BillsFanNC Posted April 2, 2023 Author Share Posted April 2, 2023 10 minutes ago, Over 29 years of fanhood said: I know right preying on women especially 19 year old interns that work for you…? That’s wholesome apple pie stuff as long as pretend you are in the fight against climate change! Politicians that commies support don't live in glass houses. C'mon man! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doc Posted April 2, 2023 Share Posted April 2, 2023 (edited) 29 minutes ago, redtail hawk said: C'mon...even for a reality TV star perv prez, the porn star thing with a beautiful wife sitting at home knitting just won't look good in the history books. BJ and cigar is a good story but not nearly as salacious. LOL! A cigar up the coochie in the Oval Office beats anything Stormy has disclosed. It reads the like the start of a letter to Penthouse Forum. "Dear Penthouse Forum, I never thought this would happen to me..." 21 minutes ago, redtail hawk said: Have you looked at Hillary lately? Better than a 19 yo boy right? but the intern, not something i would do. Maybe when I was a resident... I have no idea what Hilly looking like now has anything to do with what she looked like 25 years ago. Much less what a 19 year old boy has to do with anything. Edited April 2, 2023 by Doc Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BillsFanNC Posted April 2, 2023 Author Share Posted April 2, 2023 (edited) Yup. I'm absolutely shocked media reports failed to mention this. Edited April 2, 2023 by BillsFanNC 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BillStime Posted April 2, 2023 Share Posted April 2, 2023 1 hour ago, Over 29 years of fanhood said: I know right preying on women especially 19 year old interns that work for you…? That’s wholesome apple pie stuff as long as pretend you are in the fight against climate change! Reaching, Mista Independent... On 3/21/2023 at 8:37 AM, BillsFanNC said: Because nothing shows just how fervently someone backs the constitution quite like supporting endless investigations of a person in search of crimes. Nothing like striking out on Whitewater and impeaching Clinton over a BJ. 53 minutes ago, BillsFanNC said: Politicians that commies support don't live in glass houses. 👆 - same clown. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
daz28 Posted April 2, 2023 Share Posted April 2, 2023 If the NY case is basically the same as the federal case, then they've made a massive mistake here. Imagine the defense waltzing in 5 federal prosecutors, with a combined 100 years of experience into the courtroom, introducing them and their credentials to the jury, then asking the simple question of, "why didn't you choose to prosecute these charges?". I can't think of any possible answer they could give other than that they didn't feel that it rose to the level of a crime. Bragg better hope he has EXTREMELY solid evidence and witnesses to overcome what Trump's team is CERTAIN to do. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
T&C Posted April 2, 2023 Share Posted April 2, 2023 Not an us or them question but how can someone be indicted without knowing what it actually is? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
daz28 Posted April 2, 2023 Share Posted April 2, 2023 6 minutes ago, T&C said: Not an us or them question but how can someone be indicted without knowing what it actually is? The grand jury indictment is sealed, and they will present it to Trump at arraignment. It's possible they've already presented it, but doubtful that information wouldn't have been leaked already. It would be wiser for the prosecution to wait. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joe Ferguson forever Posted April 2, 2023 Share Posted April 2, 2023 (edited) 1 hour ago, Doc said: I have no idea what Hilly looking like now has anything to do with what she looked like 25 years ago. Much less what a 19 year old boy has to do with anything. Hmmm...maybe cuz there's been so many gay republican revelations...not that there's anything wrong with that. Lindsey, is that you? Nah, just another macho MAGA... Edited April 2, 2023 by redtail hawk Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
T&C Posted April 2, 2023 Share Posted April 2, 2023 7 minutes ago, daz28 said: The grand jury indictment is sealed, and they will present it to Trump at arraignment. It's possible they've already presented it, but doubtful that information wouldn't have been leaked already. It would be wiser for the prosecution to wait. Thanks... just seems bizarre that someone can be charged with something without knowing what they are being charged with. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doc Posted April 2, 2023 Share Posted April 2, 2023 13 minutes ago, daz28 said: If the NY case is basically the same as the federal case, then they've made a massive mistake here. Imagine the defense waltzing in 5 federal prosecutors, with a combined 100 years of experience into the courtroom, introducing them and their credentials to the jury, then asking the simple question of, "why didn't you choose to prosecute these charges?". I can't think of any possible answer they could give other than that they didn't feel that it rose to the level of a crime. Bragg better hope he has EXTREMELY solid evidence and witnesses to overcome what Trump's team is CERTAIN to do. From what I understand, they also need to argue that this is within the SoL by arguing that he was "continuously unavailable" to NYS. 8 minutes ago, redtail hawk said: Hmmm...maybe cuz there's been so many gay republican revelations...not that there's anything wrong with that. Lindsey, is that you? Nah, just another macho MAGA... There's a whole thread on this.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
daz28 Posted April 2, 2023 Share Posted April 2, 2023 1 minute ago, Doc said: From what I understand, they also need to argue that this is within the SoL by arguing that he was "continuously unavailable" to NYS. There could be a few legal issues, but I'm no expert. Ill wait, and listen to the "experts" after the arraignment. I imagine Bragg's team believes the judge would allow the SoL part. He couldn't possibly be dumb enough to allow the DOJ's office to be the defenses star experts, could he? 6 minutes ago, T&C said: Thanks... just seems bizarre that someone can be charged with something without knowing what they are being charged with. He hasn't been 'charged' yet. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChiGoose Posted April 2, 2023 Share Posted April 2, 2023 2 minutes ago, T&C said: Thanks... just seems bizarre that someone can be charged with something without knowing what they are being charged with. In times like these it’s helpful to remember that there is often a difference between what is disclosed to the parties versus what is disclosed to the public. It is likely that Trump’s lawyers know more about the charges than we do. Of course the talking heads need to fill the airtime, so we’ll have just rampant speculation between now and when the indictment is unsealed. My suggestion: we can assume there is at least one charge of falsifying business records and one other charge of a different crime. Reporting is that there are 30+ charges including at least one felony. But beyond that, just sit tight and wait for the actual indictment to be released before wading too far into speculation and predictions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BillStime Posted April 2, 2023 Share Posted April 2, 2023 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
