Trump's Trials (4 in all, April 2024)

[pmac666]

full of evil, I am SURE.

[jusplay4fun]

full of evil, I am SURE.

WoW, another silly and impotent response by pmac.

You are evil, p-mac. Why ELSE use the number 666 in your very name? I am sure that was not a random number and that you are THAT ignorant.

The occurrence of “666” is sometimes viewed an invocation of Satan and regarded as cursed.

and
666 is the mark of the beast, which, identifies followers of the Antichrist.

and

In modern popular culture, 666 has become one of the most widely recognized symbols for the Antichrist or, alternatively, the devil.

so you are EVIL, silly boy, pmac.

With that, let me stop reading posts by the silly twins p-mac and p-rat.

[pmac666]

Im sure you know well about impotence.

[jusplay4fun]

A few, p-rat in particular, have not dealt with one issue I posted that is wrong about the NYC Trump case, except that the judge presiding the case gave money to Biden. Saxi effectively dealt with that.

I listed several factors and all that has posted to "refute" my point is simply obfuscation, subterfuge, and drivel.

And, contrary to p-rat falsehood, there was no copy and paste when I made my points. Typical liberal response, do not answer facts with facts; simply distract from the matter at hand.

What is the NYC trial for Trump about? I already answered that, but I will reiterate. Trump paid for silence from a woman (a porn star) to stay quiet. The allegation is that Trump tried to HIDE this expense as "Legal expenses" but in the process, violated Campaign Laws, that the NYC DA Bragg has NO jurisdiction for. So this attempt to hide a crime, is to cover a crime UNFOUNDED by

1) the Feds in charge of election violations, including the FBI, and

2) Braggs predecessor, Cyrus Vance, Jr.

This is the same DA Office that just had their conviction of Harvey Weinstein overturned on appeal. Well done, Bragg. Also, this is the DA who ran his election pledging to "get Trump." Yes, that is JUSTICE in NYC.

If Trump is convicted on these flimsy allegations, the verdict will be overturned on appeal.

All this smacks of election interference by the Democrats who feat their man Biden is too feeble, old, and incompetent to get re-elected. Let's Go, BRANDON..!

To support the points I made earlier, I offer the following, from a recognized legal expert:

Trump’s trial is a stupendous legal catastrophe
Opinion by Alan Dershowitz

Some had asked whether a jury selected in Manhattan, which voted overwhelmingly against Trump, could be fair in judging the former president. But now that we have moved beyond this point, the real problem Trump has is that his best arguments are legal in nature: prosecutors appeared to cobble together misdemeanours and felonies in order to find something with which to “get Trump.”

The underlying crime is seemingly a minor misdemeanour – falsifying business records – which long ago expired under the statute of limitations. In order to turn it into a felony within the statute of limitations, prosecutors will have to show that Trump falsified the records in order to impact his election, thus constituting a federal election felony. The problem is, however, that federal authorities have not prosecuted Trump for this federal election crime. Moreover, state prosecutors have no jurisdiction over federal election law. Finally, we were not even clear, when the trial began, as to precisely which federal election laws the District Attorney was relying on.

I have been teaching, practising and writing about criminal law for 60 years. In all those years, I have never seen or heard of a case in which the defendant has been criminally prosecuted for failing to disclose the payment of what prosecutors call “hush money”. Alexander Hamilton paid hush money to cover up an affair with a married woman. Many others have paid hush money since. If the legislature wanted to criminalise such conduct they could easily enact the statute prohibiting the payment of hush money or requiring its disclosure. They have declined to do so.

Prosecutors cannot simply make up new crimes by jerry-rigging a concoction of existing crimes, some of which are barred by the statute of limitations others of which are beyond the jurisdiction of state prosecutors.

Appellate courts should be able to see through this ruse and reverse any conviction resulting from it. But that would likely occur after the election. In the meantime, however, a conviction prior to the election that might influence independent voters to cast their ballot against a convicted felon.

