It was extremely stupid and probably technically a misdemeanor but a felony seems farfetched.   First offence non violent crime... there's a legal term for it.... "diddly squat," I think

Remember when they had Trump on Russian collusion? Based on the Steele dossier?

The Steele dossier read like a poorly written spy novel.

Remember when when they were going to get on tax fraud?

They have his tax returns. Crickets!

Now it's he paid hush money and the money allegedly came from campaign funds.

Most these times money is paid the parties involved do not admit guilt.  A nondisclosure agreement was signed.

I'm sure the biggest donor to his campaign would be upset. But Trump was the biggest campaign donor in the 2016 election to his campaign.

This is to keep Trump off the campaign trail. Because Joe can't campaign with out looking like a total idiot.

That's rich from a hog lover.

and then there is the statute of limitations

Optional.

It's weird they always take that line out context and not quote the whole thing?

Nah it's not weird, it's just N_Ts doing what N_Ts do best.

Listening to you opine about what is attractive...

Not even that. They're saying that the payoffs were campaign expenses and he didn't declare them, therefore he falsified business records to conceal a crime (not declaring them as campaign expenses) which is a rather more serious offense in NY than mis-declaring campaign expenses.

But if they said that people would get that it's ridiculous.

However, if those payoffs were campaign expenses then Hilary paying for the Steele dossier was a campaign expenses and she's guilty of exactly the same thing...

Ted Kennedy had a way of dealing with embarrassing affairs.

Funny how the judge won't air the trial live so the public can see. Instead they are letting the MSM report on it. Even Trump called for it to be televised Live and has been denied.

Looks like hush money payments are taxable.

Wonder of those women declared them as income?????


https://thedailycpa.com/are-settlements-from-a-non-disclosure-agreements-taxable/

Trump arrived to court with his deputy communications chief Margo Martin.














Margo, an Oklahoma native, previously served as the Deputy Director of Communications for Trump's Save America PAC and served as his press assistant during his time in office












Link

More than FIFTY of the first 96 jurors in the Trump hush money trial are excused after admitting they CAN'T be fair or impartial


More than 50 of the first 96 potential jurors in the Donald Trump trial were excused on Monday afternoon after admitting they couldn't be impartial in the first criminal trial of a former president in history.

The first batch of Manhattan residents were brought into the court and sworn in to see if they qualified for the panel that will decide the fate of the presumptive Republican nominee for president.

As they walked in they strained to catch a glimpse of the high-profile defendant and one woman appeared to giggle.

Those chosen will ultimately vote on if the 77-year-old is guilty or not guilty of 34 charges of falsifying business records to hide a $130,000 payment to Stormy Daniels to stop her discussing their alleged affair before the 2016 election.

Each count he has strenuously denied carries a maximum sentence of four years in prison, but if found guilty he could face a fine or probation as a first-time offender.

More than 500 potential jurors arrived i court waiting to see if they are needed for the trial that could last up to six weeks.

They are faced with 42 questions - including what news networks they watch and whether they have supported QAnon - if they want to qualify.

Several of the potential jurors appeared to frequently stare at Trump while the judge introduced the case and read out a list of witnesses who could testify, including his wife Melania Trump.





However Merchan made it clear that not all those on the list would take the stand.

A young female juror was excused after she said that she had strong feelings about Trump being a Presidential candidate.

The question she said yes to was: 'Do you have any strong opinions or firmly held beliefs about former President Donald Trump, or the fact that he is a current candidate for president that would interfere with your ability to be a fair and impartial juror?'

Earlier the woman had sparked laughter in court when she said that her pastimes included going 'to the club' and shopping.

Another was excused after admitting she couldn't be impartial and said 'I just couldn't do it' as she walked out.

Many prospective panelists sat in the back rows stretched their necks to get a look at Trump once in their seats.

One woman in the second row from the back on the right giggled and put her hand over her mouth, looking at the person seated next to her with raised eyebrows.

There was no discernable reaction from potential jurors when Merchan said the name of the case.

They were sworn in at 2:34 p.m.

