Pokebball
-
Posts
3,085 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Gallery
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by Pokebball
-
-
36 minutes ago, L Ron Burgundy said:
Yeah! Every judge in every case against Trump is an activist or corrupt. It's all a witch hunt! He's the only one not corrupt.
Why do you even go here? No one is saying every judge in every case is. This one is and it's so obvious. My point is you and some others can't see this one is purely political. Sheesh, we all need some reasonable senses on politics these days.
50 minutes ago, ChiGoose said:
On what issue do you believe Trump’s team will be successful on appeal?I've stated it a few times and I'm not going to repeat myself over and over with you.
-
1
-
-
11 hours ago, L Ron Burgundy said:
My favorite posts round here are the ones certain this is all a sham yet clearly do not comprehend any of this. (Not to say I did before you explained it)
Agree, it's clearly political and some of you on this board do not comprehend any of it
1 hour ago, ChiGoose said:
It’s actually not. The prosecution has put on a pretty strong case.The case is very weak and is relying totally on activist prosecution, judge and jury. The case has no chance of winning on appeal, if these partisans in the case decide against Trump. None
-
2
-
-
1 hour ago, BillStime said:
The only people upset about DEI are the sheep who wear red hats.need some equity for them blue hats
-
1
-
-
1 hour ago, Joe Ferguson forever said:
no, but booking a hush money payoff as a legal expense is. If I booked a cruise as a continuing medical expense but there was no actual CME available on the ship, that would be illegal, right?
he used his own money protect his campaign. Not illegal unless it wasn't declared as such, which it wasn't.
You're wrong on both.
-
7 minutes ago, Joe Ferguson forever said:
my understanding is that it's biz fraud. i think they've proven that with cancelled checks and a note from weisenberg.
NDAs aren't fraud
6 minutes ago, ChiGoose said:
Violation of election laws for an undisclosed contribution. The intent to conceal to avoid disclosure to the FEC is a crime.They didn't use campaign funds, so no.
It's clear you guys are talking shyt, IMO
-
1
-
1
-
-
34 minutes ago, Joe Ferguson forever said:
the point is that he was protecting the campaign. Was it 50/50? Doesn't matter if some of his motivation was the campaign. Interestingly, Melania's close aide quoted her with "I know who I married" in ref to the porn star fling. Hope Hicks also said this on the stand:
But when asked if Trump was also worried about the story’s impact on the campaign, Hicks responded that everything they spoke about during that time was viewed through the lens of the campaign. Trump would often asking her, “How is it playing?” as a way of gauging how his appearances, speeches and policies were landing with voters, she said. Source AP.
My understanding is NY needs to prove an intent to conceal AND that it was done to hide another crime. What is the other crime?
-
1
-
1
-
-
51 minutes ago, BillsFanNC said:
LOL
While American voters are dumb, they're not this dumb. Anyone with two brain cells to rub together sees this is entirely political
-
1
-
1
-
-
3 minutes ago, Tiberius said:
Biden is just taunting Trump. He is laughing at the orange clown
It's easy to taunt when you're doing if from your basement
-
1
-
1
-
-
1 hour ago, The Frankish Reich said:
He also settled a lawsuit alleging collusion by NFL owners, and walked away with a good chunk of change. One can only infer that the NFL's lawyers saw a significant risk that he could prove collusion.
But the larger point: people will criticize Butker and Aaron Rodgers, etc., but they will suffer no adverse consequences to their careers.
That's the only thing a person can infer? My inference is that the NFL didn't want to go to court and worked a settlement for marketing reasons.
-
12 minutes ago, ChiGoose said:
They already did.Though cross of Cohen is ongoing and will continue on Thursday.
Yeah, I didn't say that well. I, of course meant Cohen this afternoon.
-
1
-
-
2 minutes ago, Doc said:
The prosecution's last 3 witnesses were absolutely devastating for them.
wait until they go under cross examination
-
19 minutes ago, Beast said:
This makes absolutely no sense. Is it a joke? If so, I don't get it.
