Donald Trump’s New York Criminal Trial Begins Monday

[Mckay23]

Trump was subpoenaed in 2019. Isn't it odd they waited until after he decided to run for 2024 to indict.

[Stizzel]

So... three weeks in, has ANY crime actually been accused, or revealed in evidence...?

Yep. Jack smith falsified documents

[DanteEdmond]

Cohen might start his testimony today

[nutsy54]

Cohen might start his testimony today

And still... NO evidence or even accusation of a crime

[Procta]

indian bro breaks it down

https://twitter.com/simonateba/statu...19793662595261

[SaltyDog920]

Guise just dropping in to see if we got him yet??

[Procta]

from yesterday

BREAKING: Stormy Daniels’ husband says if Trump is found not guilty, they will “vacate this country.”
https://twitter.com/LeadingReport/st...30708940771405

lmao

[turk75]

So... three weeks in, has ANY crime actually been accused, or revealed in evidence...?

Maybe? perjury? by Stormy Daniels.



Speaking of that C U Next Tuesday - doesn't she still owe BLUMFPs $$$ LOL

[SaltyDog920]

Lefties seem to have abandoned ship already.

[Procta]

Trump had no prior knowledge of the payment made to Stormy Daniels, which Michael Cohen orchestrated as revenge for not being included in Trump's Cabinet.

https://twitter.com/RealPatrickWebb/...71862626074877

[Procta]

brooootal

https://twitter.com/alexbruesewitz/s...88781051617625

[MountainLion84]

Haven’t been following any of this but how is this even a thing when the Hunter Biden Laptop thing was suppressed before the last election?

Is it just a case of this being (D)ifferent?

[ohiostate124]

lol case closed

https://twitter.com/ImMeme0/status/1790803350201544871

[PlanoLifter]

lol case closed

https://twitter.com/ImMeme0/status/1790803350201544871

Unfortunately, unless the jury hears this during testimony, I doubt it's case closed.

[rampagefc77]

Unfortunately, unless the jury hears this during testimony, I doubt it's case closed.

Jury made up their minds before the case, one way or the other. Jury’s are useless.

[Weightaholic]

So... three weeks in, has ANY crime actually been accused, or revealed in evidence...?

Yes, it's already been tried (and proven in court) that business records were falsified.

The sting is they have yet to prove that falsification was in furtherance to hiding unflattering information so it woudn't come out before the election, which would be a campaign finance violation.

[MarkyMark215]

Mikey getting eviscerated on the stand today.

SAD!

https://twitter.com/JeffClarkUS/stat...44791519949006

[Procta]

Mikey getting eviscerated on the stand today.

SAD!

https://twitter.com/JeffClarkUS/stat...44791519949006

damn better not show OPGenesis‎ this

[rampagefc77]

Yes, it's already been tried (and proven in court) that business records were falsified.

The sting is they have yet to prove that falsification was in furtherance to hiding unflattering information so it woudn't come out before the election, which would be a campaign finance violation.

This is pure nonsense.

Trump paid his lawyer for legal services rendered in writing and executing an nda. The payments to his lawyer were labelled legal expenses. That is perfectly legal. If not, what should these payments have been labeled? Nobody can answer because the answer is “legal expenses.”

Trump used personal funds, so by definition, it cannot be a campaign finance violation. No campaign funds were used. Now if he did use campaign funds, they could fine him for it because even if he argues that the nda was to help his campaign, the nda could exist for reasons outside of the campaign and therefore would be ineligible to use campaign funds. But that didn’t happen.

What theyre trying to do is convolute a legal theory saying that the nda could only exist for the purpose of the campaign, so he should have used campaign funds and reported it… but didn’t do either therefore (try to follow me) it’s a crime. But if he did use campaign funds, read what I wrote above— they would have fined him for using funds inappropriately on something that could have existed outside of the campaign.


It’s lawfare at its finest. And the average jury member will have no idea what is even happening.

[Maestro]

I kinda want to follow this whole fiasco, but The media responses are really annoying:

-left leaning outlets are convinced with every passing day that the evidence is more and more damning and trump is on his way to prison for 50 million years
-right leaning outlets are convinced that the whole thing is a hoax and trump is a guardian angel being persecuted, like jesus

regardless of how it end, both sides will be convinced that it was a sham and "someone was paid off" or that it will lead to the downfall of society.

[Fishman15]

I kinda want to follow this whole fiasco, but The media responses are really annoying:

-left leaning outlets are convinced with every passing day that the evidence is more and more damning and trump is on his way to prison for 50 million years
-right leaning outlets are convinced that the whole thing is a hoax and trump is a guardian angel being persecuted, like jesus

regardless of how it end, both sides will be convinced that it was a sham and "someone was paid off" or that it will lead to the downfall of society.

How can the left say its a sham? They orchestrated the entire thing...

[Procta]

fawk its so over for that orange menace cheeto

https://twitter.com/ImMeme0/status/1791181252139139445

[yabbayabba]

I kinda want to follow this whole fiasco, but The media responses are really annoying:

-left leaning outlets are convinced with every passing day that the evidence is more and more damning and trump is on his way to prison for 50 million years
-right leaning outlets are convinced that the whole thing is a hoax and trump is a guardian angel being persecuted, like jesus

regardless of how it end, both sides will be convinced that it was a sham and "someone was paid off" or that it will lead to the downfall of society.

Stolen elections have consequences.

Seriously though, who would have thought 2am ballot drops that seem to just be enough to win wouldn't cause people to question highly political outcomes going forward?