Judge Merchan told them that the case was ‘the People of the State of New York versus Donald J Trump’.

‘The defendant is Mr Donald Trump, who is seated to my right,’ Judge Merchan said before introducing the lawyers for each side.

Addressing the jury, Judge Juan Merchan gave them a summary of the case.


Continued

One candidate gets legally excoriated for relatively minor crimes while others can commit multiple acts of treason and violations of national security and are never held accountable.

Testifying is a fool's choice.

New York passed a law specifically against Trump, to make HIS and ONLY HIS case not be subject to the SoL - at least that is my understanding...

Or the whores we're paid to go away rather than making a public mess fighting them in court, even though it was bullshit.

Jonathan Turley: This is legally absurd

Yea,  didn't the House bank have a habit of paying off Congressional pages and the like?  It was that or something similar

Attached File


Not Sure if Serious or if you turned 'sarcasm' up past "11"...

Amazing post... Either way.

Bigger_Hammer

The under score thread sliders strike again

Yep, there are worse things they can do to you than indictment when you are perceived as a problem to the permanent political class establishment.

If you guys actually corrected posts with factual information instead of just sitting around complaining about other members, maybe the thread would actually be informative and clear up misconceptions.

It's like 50% of the posts in these threads are just bitching about the critics living rent free in your head or posting tired memes as if that's some profound contribution.

"Here comes the Nevertrumpers"

"Bet the Nevertrumpers are drooling"

"Did I make it before the usual culprits?"

"So much thread sliding."

So instead of just bitching about this group, why don't you instead post factual knowledge and correct their "100% wrong posts intended to mislead people" instead of just making claims about them being wrong and then running off again like a hit and run with you refusing to stay at the scene?

"Hush money".   There was an NDA.   It's a shame that a whore can't stay bought these days.

Hope he grabs the judge by the pussy…

Judge was born in Columbia.  May we assume he is a naturalized citizen?  Can't find anything that says he is.  

https://www.abajournal.com/news/article/meet-judge-juan-merchan-a-colombian-immigrant-who-is-presiding-in-trumps-arraignment

And to think...plenty of faggots on gun chat forums agree with this fabrication and laugh about it because they hate Orange Man like every other liberal worm does

They need to get that guy that does the Trump voice to do a video describing the titties and some other made up shit.  May Trumps voice when he shots a load on the boobs, " uggghhhh, get ready for a yuuuggge load of Covfefe"

She consulted this dick!

Yeah ,  subjective .

they're not arguing in good faith, so why bother

Trump says judge will not allow him to attend his sons graduation

The circus outside the courthouse

Not really worth, those posts get ignored and drowned out by purse swinging.

How many votes is that worth ?

Complete bullshit show trial ,  how much is too f'ing much ?

Well, one is a member of the American Communist party and the other is Trump.

Sounds like Voir Dire is working as intended. The judge is dismissing biased jurors.

Trump has to love that he is and will always be haunted by the dumb Q anon shit. Fucking dumbasses spammed the internet with complete garbage now they are dismissing jurors for cause if they knew anything about it. Trumps biggest believers will not be on his jury… lol

The judge wouldn’t be accepted as a jurist. His daughter works for Kamala Harris, Schumer and others. She has made millions on this trial.

It was a nice country for quite a while.

Grab 'em by the pussy.

Dangerous levels.  They should be careful.  Possibly one or two will asphyxiate …?

He was pretty much just stating the way things work for famous/wealthy men.

It's all about the 2024 election.

Like all the other Trump cases, and whatever they can throw at him.

Yeah, Bragg is engaging in election interference.

Yeah, that Karen McDougal is pretty gross.

If he fucked her, why hasn't the left released CCTV tape of them both entering the same room, or the IC release cellphone locator records showing them in the same location, with nobody else ?

If it happened, that footage/data exists, if it exists it would've been gathered, and if it were gathered it would've been leaked already.

It hasn't, because it didn't happen.

I bet you also believed the pee allegation didn't you ?

Wasn't that for the E Jean Carrol "rape is sexy!" case?

Dismissing biased jurors who are telling the truth. The ones that lie will make the jury.