In addition to the legal problems with the prosecution’s case, there are also some factual weaknesses. Prosecutors are relying on witnesses who have previously lied and whose credibility is very questionable. They should have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Trump authorised the statement in business records that the alleged hush money payments were legal expenses and that this statement was knowingly false. They might also have to prove that the reason he authorised the statements was to help him get elected, not to avoid embarrassment to his wife and children or losses to his business.

If the defendant were not Donald Trump and the venue were not Manhattan, this ought to be a slam dunk win for the defendant. Indeed, this extraordinarily weak case would never have been bought.

I am not a Trump political supporter. I voted for Joe Biden in the last election and I have an open mind about the coming election. But I want it to be fair. Whoever loses the election should not be able to complain about election interference by the weaponisation of the criminal justice system for partisan advantage.

All Americans, regardless of political affiliation, should be appalled at this selective prosecution. Today the target is Trump. Tomorrow it may be a Democrat. After that, you and me. The criminal justice system is on trial in New York. If Trump is convicted based on the distortion of law and facts that we’re seeing, the system will have failed us all.

Alan Dershowitz is an emeritus professor at Harvard Law School

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/opinion/trump-s-trial-is-a-stupendous-legal-catastrophe/ar-BB1m25vc?ocid=msedgdhp&pc=HCTS&cvid=a3685bcc1a894ce9a296414e72530981&ei=62

[pmac666]

Yeah Dersch is a great legal expert while he gets massages on Eppy island.
Funnily hes one of the 4-5 hardcore trumpers Tump always mentions. They are suely totally unbiased. lol
But to be 100% sure we need to ask the opinion of Rudy and Kyle Rittenhouse too to get a full picture.

[jusplay4fun]

More legal opinions:

Ambrosio Rodriguez, a former prosecutor who says he is no fan of the former president, believes the case legitimises Mr Trump's ongoing argument that he is being prosecuted unfairly because of who he is.

Mr Rodriguez argues that the case relies on old allegations, noting that federal prosecutors had investigated and declined to bring charges.

"This is a waste of time and a bad idea, and not good for the country," he told the BBC. "This seems just a political need and want to get Trump no matter what the costs are."

A novel legal approach
The case also has come under scrutiny because it's seemingly built on an untested legal theory.

Mr Trump faces 34 felony counts of falsifying business records. New York prosecutors say Mr Cohen paid off Ms Daniels, and accuse Mr Trump of trying to disguise the money he paid him back as legal fees.

Ordinarily, falsifying business records is considered a misdemeanour - or low-level offence - in New York.

(...)
"Given who the defendant is in this case," said Anna Cominsky, a professor at the New York Law School, "Just a misdemeanour may not rise to the level of criminality that perhaps one would expect someone in Trump's position to be charged with."

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-68737723

[pmac666]

Others disagree. Nick Akerman, who worked on the Watergate prosecution, says it's a serious case.
"This is about an effort to defraud the American voters in 2016 to keep them from learning material information that would have affected their vote," he told the BBC, referring to Mr Trump's alleged efforts to hide payments reimbursing his then lawyer, Michael Cohen.

Hmmm lol
Ya know, opinions are like arseholes....
Guess we need to wait how the judge decides.....

[jusplay4fun]

We have to wait for:

1) the actual verdict;
2) if the trial goes to completion;
3) the likely appeals, also.

This is far from over.

I have quoted at least two legal experts saying that this NYC case is weak one. Let's see what happens, but there are areas for any conviction to be overturned on appeal, as I have already outlined. In the meantime, we can continue to discuss.

and one more SET of opinions:

Legal experts hammer Stormy Daniels’ testimony at Trump trial: ‘Disastrous’ responses will ‘backfire’
Daniels 'may have done damage to the prosecution’s case,' CNN justice reporter says

Stormy Daniels' testimony Tuesday in the New York v. Trump case came under fire from legal experts, with some arguing her editorializing and loathing of the former president damaged her credibility.