[Foxmulder0]

I can’t wrap my mind how people don’t see this is all politics for something they’ve been trying since 2015. Period.

[rampagefc77]

I kinda want to follow this whole fiasco, but The media responses are really annoying:

-left leaning outlets are convinced with every passing day that the evidence is more and more damning and trump is on his way to prison for 50 million years
-right leaning outlets are convinced that the whole thing is a hoax and trump is a guardian angel being persecuted, like jesus

regardless of how it end, both sides will be convinced that it was a sham and "someone was paid off" or that it will lead to the downfall of society.

Ask yourself- when was the last time the left leaning msm was right or honest about anything trump related?


There is your answer. I outlined the entire case above. It never should have made it to trial. Any reasonable judge would have tossed the case and laughed in the prosecutors face. If convicted, the appellate court will decide overturn it.

[DuracellBunny]

I kinda want to follow this whole fiasco, but The media responses are really annoying:

-left leaning outlets are convinced with every passing day that the evidence is more and more damning and trump is on his way to prison for 50 million years
-right leaning outlets are convinced that the whole thing is a hoax and trump is a guardian angel being persecuted, like jesus

regardless of how it end, both sides will be convinced that it was a sham and "someone was paid off" or that it will lead to the downfall of society.

Crime A is being charged as a felony, instead of a misdemeanor, because they said it was done to cover up crime B.

Crime B is federal, not state, and not in the DA's jurisdiction.

The feds investigated crime B and didn't being charges, because there was no evidence.

It's like trying to charge somebody with felony murder, without anybody having died.

[Stizzel]

I kinda want to follow this whole fiasco, but The media responses are really annoying:

-left leaning outlets are convinced with every passing day that the evidence is more and more damning and trump is on his way to prison for 50 million years
-right leaning outlets are convinced that the whole thing is a hoax and trump is a guardian angel being persecuted, like jesus

regardless of how it end, both sides will be convinced that it was a sham and "someone was paid off" or that it will lead to the downfall of society.

It doesn't help that the prosecutors are doing the same thing. They spend a long time questioning witnesses about things that aren't even relevant to the case. I don't think a single question they asked stormy had anything to do with what they're trying to prove. Whether or not he was wearing silk pajamas and whether or not they fuked is 100% irrelevant, but it tells you where this court's mind is at that she was allowed to go on for hours about it.

Trump's version of events is essentially that his lawyer came to him with a situation and said we gotta pay X dollars, so Trump went along with it. The invoices his lawyer sent were for legal services, and were recorded in trump's internal documents as legal expenses.

What the DA is trying to claim is that these payments were campaign finance violations because of some very vague interpretations of why the payments were made, that trump knew they were illegal and instructed his lawyer to go ahead with them anyway, and that the reason they were recorded as legal expenses was to cover it up

They've spent a long time proving things that no one really contests - that cohen paid for the NDA, and that Trump reimbursed him. The rest of it, about trump dictating what they do and knowing that it was illegal and then covering it up, there's literally nothing to hang their hat on other than Cohen promising it's really true, and this is a man that is no longer a lawyer because he got disbarred for lying.

[Weightaholic]

This is pure nonsense.

Trump paid his lawyer for legal services rendered in writing and executing an nda. The payments to his lawyer were labelled legal expenses. That is perfectly legal. If not, what should these payments have been labeled? Nobody can answer because the answer is “legal expenses.”

It's not true nobody can answer. I can answer it for you... they're not legal expenses. You could make the argument that NDA's in the course of running a business are legal expenses, that's fine, I'd have no issue coding up a set of financials as such, but hush money paid by the CEO to keep his infidelity quiet? No.

Trump used personal funds, so by definition, it cannot be a campaign finance violation. No campaign funds were used. Now if he did use campaign funds, they could fine him for it because even if he argues that the nda was to help his campaign, the nda could exist for reasons outside of the campaign and therefore would be ineligible to use campaign funds. But that didn’t happen.

So are they personal expenses or legal expenses? You can't even keep it straight between two paragraphs. Or maybe you answered it in paragraph 1 as well, so there's at least 2 people who can answer the question....

As for the rest of it, maybe Trump could hire you as his lawyer, seeing as you apparently have it all figured out. Absolute slam dunk of a defense - all you have to do is say the above, and this particular statute doesn't apply to him. Doesn't matter how politically motivated the case may be then.

SMH. I know Trump's legal hires haven't been the greatest, but surely they're not that inept.

[rampagefc77]

It's not true nobody can answer. I can answer it for you... they're not legal expenses. You could make the argument that NDA's in the course of running a business are legal expenses, that's fine, I'd have no issue coding up a set of financials as such, but hush money paid by the CEO to keep his infidelity quiet? No.



So are they personal expenses or legal expenses? You can't even keep it straight between two paragraphs. Or maybe you answered it in paragraph 1 as well, so there's at least 2 people who can answer the question....

As for the rest of it, maybe Trump could hire you as his lawyer, seeing as you apparently have it all figured out. Absolute slam dunk of a defense - all you have to do is say the above, and this particular statute doesn't apply to him. Doesn't matter how politically motivated the case may be then.

SMH. I know Trump's legal hires haven't been the greatest, but surely they're not that inept.

The payment wasn’t campaign funds and the nda can’t be proven to be campaign related… so what should trump have labeled the payment to his lawyer for the legal services he rendered in executing and paying the nda? If “legal expense” is fraud, what was it legally required to be labeled?

[Stizzel]

CNN is melting down bigly right now. Cohen spent the whole day admitting to lies he's told during this trial

Good work libs you found another winner.....LOL