoholic with a air bud avatar who doesn't think an appeal would work, so let's just cancel it"?

 

[FIMN]

Honestly baffled people don't seem to give two shits about the actual even application of the law.

No care about the actual laws. Only that someone they don't like or politically oppose is found guilty at all costs.

That's a dangerous precedent to set because it could be turned around on anybody then.

Life isn't fair for trust fund babies and the politically powerful wahhh

He's obviously guilty and found so unanimously at a trial.

Cry more.