MSNBC legal analyst Danny Cevallos said Daniels' testimony turned the trial of former President Trump "into a quasi-sex assault case," giving his legal team an opening for appeal.

"You always ask the question, can you get this information from a less risky witness?" he said.

"Stormy Daniels is one of those witnesses that tends to not just answer the question asked, but add her own editorial. And that is a really dangerous thing, I promise you. The prosecution is sitting at their desk saying, ‘Just answer the question, please. Just answer the question,’" Cevallos continued.

(...)
Daniels took the stand on Tuesday and gave a highly detailed account of having sex with Trump at a Lake Tahoe hotel room that year. Daniels was described in trial media reports as talking fast, making jokes and often going beyond directly answering questions she was asked; Judge Juan Merchan at one point told prosecutors their witness was going into "unnecessary" detail.

CNN legal analyst Elliot Williams said Wednesday that Daniels could have damaged the prosecution's case by revealing she hated Trump, and noted her testimony would be used against them in the Trump team's closing statements.

"I think she may have done damage to the prosecution’s case by virtue of the fact that she just couldn‘t stop saying stuff, and so that’s going to backfire on them," CNN justice correspondent Evan Perez added.

https://www.foxnews.com/media/legal-experts-hammer-stormy-daniels-testimony-trump-trial-disastrous-responses-will-backfire

I know there are those who love to hear from FoxNews here. And I quoted several legal experts above.

[Dukasaur]

https://19thnews.org/2024/05/will-the-jury-believe-stormy-daniels/

After Daniels responded, “Yes,” Necheles followed up: “And you want him to go to jail?”

“During cross-examination, an attorney for Trump tried to discredit Daniels in part by highlighting her public feelings about the former president.

“Am I correct that you hate President Trump?” asked Susan Necheles, a defense attorney for Trump.

"I want him to be held accountable,” she said.

Deborah Tuerkheimer, a professor of law at Northwestern University, has studied what she describes as “credibility discounting” — efforts to discredit someone who is marginalized within our society when they come forward with an allegation against a powerful person.

“It struck me that she’s a woman. It struck me that she works in the adult film industry and has a sexual history of her own that tends to be viewed with disrespect,” she said. “And so on the face of it, she’s sort of coming into it with a number of factors that would suggest that she is likely to have her credibility dismissed.”

It's the traditional defense tactic in rape trials of blaming the victim. And predictably, people are forming up sides on that question. Feminist commentators are saying, in essence, that it's shameful that the bar is so high for a woman to be believed, that if a man was on the stand his testimony would be taken at face value, etc., etc. On the opposite side, the usual antifeminist voices are asking why we are so quick to believe her, etc., etc.

Both sides in that debate are missing the point.

This is NOT a rape trial. There is only some prurient satisfaction in hearing the details of what kind of sex acts Trump and Daniels engaged in. He is not accused of raping her. He is accused of falsifying documents to cover up his payments to her. To that end, only the testimonies of the lawyers and accountants and the documents in evidence are relevant. If Trump paid Daniels for sex, or if he paid her because he felt she lacked artistic merit and charitably wanted to buy her some acting lessons, the question is entirely about whether he falsified (or cause to be falsified) the documentation for the payments. That is the crime to be judged.

We can all have our own private nightmares about what happened on the bed. In the end, all that matters is: did he cover up the paper trail, or not.

[pmac666]

We have to wait for:

1) the actual verdict;
2) if the trial goes to completion;
3) the likely appeals, also.

This is far from over.

I have quoted at least two legal experts saying that this NYC case is weak one. Let's see what happens, but there are areas for any conviction to be overturned on appeal, as I have already outlined. In the meantime, we can continue to discuss.

and one more SET of opinions:

Legal experts hammer Stormy Daniels’ testimony at Trump trial: ‘Disastrous’ responses will ‘backfire’
Daniels 'may have done damage to the prosecution’s case,' CNN justice reporter says

Stormy Daniels' testimony Tuesday in the New York v. Trump case came under fire from legal experts, with some arguing her editorializing and loathing of the former president damaged her credibility.

