Trump indicted Breaking now

originally posted by: DBCowboy

originally posted by: LordAhriman

originally posted by: Ravenwatcher
And you think this was not rigged just like the election ?

Elections are only fair when Republicans win.

lol

Just for the record then, you trust the government when they tell you something.

Your types are sometimes so cute!

Come on man... when is the last time the government lied

originally posted by: Xcalibur254
a reply to: frogs453

It sounds like each payment to Cohen is being treated as a separate instance. If that's the case, then the falsifying business records charges alone could total almost 50 years.

That still leaves a lot of charges though. My guess is that there's a number of tax related charges in there, but I don't know what the rest could be.

Cohen already testified that he never received payment for his Stormy NDA agreement.

Stormy has already lost the defamation lawsuit.

She also lost the appeal.

Stormy also has said that she never slept with Trump.

So did that change this week?

Or did the mouth breathers just forget?

This is so fun for me to watch....

originally posted by: Xcalibur254
a reply to: Ravenwatcher

How does one rig a grand jury?

Prosecutors rig grand jury's ALL THE TIME. Your comment proves you do a lot of smoke blowing.

a reply to: Lumenari

1. Cohen didn't testify to anything. He pled out before his case went to trial. That said authorities have Trump's books and checks paid to Cohen. He definitely got paid.

2. Tell me the exact nature of Daniels' lawsuit against Trump. Now tell me why it was rejected. Congratulations. Now you know why it has no bearing on this case.

3. Daniels said no affair existed when she was bound by an NDA. She confirmed the affair in 2011 before the NDA existed and her story has not changed since the NDA was pierced in 2018.

a reply to: Xcalibur254

You’ve got everything memorized eh?

Keep dreaming, we’ll wake you up when Trump get elected president in 2024.

originally posted by: Xcalibur254
a reply to: Lumenari

1. Cohen didn't testify to anything. He pled out before his case went to trial. That said authorities have Trump's books and checks paid to Cohen. He definitely got paid.

2. Tell me the exact nature of Daniels' lawsuit against Trump. Now tell me why it was rejected. Congratulations. Now you know why it has no bearing on this case.

3. Daniels said no affair existed when she was bound by an NDA. She confirmed the affair in 2011 before the NDA existed and her story has not changed since the NDA was pierced in 2018.

1. Cohen stated that he never was paid by Trump or any of his businesses for the NDA with Stormy in 2018, under oath.

2. The exact nature of Daniel's lawsuit was actually Trump against Stormy for defamation, which she lost. Her appeal was lost also. The Supreme Court turned down hearing it. She owes him more money than she has.

3. Quote from 2018....

Porn star Stormy Daniels, who has recently made headlines with reports that she had an affair with Donald Trump before he became president, has issued a statement denying that the affair took place.

In the statement, the authenticity of which has been verified with a representative of Daniels, states, “Over the past few weeks I have been asked countless times to comment on reports of an alleged sexual relationship I had with Donald Trump many, many, many years ago.”

The statement continues, “The fact of the matter is that each party to this alleged affair denied its existence on 2006, 2011, 2016, 2017 and now again in 2018. I am not denying this affair because I was paid ‘hush money’ as has been reported in overseas owned tabloids. I am denying this affair because it never happened.”

But hey.. keep posting and I'll keep laughing...

And I just have to say (movie quote with a twist) Did they ever teach ATS lawyers to apologize? Because you SUCK at it.

originally posted by: Xcalibur254
a reply to: Ravenwatcher

How does one rig a grand jury?

By manipulating the jury instructions, say, by ignoring the fact that the crime being considered has a clear statute of limitations that is well past. Next question.

originally posted by: Xcalibur254
a reply to: frogs453

It sounds like each payment to Cohen is being treated as a separate instance. If that's the case, then the falsifying business records charges alone could total almost 50 years.

That still leaves a lot of charges though. My guess is that there's a number of tax related charges in there, but I don't know what the rest could be.

"Tax-related" charges.


That's what finally put Al Capone behind bars isn't it?

Not even murder...Taxes.

a reply to: Mantiss2021

Trump before Hunter?

