Trump should be able to comment on the whole case, not just Cohen.
It just shoes this is a hyper-partisan witch hunt with one goal in mind...and to give you a hint, justice has nothing to do with it.
An interesting TikTok from J. Greenblatt and then editorial on the WSJ (Ira Stoll)
- Thread starter grandhavendiddy
- Start date
It just shoes this is a hyper-partisan witch hunt with one goal in mind...and to give you a hint, justice has nothing to do with it.
stop your crying, the man is a billionaire and has access to the best lawyers in the country, they got oj off for gods sake, if its really a nothing burger, as you and the rest of the sheep suggest, he will walk, easily.
Talking points? You think the timing of all of these cases is a coincidence?
How long has Trump "illegally held classified documents"? Why does Biden get to openly share classified information with a ghost writer (that he took as a Senator and VP) while Trump faces charges for material he declassified before leaving office?
The issues in this case happened in 2016/2017. Why is the trial now? That's 7-8 years - Trump's "delay tactics" haven't been going on for nearly a decade, he tried to get the case dismissed like anyone would.
What has changed in regards to Trump's actions since J6?
The NY financing case predates all of these...and James campaigned on "getting Trump".
You're a special kind of naive if you think this timing is all just happening to line up. These are all lawfare and designed to bankrupt him, keep him off the campaign trail and potentially put him in jail.
And I have no idea how your left wing news missed the fact that Pecker testified that he and Cohen acted alone and without Trump's knowledge on the McDougle payout and when he asked Trump about the Daniels payment he had no clue what he was even talking about. After the fact doesn't matter - if Trump didn't initiate the payments to "alter the election" then he's not guilty of trying to influence an election.
And even if he did, there's no precedent for an NDA equating to election interference. That is a massive stretch, especially when you consider the Daniels story was first published in 2011.
This whole thing is lawfare, and your fascistic tendencies are showing if you can't admit that.
Well said Fatman. @Kalim you should read this for understanding.
Perfect example of your nonsensical writing. Just to disagree with me, you say you don't see how a gag order shows bias. Then in #149 you tell Fatman that Trump should be allowed to talk about Cohen too. A judge shows bias by not imposing a gag order fairly which you just admitted to Fatman. By the way, how much money has Cohen been fined?
Michael Cohen TikTok videos, fundraising stun legal observers: May have 'torpedoed case against Trump'
Michael Cohen TikTok videos, fundraising stun legal observers: May have 'torpedoed case against Trump'
Michael Cohen might have "torpedoed" NY v. Trump before taking the stand by ranting about it on TikTok while fundraising, according to legal observers.
Last edited:
You took this conversation somewhere I didn't want to go. We were doing just fine discussing THIS case but you always go everywhere. I lost interest in continuing this conversation.
You are incorrect about what Pecker said. Pecker testified that Trump "thanked him" and that's why Trump invited him to the white house.
Anyways I disagree with your assertion of events. I don't expect you to do anything but be partisan because you are definitely the "party over country" type. I'm over this convo.
I don't think that anyone should be allowed to attack the jury or witnesses in the private, especially witnesses that are being forced to testify. That goes for any case.
Cohen isn't under a gag order. Now why I say that it doesn't show bias is because Trump got the gag order because he was attacking the jury, judge family and witnesses. The only one attacking people is Trump.Perfect example of your nonsensical writing. Just to disagree with me, you say you don't see how a gag order shows bias. Then in #149 you tell Fatman that Trump should be allowed to talk about Cohen too. A judge shows bias by not imposing a gag order fairly which you just admitted to Fatman. By the way, how much money has Cohen been fined?
Michael Cohen TikTok videos, fundraising stun legal observers: May have 'torpedoed case against Trump'
Michael Cohen TikTok videos, fundraising stun legal observers: May have 'torpedoed case against Trump'
Michael Cohen might have "torpedoed" NY v. Trump before taking the stand by ranting about it on TikTok while fundraising, according to legal observers.www.foxnews.com
The judge did mention that he isn't happy with Cohen actions, so Cohen is close to getting in trouble.
It is not illegal unless you are doing it because you are trying to impact an election.
You gotta know I'm gonna bring receipts brother. I don't just say things.
Cohen executed the Daniels payment on his own and Pecker bought the McDougle story for the tabloid he owned - later deciding not to run it because he was afraid it would hurt Trump. If Trump thanked him later that's irrelevant, you have to find Trump guilty of the action, not his staff or counterparts.
Anything that happened after that doesn't matter - Trump didn't initiate either payment.
And you ALWAYS just run from difficult questions. So run back to your safe space where partisan fascism is perfectly fine.
No one is being forced.
Remember the juror who asked to be removed?
Wow, if you weren't a gator I would say give up we can't help you.
I can't man. Someone from Fox isn't receipts. It also confirms that you "in the tank" for discrediting this trial. Read the actually testimony transcripts like I did. Now THAT would be real receipts.
I am not running, I just know there is no point. You have to know when to "hold em and fold em". When you start going down that right wing propaganda lane, I will "fold em" almost every time BECAUSE it is no longer a good faith debate.
What do you think when FJB and his staff tell everyone the border is closed?
People are being forced, the attorney said that he is "here under subpoena and that he didn't want to testify". Is that not forced to you?
The juror asked out, what is wrong with that? that means that the process worked. They also didn't hold a press conference attacking Trump.
You probably didn't read the link so here's an excerpt and tell me why the Judge shouldn't be fining Cohen if this is a repeated offense. Cohen has had no problem attacking Trump.
ABC News published an article Sunday declaring Cohen’s actions "could be a problem," pointing out that Cohen has chimed in on former National Enquirer publisher David Pecker's testimony, has regularly "railed against Trump," has insisted the jury isn’t "bored" and can profit when followers shower him with gifts.