MSNBC legal analyst Danny Cevallos said Daniels' testimony turned the trial of former President Trump "into a quasi-sex assault case," giving his legal team an opening for appeal.

"You always ask the question, can you get this information from a less risky witness?" he said.

"Stormy Daniels is one of those witnesses that tends to not just answer the question asked, but add her own editorial. And that is a really dangerous thing, I promise you. The prosecution is sitting at their desk saying, ‘Just answer the question, please. Just answer the question,’" Cevallos continued.

(...)
Daniels took the stand on Tuesday and gave a highly detailed account of having sex with Trump at a Lake Tahoe hotel room that year. Daniels was described in trial media reports as talking fast, making jokes and often going beyond directly answering questions she was asked; Judge Juan Merchan at one point told prosecutors their witness was going into "unnecessary" detail.

CNN legal analyst Elliot Williams said Wednesday that Daniels could have damaged the prosecution's case by revealing she hated Trump, and noted her testimony would be used against them in the Trump team's closing statements.

"I think she may have done damage to the prosecution’s case by virtue of the fact that she just couldn‘t stop saying stuff, and so that’s going to backfire on them," CNN justice correspondent Evan Perez added.

https://www.foxnews.com/media/legal-experts-hammer-stormy-daniels-testimony-trump-trial-disastrous-responses-will-backfire

I know there are those who love to hear from FoxNews here. And I quoted several legal experts above.

Who says its over?
You know, we law and order people let it play out and then we accept the result (unlike some former presidents lol).
A million opinion pieces couldnt change that fact.
But maybe youre not a law and order guy?

Atleast you continue to show who are you playing for when you come around with Dersch.

[jusplay4fun]

We have to wait for:

1) the actual verdict;
2) if the trial goes to completion;
3) the likely appeals, also.

This is far from over.

I have quoted at least two legal experts saying that this NYC case is weak one. Let's see what happens, but there are areas for any conviction to be overturned on appeal, as I have already outlined. In the meantime, we can continue to discuss.

and one more SET of opinions:

Legal experts hammer Stormy Daniels’ testimony at Trump trial: ‘Disastrous’ responses will ‘backfire’
Daniels 'may have done damage to the prosecution’s case,' CNN justice reporter says

Stormy Daniels' testimony Tuesday in the New York v. Trump case came under fire from legal experts, with some arguing her editorializing and loathing of the former president damaged her credibility.

MSNBC legal analyst Danny Cevallos said Daniels' testimony turned the trial of former President Trump "into a quasi-sex assault case," giving his legal team an opening for appeal.

"You always ask the question, can you get this information from a less risky witness?" he said.

"Stormy Daniels is one of those witnesses that tends to not just answer the question asked, but add her own editorial. And that is a really dangerous thing, I promise you. The prosecution is sitting at their desk saying, ‘Just answer the question, please. Just answer the question,’" Cevallos continued.

(...)
Daniels took the stand on Tuesday and gave a highly detailed account of having sex with Trump at a Lake Tahoe hotel room that year. Daniels was described in trial media reports as talking fast, making jokes and often going beyond directly answering questions she was asked; Judge Juan Merchan at one point told prosecutors their witness was going into "unnecessary" detail.

CNN legal analyst Elliot Williams said Wednesday that Daniels could have damaged the prosecution's case by revealing she hated Trump, and noted her testimony would be used against them in the Trump team's closing statements.

"I think she may have done damage to the prosecution’s case by virtue of the fact that she just couldn‘t stop saying stuff, and so that’s going to backfire on them," CNN justice correspondent Evan Perez added.

https://www.foxnews.com/media/legal-experts-hammer-stormy-daniels-testimony-trump-trial-disastrous-responses-will-backfire

I know there are those who love to hear from FoxNews here. And I quoted several legal experts above.