Ohhhh shi't...

originally posted by: Xcalibur254
a reply to: Ravenwatcher

How does one rig a grand jury?

get one in Manhattan.

they must think

trump is a ham sandwich.

originally posted by: sarahvital

originally posted by: Xcalibur254
a reply to: Ravenwatcher

How does one rig a grand jury?

get one in Manhattan.

they must think

trump is a ham sandwich.

Well,

He's certainly a "ham".

And, to hear him tell it, he's got plenty of "bread"...So.


Yeah.

a reply to: Lumenari

1. The first time Cohen testified about the hush money payments was to Congress in 2019. He testified that Trump knew about the payments and knew what they were for.

2. Daniels sued Trump for defamation over a specific tweet. The lower court judge ruled that the tweet was protected speech and ordered Daniels to pay Trump's legal fees. This ruling was upheld upon appeal. It was not a judgment about the existence of the affair.

3. 2018 was when Daniels was bound by the NDA. She was required to deny the affair or risk a lawsuit. The first time Daniels spoke about the affair was a 2011 In Touch interview. In it she confirmed the affair, provided multiple witnesses that confirmed the affair, and passed a polygraph. The only time she has denied the existence of the affair is when she was bound by the NDA.

a reply to: Xcalibur254
You idiots just elected him in 2024. Be careful what you ask for! Now all former presidents can be indicted!

Morons!

a reply to: PurpleFox

It dont matter whether or not he is a former anything.

Anyone who breaks the law, or who has committed a crime, should be able to be indicted.

Canny have one rule for some and another for Donald Trump.

Stands to rhyme and reason.

originally posted by: Xcalibur254
a reply to: Ravenwatcher

Charging someone when there is sufficient evidence they committed a crime?

I mean, that's not what's going on here. Stormy said it didn't happen herself, she was paid a sum of money with an NDA attached, y'all can call it hush money, or you can call it a settlement, whatever -- this is not illegal to begin with.

What exactly is the crime? "Hush Money" is just a talking point that makes trump look bad.

Either way this is all wagging the dog, fake event for the clown world we live in, but open your eyes and start thinking for yourself.

a reply to: PurpleFox

Why do people think it's upsetting that a former President can be indicted? If they committed a crime then hell yeah indict them. What, just because they were a President they are a Saint or a God? No, they are people. Why should they get away with committing a crime? If the evidence is enough to indict, go for it.

That goes for any of them. I don't have any unwavering cult like support for any Politician.

originally posted by: SentientBunnySuit

originally posted by: Xcalibur254
a reply to: Ravenwatcher

How does one rig a grand jury?

By manipulating the jury instructions, say, by ignoring the fact that the crime being considered has a clear statute of limitations that is well past. Next question.

Not only that, but local courts have no jurisdiction over a campaign finance offense. That's a matter for the FEC, which declined to act on the matter. So, whatever BS charges Bragg has cooked up all stem from an "offense" that his office is not competent to try in the first place. And is beyond the statute of limitations.

This is pure, Stalin-esque "Show me the man and I'll show you the crime."

Hopefully, Bragg finds himself on the receiving end of a similar deep dive someday.

Honestly, that's the only way we're going to get Dems to stop this nonsense. Have the House appoint a special prosecutor, with authority to comb through every tiny detail of the lives of the Clintons, the Obama, and the Bidens. And if any crimes are discovered, any concerns about statues of limitations or jurisdiction can be waved away. After all, that's the world the Dems just created, so that's the one they've got to live with.

a reply to: SRPrime

What exactly is the crime?

Falsifying business documents in the first degree. It also sounds like there may be some conspiracy charges attached. And my own prediction is that they're also charging him for some tax related crimes.

originally posted by: andy06shake
a reply to: Ravenwatcher

Good stuff and about time.

Nobody is above the law.

You ever heard of Hilary Clinton?

a reply to: Quadrivium

The thing is the indictment is for Donald Trump to answer.

Not Hilary Clinton, if she's broken the law, and you have tangible proof, i suggest you present it to the appropriate authorities.

Also whataboutism simply does fly in a court of law, Trump will be there to answer the charges presented against him not other people.