I am not a defender of Cohen and I agree that he is becoming a problem. The judge mentioned it as well. The problem is, Cohen isn't the defended as @Illegal-shift stated.
You didn’t read anything. It’s 800 pages one page at a time on the NY court website.
Just like you didn’t read the Hir report, that was abundantly clear.
And typical liberal - always attacking the source and not the content. Just want to get you on record - are you saying FoxNews is flat out lying?
Anyone who wants out just has to say they don’t think they can be impartial.
How would you prove that wasn’t true?
No one is being forced.
He’s not fining Cohen because he’s on his side. He wants Cohen to talk.
His daughter has raised $90MM for her liberal politician clients off of the lawfare.
Exclusive | Dem clients of daughter of NY judge in Trump hush-money trial raised $93M off the case
2 top clients of the Democratic consulting firm owned by the daughter of the judge overseeing Donald Trump’s hush money trial raised $93 million in campaign funds since the ex-president’…
nypost.com
That is the lie you tell yourself to justify your inability or willingness to read a transcript. See how you jump to the Hur report (which you spelled wrong). You love to jump around.
Yes I did look through the transcript and I clearly provided info that you didn't even know about. I always provide information that you didn't know.
What you provided was not a source. It was someone's opinion on what was said. You tend to post someone's op-ed or analysis and call it factual or proof. See how I didn't give you Maddow analysis? Because I don't view it as accurate.
You do know the difference between someone's opinion on words said and what someone actually said?
1) Answer the question - is FoxNews lying? He said “Pecker testified that…” - it wasn't a op ed.
2) Post the link you used.
And I’m not jumping around. This is an extremely similar situation- you lying about reading hundreds of pages of content like you’re an authority on the subject.
Good lawd there are some mentally challenged people ITT.
Let me get this straight…
I am supposed to believe that Trump committed this payment misdemeanor which NY elevated to a felony just for Trump despite….
1. Stormy (you know the payee) saying this nonsense never happened. So exactly what did he pay for?
2. Him taking the advice of his own attorney, that already committed perjury btw, and now that same attorney is going to testify that Trump took his legal council, which was illegal?
Good grief some of you mentally challenged individuals TDS is so bad you twist yourselves into pretzels trying to justify your own ignorance.
You know you’re an extremist when a good portion of the party you belong to…admits it’s nonsense.
Get your emotions in check.
Let me get this straight…
I am supposed to believe that Trump committed this payment misdemeanor which NY elevated to a felony just for Trump despite….
1. Stormy (you know the payee) saying this nonsense never happened. So exactly what did he pay for?
2. Him taking the advice of his own attorney, that already committed perjury btw, and now that same attorney is going to testify that Trump took his legal council, which was illegal?
Good grief some of you mentally challenged individuals TDS is so bad you twist yourselves into pretzels trying to justify your own ignorance.
You know you’re an extremist when a good portion of the party you belong to…admits it’s nonsense.
Get your emotions in check.
Sorry not sorry but that's just tough. He has a right to criticize anyone he wants that is involved with the legal process.
Not sure how I feel about calling jurors stupid, that can't possibly be helpful, but you can say any stupid ass thing you want in America as long as it doesn't venture into slander or libel.
I disagree because he is a criminal defendant out on bail.
You know you agree that jurors should be protected, it's ok to agree with me 😄.
I never said that he was lying. I said that more was said then those 29 secs. As you said, it's 800 pages. Link to what? The transcript? I thought you already saw it.
Yes I did read through it, like I did the Hur report. If I said that I read through it and agreed with you then you would believe me, since I don't, you don't. It's very simple.
My biggest issue with you, is that you cherry-pick what you want to hear. Pecker said a lot that can harm Trump and some that can help him. The other witnesses will tell more. Like i said its a puzzle. You'll be a crappy juror. The entire testimony tells the story.
I found the link. That’s how I know each page of the 800 is a separate web page. It would take 100 years to read it and there’s no way to word search the entire thing.
I want to see what link you used. Because you didn’t. And haven’t read day 2 and you never read the Hur report.
And Kalim, I didn’t cherry pick schitt. The order of operations is key to determining guilt here. If Trump didn’t order or make the payments to directly affect the election the case is over.
Protected from physical harm and coercion? Absolutely.
That said when Jurors let clearly guilty people go because of feels or because, reasons, all bets are off.
I don't care if you don't think I read it. I read through this report and the Hur report. Let's dropped this wasted debate because you'll never believe it. This is where YOU need to learn to "agree to disagree".
The puzzle is supposed to show that. You also said that even if he did, it doesn't matter. So you are all over the place. 😄
apropos of nothing at all...
This is the very height of unhelpful jackassery.
Storing transcripts as image files on the server level rather than a searchable pdf.
That said, any particular page of the transcript can be linked directly, if someone wanted to stop playing who read what and actually post factual evidence.
Observe:
THE SOCK LORD IS WEARY OF YOUR SHENANIGANS.
This is the very height of unhelpful jackassery.
Storing transcripts as image files on the server level rather than a searchable pdf.
That said, any particular page of the transcript can be linked directly, if someone wanted to stop playing who read what and actually post factual evidence.
Observe:
THE SOCK LORD IS WEARY OF YOUR SHENANIGANS.
Last edited:
It doesn’t matter. NDA’s executed through attorneys are not illegal. And you can’t prove that they are. And you also can’t draw any distinction between Hillary spending $10MM in campaign funds to create a fake dossier and associated hoax because there isn’t one standard.
And I love how you cling to the lie that you read 800 pages of individual web pages.
It’s just a tad less absurd than your “independent” “researcher” lie.
I’m sorry you don’t have more going for you in life.
Day 2 alone is 802 pages - is what I was referring to.