Who says its over?
You know, we law and order people let it play out and then we accept the result (unlike some former presidents lol).
A million opinion pieces couldnt change that fact.
But maybe youre not a law and order guy?

Atleast you continue to show who are you playing for when you come around with Dersch.

pmac was apparently so eager to respond that I guess he did not realize that
1) I did NOT say it was over and that I said
2)

We have to wait

at the very top.

[Dukasaur]

Okay, you both agree it's not over.

See how easy it is to build on a foundation of mutual respect?

[pmac666]

We have to wait for:

1) the actual verdict;
2) if the trial goes to completion;
3) the likely appeals, also.

This is far from over.

I have quoted at least two legal experts saying that this NYC case is weak one. Let's see what happens, but there are areas for any conviction to be overturned on appeal, as I have already outlined. In the meantime, we can continue to discuss.

and one more SET of opinions:

Legal experts hammer Stormy Daniels’ testimony at Trump trial: ‘Disastrous’ responses will ‘backfire’
Daniels 'may have done damage to the prosecution’s case,' CNN justice reporter says

Stormy Daniels' testimony Tuesday in the New York v. Trump case came under fire from legal experts, with some arguing her editorializing and loathing of the former president damaged her credibility.

MSNBC legal analyst Danny Cevallos said Daniels' testimony turned the trial of former President Trump "into a quasi-sex assault case," giving his legal team an opening for appeal.

"You always ask the question, can you get this information from a less risky witness?" he said.

"Stormy Daniels is one of those witnesses that tends to not just answer the question asked, but add her own editorial. And that is a really dangerous thing, I promise you. The prosecution is sitting at their desk saying, ‘Just answer the question, please. Just answer the question,’" Cevallos continued.

(...)
Daniels took the stand on Tuesday and gave a highly detailed account of having sex with Trump at a Lake Tahoe hotel room that year. Daniels was described in trial media reports as talking fast, making jokes and often going beyond directly answering questions she was asked; Judge Juan Merchan at one point told prosecutors their witness was going into "unnecessary" detail.

CNN legal analyst Elliot Williams said Wednesday that Daniels could have damaged the prosecution's case by revealing she hated Trump, and noted her testimony would be used against them in the Trump team's closing statements.

"I think she may have done damage to the prosecution’s case by virtue of the fact that she just couldn‘t stop saying stuff, and so that’s going to backfire on them," CNN justice correspondent Evan Perez added.

https://www.foxnews.com/media/legal-experts-hammer-stormy-daniels-testimony-trump-trial-disastrous-responses-will-backfire

I know there are those who love to hear from FoxNews here. And I quoted several legal experts above.

Who says its over?
You know, we law and order people let it play out and then we accept the result (unlike some former presidents lol).
A million opinion pieces couldnt change that fact.
But maybe youre not a law and order guy?

Atleast you continue to show who are you playing for when you come around with Dersch.

pmac was apparently so eager to respond that I guess he did not realize that
1) I did NOT say it was over and that I said
2)

We have to wait

at the very top.

Oh my, youre a genius.
Just like your orange hero.

[Pack Rat]

[GaryDenton]

If you have to rely on pedophile Dershowitz for your legal opinions...

The case is being tried under New York law and it is not about the hush money.

First: Trump falsified business records. These were not legal fees, as they purported to be, but rather were reimbursements. Check.

Second: There was a conspiracy to help Trump get elected called “catch and kill” in which Trump took an active role. Check.

Third: That conspiracy used unlawful means of payments in violation of federal campaign laws, as two of the conspirators have already admitted. Check.

The game winning part is next at hand.

Did Trump falsify business records with the intent “to aid or conceal the commission” of another crime, in this case NY Election Law 17-152?

At first glance, this might seem more complicated than it is. Trump is accused of falsifying business records in order to hide or further another crime—which itself requires the use of “unlawful” means. So, wait, Trump used unlawful means to further another crime that itself used unlawful means? Isn’t that a “crime within a crime” situation?

