So why do you think the hush money payments were made, if not to benefit his campaign? So at least at this point you are admitting he did commit a crime, correct?
I understand this person is a “journalist” on Newsmax. Its good that he’s able to demonstrate such impartiality.
As a Catholic, an American and a human being...I find this the most offensive and DISGUSTING graphic that I have ever seen.
For someone to consider themselves a Christian and come to the above conclusion in the graphic is about the biggest religious fail imaginable.
Lol If you think misdemeanor “falsification of business records” implies a “criminal” in any way foreign to the upper echelons of DC. You act like my questions aren’t fair to contextualize the situation. Absolutely ridiculous. How dare I bring up all of the relevant ways Trump’s case was treated and handled differently.
And we wonder why viewers of their programming are so frequently twisted and utterly unable to separate truth from BS?
It was decided by a jury that was presented the evidence and the laws that it was 34 felonies. Two of the jurors are lawyers. The judge has impeccable record and credentials. If you are correct, the appeal should be a no brainer. Will you accept the verdict if the appeal is denied?
Some of them are crawling deeper and deeper into that hole. I hope one day they can work their way back out of it.
That’s an odd question. I’ll accept it as “the law,” but I’d disagree with it. I’m also not sure about Trumps odds on appeal because a lot of the issues I have are fact-based, for which deference typically goes to the trial court. There may be an issue with the novel legal theory presented with respect to jury instructions, but I can see that going either way, frankly. Credentials have no bearing on bias and motive. Bragg had it out for Trump from the beginning. The judge was clearly biased against Trump as I believe he’s a Biden donor, and the jurors were hand picked from one of the most anti-Trump venues in the country.
Greg Kelly is a complete schlub, but at least he actually served our country unlike his fallen icon who actively dislikes military personnel. How anyone with a military background could support this dipshit is beyond me.
Adding the caveat that it's a single poll, Trump's favorability before and after the verdict (from 538). Notice any difference?
Calling Trump a criminal for *possible* misdemeanor falsification of business records would sort of be like calling Hillary a criminal for this. DNC, Clinton campaign agree to Steele dossier funding fine “The Clinton campaign hired Perkins Coie, which then hired Fusion GPS, a research and intelligence firm, to conduct opposition research on Republican candidate Donald Trump’s ties to Russia. But on FEC forms, the Clinton campaign classified the spending as legal services. “By intentionally obscuring their payments through Perkins Coie and failing to publicly disclose the true purpose of those payments,” the campaign and DNC “were able to avoid publicly reporting on their statutorily required FEC disclosure forms the fact that they were paying Fusion GPS to perform opposition research on Trump with the intent of influencing the outcome of the 2016 presidential election,” the initial complaint had read.” The difference of course is Hillary got a six figure fine (a slap on the wrist for someone at her level), Trump got a highly publicized criminal trial with 34 felony counts and the possibility of spending years in prison.
Hills campaign hired a lawyer who paid for the OP research known as the Steele dossier so that it was a work product of their lawyer and thus protected under lawyer-client privilege. That, in my view, was why they did it through their lawyer.
Dirt-digging for political reasons isn’t legal research, it’s just a smear campaign. Trump is still finding out the hard way that not everything you do through your lawyer or a lawyer is protected work product or privileged, yet here you are making the same mistake he did.
the privilege protects all communications made for the purpose of seeking or rendering legal advice, subject to certain exceptions like the crime-fraud exception. Not just “legal research.”