-
11 minutes ago, All_Pro_Bills said:
There's no such law about NDA's and political campaigns. If there was it would fall under the jurisdiction of the Federal Election Commission which declined to get involved and not jerk-water NY state court. Why have an NDA if you are required to disclose its existence?
Bragg has kept the "crime" muddy, murkey and squishy intentionally. He wants to be able to pivot mid trial.
-
1
-
-
4 minutes ago, ChiGoose said:
He’s definitely a problematic witness for the prosecution. Which is why they saved him for later so they could have other witnesses provide evidence for what he’s going to testify about.
If most of what he says was already backed by other witnesses, they jury may find him credible. If not, or if he goes off like Stormy did at the beginning of her testimony, they might not. After all, basically everyone who has testified about Cohen so far has said he’s a POS.
Ultimately, I think the weight of the evidence strongly points to Trump both being involved in the payments and that the purpose was to help the campaign.
Trump can always testify to the contrary but him taking the stand would be a terrible idea.
So you might believe Cohen? Interesting
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
-
2 minutes ago, ChiGoose said:
And here’s testimony claiming that Trump told him the story would be bad for the campaign:And here’s Trump saying it would be bad for his campaign and Cohen should work with ***** to fix it
Yes, if the purpose of the NDA is to benefit the campaign.You believe Cohen?
-
1
-
-
5 minutes ago, BillStime said:
From the horses mouth - how do you square this @JaCrispy?
— 'just be prepared, there's going to be a lot of women coming forward'."
He meant a lot of liberal white women
-
39 minutes ago, ChiGoose said:
Well, wishing isn’t really an effective policy.Tell your liberal DAs
-
1
-
-
6 hours ago, Tiberius said:
No, you just showed how you hate nice women. Sad
Hate is an emotion 😁
-
5 minutes ago, Tiberius said:
Liberal women are very emotional thinkers
fixed it for you
-
22 minutes ago, BillStime said:
Integrity means absolutely nothing to the cult.
Can someone please explain to me why the lefty MSM feels so threatened by Noem? Goodness gracious!
-
9 minutes ago, BillsFanNC said:
Again, there's no greater confirmation that I'm dead right than having communists like the King, Lron or 4tn saying that I'm wrong.
Love. It.
While I get the volleying back and forth between you and they. whining about whining is a double negative IMO
-
12 hours ago, L Ron Burgundy said:
Yeah you know "somethings up" when he posted last to 6 topics in a row. All rage filled nonsense or Woe is me, everything is unfair crying. I thought libs had the whiners?
sheesh, quit your whining already!
-
1
-
-
52 minutes ago, ChiGoose said:
That’s what happened. If you think that Hunter should be prosecuted for contempt, you should be mad at the GOP for not holding a floor vote on sending the contempt motion to the DoJ.Biden's are above the law
-
1
-
-
10 minutes ago, ChiGoose said:
In case anyone is wondering how contempt generally works in the House:
A committee subpoenas someone to testify. They refuse. The committee then votes to send a finding of contempt to the floor. The entire House votes on the contempt motion. If it succeeds, the House refers it to the DoJ.
Both Bannon and Navarro (as well as Dan Scavino and I think at least one other person) refused to testify to the Jan 6 committee. The committee voted to hold them in contempt and sent it to the whole House. The House then voted to refer the charges to the DoJ who filed charges against Bannon and Navarro (but notably not against everybody who was referred).
Hunter Biden refused a subpoena to testify so the House committee voted to hold him in contempt. Before a floor vote was scheduled, Hunter re-engaged the committee to negotiate his appearance. They held off on sending the contempt motion to the floor and were able to get Hunter to come in and testify, negating the need to hold the floor vote.
It’s not some biased deep state thing. Hunter just decided to eventually do the smart thing at the last minute and testify before the entire House could hold him in contempt.
How contempt "generally works"? You're kidding right?
Election Interference | Donald Trump + Stormy Daniels hush money case - GUILTY
in Politics, Polls, and Pundits
Posted
Ha?