As far as some legal experts interviewed by Business Insider are aware, this particular Elections Code section has never been charged before. So there’s no case law on it to help us sort out its scope.

But that doesn’t matter here, because Trump actually isn’t being charged under this election statute. Instead, he’s being charged with falsifying business records. The other crime, the kicker, was already admitted to by Pecker and Cohen.

That means prosecutors don’t have to prove that Trump also conspired to get elected by breaking the law. They only have to show that Trump falsified business records with the intent to aid or hide the existing criminal conspiracy.

People don’t falsify business records for no reason, and juries understand that. Here, the evidence shows that the payments to Stormy Daniels were disguised precisely because they were part of a larger criminal conspiracy, ’fessed up to by Pecker and Cohen, to help Trump win the election. Trump’s lawyers will want to show that the whole cover-up was somehow unrelated, which could earn a serious eye roll from the jury.

After all, such an assertion flies in the face of the testimony from Pecker, expected testimony from Cohen, and importantly the damning electronic trail of evidence around catch and kill. There’s even a text exchange between Pecker and his Editor in Chief, Dylan Howard, that confirms this. As the Pulitzer prize winning team responsible for the reporting behind their book The Fixers reported on the Daniels payout:

Howard then texted Pecker “to let him know that Cohen had agreed to handle the story and leave American Media out of it.” He continued: “‘Spoke to MC. All sorted. Now removed. No fingerprints. I’ll recap with you face to face.’” Pecker replied “‘Great work Thx’”

It will be hard to argue, in the face of evidence like this supported by Pecker, that the Daniels matter and payoff weren’t part of that larger, illegal 2016 election conspiracy.

If prosecutors connect those dots and show ultimately that Trump falsified documents to aid or hide catch and kill, that’s the whole ball game: a home run for Alvin Bragg.

---Jay Kuo

[jusplay4fun]

1) What a legal expert may or may not have done in life does not diminish his legal expertise. Is that how you dismiss his entire BODY of arguments? WEAK.

2) I quote other legal OPINIONS, many from liberal media sources.

3) Wait for the verdict; BUT,

4) Be sure to wait for the appeal process to play entirely before FINAL Judgement.

As I have outlined before, this case is based on

A) A charge that has passed its stature of limitation;

B) Based on a Federal crime that the Feds in charge of enforcing was deemed NOT a crime;

C) NOT prosecuted by the predecessor of the current NYC DA;

D) Prosecuted by a guy who CAMPAIGNED for his job to "Get Trump."

And we wonder if the Justice system is weaponized against Trump? That Democrats have launched AT LEAST 4 more trials against Trump, at the same time, BEFORE the November Election?

AND who is the threat to Democracy?? Look in the mirror, Liberal Democrats.

And the one civil suit Trump lost? The one whose statute of limitation expired, but the NY State Legislature changed the law so that Trump could get taken to court? And where the memory of the accuser is suspect? THAT ONE?? Who is the threat to Democracy and to Justice?

[jusplay4fun]

1) What a legal expert may or may not have done in life does not diminish his legal expertise. Is that how you dismiss his entire BODY of arguments? WEAK.

2) I quote other legal OPINIONS, many from liberal media sources.

3) Wait for the verdict; BUT,

4) Be sure to wait for the appeal process to play entirely before FINAL Judgement.

As I have outlined before, this case is based on

A) A charge that has passed its stature of limitation;

B) Based on a Federal crime that the Feds in charge of enforcing was deemed NOT a crime;

C) NOT prosecuted by the predecessor of the current NYC DA;

D) Prosecuted by a guy who CAMPAIGNED for his job to "Get Trump."

And we wonder if the Justice system is weaponized against Trump? That Democrats have launched AT LEAST 4 more trials against Trump, at the same time, BEFORE the November Election?

AND who is the threat to Democracy?? Look in the mirror, Liberal Democrats.

And the one civil suit Trump lost? The one whose statute of limitation expired, but the NY State Legislature changed the law so that Trump could get taken to court? And where the memory of the accuser is suspect? THAT ONE?? Who is the threat to Democracy and to Justice?

and GaryD said:

The case is being tried under New York law and it is not about the hush money.

It is ALL about the hush money, how it was paid, and was it illegal? If the money were not paid, this case would not exist.

[Dukasaur]

And we wonder if the Justice system is weaponized against Trump? That Democrats have launched AT LEAST 4 more trials against Trump, at the same time, BEFORE the November Election?

Considering how many thousands of crimes he has committed in his life, the fact that a few dozen are finally being prosecuted seems to me like "a day late and a dollar short". He should have been in jail by 2015 at the latest.

I'll grant you that the 2024 election is the reason some of these prosecutors have finally woken from their long slumber and started doing their jobs.

[pmac666]

And we wonder if the Justice system is weaponized against Trump? That Democrats have launched AT LEAST 4 more trials against Trump, at the same time, BEFORE the November Election?

Considering how many thousands of crimes he has committed in his life, the fact that a few dozen are finally being prosecuted seems to me like "a day late and a dollar short". He should have been in jail by 2015 at the latest.

I'll grant you that the 2024 election is the reason some of these prosecutors have finally woken from their long slumber and started doing their jobs.

Also it was NOT launched by "the democrats", that was the DOJ. And its always kinda before an election.....
And whining all day about how rigged everything is(you sound like Trump himself) is not exatly "let it play out".
Curious about "the accepting the result" part should he be convicted. Guess i know....lol

[jusplay4fun]

And we wonder if the Justice system is weaponized against Trump? That Democrats have launched AT LEAST 4 more trials against Trump, at the same time, BEFORE the November Election?

Considering how many thousands of crimes he has committed in his life, the fact that a few dozen are finally being prosecuted seems to me like "a day late and a dollar short". He should have been in jail by 2015 at the latest.

I'll grant you that the 2024 election is the reason some of these prosecutors have finally woken from their long slumber and started doing their jobs.

Because Trump may or may not have committed actual crimes is not a denial of the weaponization of the Justice system by his political opponents to "Get Trump" in these 4 (or 5, counting the concluded civil one) cases.

I have heard allegations of crimes by Trump. I am not sure anyone has produced evidence of actual criminal behavior and actions. Even the one he was convicted of was merely civil (not criminal) and the standards for evidence and what constitutes guilt is set at a much lower standard. One of the more compelling matters of which I am aware is where investors lost money in a deal orchestrated by Trump. Investors know that that deal was a RISK, so no one sued him for crimes.

I suspect that Trump is guilty of shady deals; how else does one do real estate deals in NYC? Do those deals rise to the level of criminal behavior? Show me the evidence.

[Pack Rat]

Trump throws his followers under the bus and then plays victim...quite the sad story.

[pmac666]

Trump throws his followers under the bus and then plays victim...quite the sad story.

He will even charge them for the kool aid. And they will pay it.

[pmac666]

And we wonder if the Justice system is weaponized against Trump? That Democrats have launched AT LEAST 4 more trials against Trump, at the same time, BEFORE the November Election?

Considering how many thousands of crimes he has committed in his life, the fact that a few dozen are finally being prosecuted seems to me like "a day late and a dollar short". He should have been in jail by 2015 at the latest.

I'll grant you that the 2024 election is the reason some of these prosecutors have finally woken from their long slumber and started doing their jobs.

Also it was NOT launched by "the democrats", that was the DOJ. And its always kinda before an election.....
And whining all day about how rigged everything is(you sound like Trump himself) is not exatly "let it play out".
Curious about "the accepting the result" part should he be convicted. Guess i know....lol

A little help.
The DOJ is not "the democrats"
The grand jury is not "the democrats".
The judge is not "the democrats".
The jury in this trial is not "the democrats".
(And it wasnt "the democrats" who fired Catherine Herridge.)