daz28 Posted April 2, 2023 Share Posted April 2, 2023 9 minutes ago, ChiGoose said: In times like these it’s helpful to remember that there is often a difference between what is disclosed to the parties versus what is disclosed to the public. It is likely that Trump’s lawyers know more about the charges than we do. Of course the talking heads need to fill the airtime, so we’ll have just rampant speculation between now and when the indictment is unsealed. My suggestion: we can assume there is at least one charge of falsifying business records and one other charge of a different crime. Reporting is that there are 30+ charges including at least one felony. But beyond that, just sit tight and wait for the actual indictment to be released before wading too far into speculation and predictions. I'm thinking they didn't give it to Trump yet, because he'd leak it, and then accuse them of leaking it. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChiGoose Posted April 2, 2023 Share Posted April 2, 2023 4 minutes ago, daz28 said: There could be a few legal issues, but I'm no expert. Ill wait, and listen to the "experts" after the arraignment. I imagine Bragg's team believes the judge would allow the SoL part. He couldn't possibly be dumb enough to allow the DOJ's office to be the defenses star experts, could he? There are different ways that the statute of limitations might extend (called “tolling”) including the unavailability doctrine mentioned above. Another is the continuing wrong doctrine. In this Trump case, if the payments to Cohen to reimburse him for paying Daniel’s was in installments, the statute of limitations would run from the date of the last payment. That is, each new payment resets the statute of limitations. So if the prosecution has evidence that the payments to Cohen continued into early 2018, that would be another way to satisfy the statute of limitations. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Buffarukus Posted April 2, 2023 Share Posted April 2, 2023 37 minutes ago, daz28 said: If the NY case is basically the same as the federal case, then they've made a massive mistake here. Imagine the defense waltzing in 5 federal prosecutors, with a combined 100 years of experience into the courtroom, introducing them and their credentials to the jury, then asking the simple question of, "why didn't you choose to prosecute these charges?". I can't think of any possible answer they could give other than that they didn't feel that it rose to the level of a crime. Bragg better hope he has EXTREMELY solid evidence and witnesses to overcome what Trump's team is CERTAIN to do. dont think the point is to get a conviction at all. just a good news cycle who will constantly talk about trump banging a porn star and a media that can now include indictment to the headlines that include impeached and any other key word that is synonymous with law breaking criminal in a headline. (recently indicted) man ties his shoes. takes a walk. just a new little tagline to slant perception win or lose 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChiGoose Posted April 2, 2023 Share Posted April 2, 2023 Just now, daz28 said: I'm thinking they didn't give it to Trump yet, because he'd leak it, and then accuse them of leaking it. I think that is a pretty solid assumption. They may have provided his attorneys with a summary (i.e. “We are looking at five charges of X, three of Y, etc.). In any case, we’ll all know on Tuesday. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
daz28 Posted April 2, 2023 Share Posted April 2, 2023 10 minutes ago, BillStime said: This just means that the script is already written, without any intent to focus on the actual charges and evidence. Very predictable. Heck, they could just read it tonight, because it's going to be exactly what he's already tweeted reiterated, plus a talking point or two that's been added. I seriously hope the judge puts a lid on the nonsense aspect of this fast. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChiGoose Posted April 2, 2023 Share Posted April 2, 2023 (edited) 2 minutes ago, Buffarukus said: dont think the point is to get a conviction at all. just a good news cycle who will constantly talk about trump banging a porn star and a media that can now include indictment to the headlines that include impeached and any other key word that is synonymous with law breaking criminal in a headline. (recently indicted) man ties his shoes. takes a walk. just a new little tagline to slant perception win or lose Bringing a charge against the former president of the United States on a case you expect to lose would be a profoundly stupid thing for anyone to do. Seems incredibly unlikely. Edited April 2, 2023 by ChiGoose 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
daz28 Posted April 2, 2023 Share Posted April 2, 2023 4 minutes ago, Buffarukus said: dont think the point is to get a conviction at all. just a good news cycle who will constantly talk about trump banging a porn star and a media that can now include indictment to the headlines that include impeached and any other key word that is synonymous with law breaking criminal in a headline. (recently indicted) man ties his shoes. takes a walk. just a new little tagline to slant perception win or lose I think they realize that both sides are so firmly entrenched, that neither is even interested in that kind of theater anymore. At this point the media isn't swaying independents anymore. If there's anything political about it, it's probably that they want to keep Trump busy in court, rather than running a campaign. If that's true, then dirty politics just got dirtier. I really don't fear the rogue prosecutor thing, though. It won't do anyone's reputation any good to lose, and these rich politicians have stolen enough money from us to have a defense, that we could only dream of. No sympathy for them there, and it might be refreshing if they actually cared about getting caught and prosecuted. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts