townhall.com, lol First of all, an unrelated FEC employee past or present wouldn't be a witness they would be providing expert testimony if deemed as such. Second, the FEC has been rendered 95% toothless as it has 3 commissioners from both parties. The GOP commissioners won't ever vote to investigate their own party candidates and the Dem commissioners do mostly the same but not 100% of the time. Therefore it's usually only Dem candidates ever getting hit by the FEC. Nice try.
The Ms. Cleo of court proceedings has spoken. You either didn't read the statute or understand it. The other guy who was repeatedly trolling this thread displayed a better understanding of it than this mess you just posted.
First, I absolutely believe her that they did the bang-bang. (and,really, who cares what I believe!) But for purposes of the case, even if she engaged in “extortion,” he still paid her to shut her up so he could win the election. If the jury agrees, Trump loses. (Note that it is interesting that Trump has never, ever filed a criminal complaint against her accusing her of extortion, and thus there has never been a basis for the State to bring charges against her for extortion). Now, your point about jury sympathy— in the event they don’t believe her, is well taken. It is entirely possible that the jury won’t convict Trump based on sympathy for a guy that was “extorted.”
Why does this thread not come forward when posted to? Trump Trouble? I looked before I posted the other thread that was moved here, wherever here is. What a day of significance in New York yesterday: Why Is the Judge in Trump's New York Trial Muzzling a Key Defense Witness? (townhall.com) "Smith, having headed the FEC, has many examples from the commission’s enforcement of federal election law that illustrate his point. He knows what he is talking about, and it seems clear that his expert opinion is that paying off Daniels, no matter what one might think of it, is not a campaign expenditure or donation that FECA requires a candidate to disclose. The Trump defense plans to call Smith as a witness. Not because he has any personal knowledge of the Trump transaction but because he understands, and has enforced, the campaign law that Bragg’s prosecutors appear to be planning to use against Trump. But Merchan has forbidden Smith from testifying about most of the issues involved in the case." First, Judge Merchan allows Stormy Daniels testimony about her sexual experience with Donald Trump to make a joke of the trial. Now, it is learned that Judge Merchan is not allowing a key defense witness to testify as he actually has knowledge with direct bearing on the case. It was just another day at the office executing Dictator Biden's game plan. Oh, and Mayor Adams has stated that Riker Island is ready for Trump. Please do Judge Merchan, make my day making a martyr of Donald Trump while sealing Dictator Biden's fate at the same time, not that isn't already decided. Gator Bait!
Forbes : "Even if hush money isn't inherently illegal, some prosecutors have argued the way Daniels was paid—through Cohen, right before the 2016 election—was a campaign finance crime: Cohen pleaded guilty to federal campaign finance violations in 2018, after the Department of Justice alleged the Daniels payment was effectively a donation to Trump's campaign that exceeded the legal limit on political contributions." Whom to believe.... Townhall or Forbes? LOL
Poor, poor Trump. For someone with such an unblemished record, before, during and after politics, it is such a shame to have this isolated incident muddy his pristine reputation.
Townhall problem is your problem. The explicit sexual relations had no input on the case either, but Judge Merchan let it in. What a fun day at the office to further make a mockery of our justice system. How did you see this thread. It's not on my front page even after posting to the thread.
Did you read Judge Merchan's order? Do you know anything at all, anything, about NY's evidence rules? If the answer to wither question is "no," you are just being silly.
What cracks me up is a few years back when Stormy first started telling her lies this board was all about how Trump cheated. You guys would stand behind Stormy's word 100% even knowing she was a slut with no morals. Now it is Well it doesn't matter if she lied.
Let’s be clear — I think for purposes of THIS case, it doesn’t matter. As far as Trump goes, make your own judgments to his moral character.
We should all take this opportunity to agree on something, which is that Trump going to jail is a straight up slam dunk for everyone and should happen today. Your day will be made, per yourself, and I bet there will be dozens of not-rage-posts-at-all in which you express your glee. Merchan wants it, I want it, and it wouldn't even change anything for Biden, again, per you. Let's get this done!! The rest of the whining is pretty weak. An expert witness is able to give relative info regarding generalities, and this one will be able to do so also. An expert witness is not a lay witness though. They have no personal knowledge of this particular situation. If he did, the prosecution would not only have no objection to direct testimony, they'd subpoena him as they have every other person who has direct knowledge. Defense had him sign two different disclosures explicitly identifying him as an "expert witness." Unless they are complete legal morons (and given the unbelievably long line of idiots Trump constantly lines up, like Rudy and Krakenstein, that isn't impossible) they are aware of these distinctions. This same guy was already prevented from this same stuff by Kaplan. Basically they want him to say Trump didn't intend to influence the election, and he obviously has no idea if that is true. He wants to say that Trump has such a poor grasp of the law that he couldn't have intended to break it. Again, he has no direct knowledge, this is just out of ass musing, and isn't his role. Not knowing anything, which is indeed a Trump characteristic, but still intending to do illegal things aren't mutually exclusive. It's the "ignorance of the law" argument in 10,000 words to try to disguise it as something else and then let the RWosphere get all frothy (I believe you might refer to that as "making your day.") Determining whether or not intent was present is for the jury. If Smith was a lay expert, he could opine on the matter. But he isn't, per the defense's paperwork. He is just a hired gun, like any other expert witness. They aren't there to interpret an individual case of law breaking/adherence because they have no way of knowing any details the jury doesn't, since they have the same amount of direct observational knowledge that the jurors do -- none. This is a not-so-clever way of adding a de facto juror that is in the tank, and very few judges will fall for it. Just imagine the prosecution bringing someone in from the FEC who has never dealt with the Stormy Storm in to tell the jury that Trump absolutely meant to commit a crime and that John Edwards should have been convicted back in the day, it was a terrible miscarriage of justice then and this would be worse. Maybe you can see why that would not be relevant "testimony."
I read your article. Total waste of time, written by some right wing extremest with a journalism degree. "Trumped up case"? Was that a pun? Did you make a funny? Are you familiar with the evidence? No, you're not. You're familiar with whatever garbage the right wing outlets shove down your throat and you so readily slurp up.
The purpose of my post was to point out how in 2016 this board was all about how "we all" knew Stormy Daniels was telling the truth. It was obvious......That has all changed now that it can't be denied that she lied in the first place.
I guess Stormy Daniels telling how much she hates Trump, and their used sexual positions has a direct bearing on the case. Oh, it was her advanced degree in accounting and her telling of the money she received that is old news and not in dispute. Get real.