If your not happy with things are running you have to vote for someone who wants to change that system. Maybe you find someone who only wants republicans in the DOJ, as grand jury and as judges for republican thugs (and everyone else i guess). Thats the beauty of democracy even when it sounds a wee bit fascist to me.

[jusplay4fun]

And we wonder if the Justice system is weaponized against Trump? That Democrats have launched AT LEAST 4 more trials against Trump, at the same time, BEFORE the November Election?

Considering how many thousands of crimes he has committed in his life, the fact that a few dozen are finally being prosecuted seems to me like "a day late and a dollar short". He should have been in jail by 2015 at the latest.

I'll grant you that the 2024 election is the reason some of these prosecutors have finally woken from their long slumber and started doing their jobs.

Also it was NOT launched by "the democrats", that was the DOJ. And its always kinda before an election.....
And whining all day about how rigged everything is(you sound like Trump himself) is not exatly "let it play out".
Curious about "the accepting the result" part should he be convicted. Guess i know....lol

A little help.
The DOJ is not "the democrats"
The grand jury is not "the democrats".
The judge is not "the democrats".
The jury in this trial is not "the democrats".
(And it wasnt "the democrats" who fired Catherine Herridge.)

If your not happy with things are running you have to vote for someone who wants to change that system. Maybe you find someone who only wants republicans in the DOJ, as grand jury and as judges for republican thugs (and everyone else i guess). Thats the beauty of democracy even when it sounds a wee bit fascist to me.

Corrections for p-mac, as you are the one who needs HELP:
DOJ is run by Biden Appointees and are THEREFORE Democrats.
The judge gave money to Biden; he is a Democrat.
The jury is from a pool of people who voted 85% for Biden and the most likely Trump voter was excluded. THUS they too are Democrats, at least by a huge majority.
The Grand Jury (and I have served on BOTH in my area) are from the same pool of people AND are likely Democrats, too.

p-mac is 0-4. He struck out of these arguments, as he apparently does not understand:
1) the American judicial system,
2) voting blocks in New York City.
3) You failed to mention that DA Bragg is a Democrat.
$) And pmac was confused about New York State vs. New York City (NYC), as documented earlier.

Please get your facts straight b efore attemping to argue such matters. Here is some HELP for you, pmac:

Alvin Bragg Jr. (Democratic Party) is the Manhattan District Attorney in New York. He assumed office on January 1, 2022. His current term ends on January 1, 2026.

Bragg (Democratic Party) ran for election for Manhattan District Attorney in New York. He won in the general election on November 2, 2021.

https://ballotpedia.org/Alvin_Bragg_Jr.#:~:text=(Democratic%20Party)%20is%20the%20Manhattan,office%20on%20January%201%2C%202022.

more help for pmac:

Source: CNN
CNN
—
Judge Juan Merchan, the judge overseeing Donald Trump’s criminal case in New York, donated $35 in political contributions to Democrats in 2020, including a $15 contribution to the campaign of Trump’s opponent, President Joe Biden.

The political donations are undoubtedly small, but they nevertheless raise questions about Merchan’s impartiality as he has come under attack by the former president as a “Trump-hating judge.”
“While the amounts here are minimal, it’s surprising that a sitting judge would make political donations of any size to a partisan candidate or cause,” said Elie Honig, a senior CNN legal analyst and former federal prosecutor.

According to federal election records, Merchan made the three donations in July 2020 through ActBlue, an online fundraising platform for Democratic candidates and causes.

https://www.cnn.com/2023/04/06/politics/judge-merchan-trump-biden-contribution/index.html

[Pack Rat]

What about the highest Court in the country?

....and you are so concerned about a Court being impartial in New York?

Must make sense to you at the MAGA level. Huh?

Your posts are getting longer and more monotonous jusplay4MAGA