Possible Trump Indictment

[Gondwanaland]

He sounds like Mad Maxine Waters.

"If there's no evidence that Trump committed a crime, it just means we haven't looked hard enough!"

As opposed to you: "he can't have committed a crime because he didn't write an explicit confession to the crime on the tool he used to commit the crime!"

[Machinist]

I personally don't care if Trump paid her off, even if he did it directly for the purposes of protecting his reputation. If it broke some obscure technicality, why does such pettiness even matter? I'd still vote for him. I'm sure if you really went rooting around, you could find technicalities of every presidents every action and make a case out it.

[rogue06]

Ah, gotcha, so you believe the convicted perjurer was telling the truth when he wrote a letter saying something you like about your KKKult leader Trump, and that he was lying when checks exist showing the payments he got.

You are inadvertently hitting the nail on the head here. The problem with relying on a witness with such stellar reputation as Cohen, is that you never know when he's telling the truth -- including when he testifies.

[rogue06]

I personally don't care if Trump paid her off, even if he did it directly for the purposes of protecting his reputation. If it broke some obscure technicality, why does such pettiness even matter? I'd still vote for him. I'm sure if you really went rooting around, you could find technicalities of every presidents every action and make a case out it.

As someone said the other day, since when is this a crime?

Men go to strip clubs and if they use their credit card the bill won't say "Pink Pony Strip Club" but something like "Acme Plumbing." They paid money and it was lied about what it was for.

[Diogenes]

I personally don't care if Trump paid her off, even if he did it directly for the purposes of protecting his reputation. If it broke some obscure technicality, why does such pettiness even matter? I'd still vote for him. I'm sure if you really went rooting around, you could find technicalities of every presidents every action and make a case out it.

You have to remember, Orange Man Bad.

[Gondwanaland]

You are inadvertently hitting the nail on the head here. The problem with relying on a witness with such stellar reputation as Cohen, is that you never know when he's telling the truth -- including when he testifies.

Except we have more than the witness, we have the checks themselves

[rogue06]

Except we have more than the witness, we have the checks themselves

Again, which proves absolutely nothing. What was the motive? Do the checks reveal that?

You have to believe a witness with such stellar reputation as Cohen that it was purely 100% political.

Rumors are flying that Chuck Schumer, who refuses to support Bragg in his quest, has been urging him to drop it. I wonder why.

[Ronson]

Rumors are flying that Chuck Schumer, who refuses to support Bragg in his quest, has been urging him to drop it. I wonder why.

More than a rumor, when asked, Schumer won't endorse Bragg's endeavor. Because it obviously is not going to do anything except help Trump's candidacy.

Trump wants to be a martyr because fence-sitters see this as a frivolous attack, so it likely will earn him more support.

[rogue06]

More than a rumor, when asked, Schumer won't endorse Bragg's endeavor. Because it obviously is not going to do anything except help Trump's candidacy.

Trump wants to be a martyr because fence-sitters see this as a frivolous attack, so it likely will earn him more support.

That he is refusing to endorse it after cheerleading the various impeachment circuses, and J6 clown show is telling. And likely for the reason you mentioned.

That he may be working to scuttle it is not common knowledge, and is something I've been hearing from a friend who is a now retired Congressional staffer who worked for several Democrats over the years, but is still well connected.

[NorrinRadd]

Turley's latest.

Flimsy, hokey, politically-motivated case. Closest thing to a provable crime is a misdemeanor whose statute of limitations ended its viability five years ago. Bragg is trying to cobble together a Rube Goldberg house of cards (to sort of mix metaphors) by trying to use State courts to prove (with diaphanous evidence) a Federal crime in order to evade the statute of limitations and turn the misdemeanor into a felony.

At least that's my understanding.

[RumTumTugger]

Ah, gotcha, so you believe the convicted perjurer was telling the truth when he wrote a letter saying something you like about your KKKult leader Trump, and that he was lying when checks exist showing the payments he got.

Sorry it is not that I only believe the convicted perjurer when he says something I agree with I don't believe anything coming from his mouth, I'm believing others who have not been convicted of perjury that the checks written were retainer fees being paid to him as a fixer as his records showed. You are basing your belief on what a convicted perjurer says we are looking at all the other evidence you are discounting only someone belonging to the cult of never Trumpers would say a convicted perjurer's testimony trumps all the other evidence.

[Gondwanaland]

Sorry it is not that I only believe the convicted perjurer when he says something I agree with I don't believe anything coming from his mouth,

You declare in bold that you don't believe anything coming from his mouth, but you were just lauding this letter which.... literally freaking came from his mouth, you dillweed.

I'm believing others who have not been convicted of perjury that the checks written were retainer fees being paid to him as a fixer as his records showed. You are basing your belief on what a convicted perjurer says we are looking at all the other evidence you are discounting only someone belonging to the cult of never Trumpers would say a convicted perjurer's testimony trumps all the other evidence.

He bleats whilst literally basing his belief on the letter of said perjurer..

[RumTumTugger]

Except we have more than the witness, we have the checks themselves

Who else do you have that says the checks written were not retainer fees, Cohen is not acceptable give someone else or some other evidence.

[Gondwanaland]

Who else do you have that says the checks written were not retainer fees, Cohen is not acceptable give someone else or some other evidence.

So, gonna brush aside the fact that you were so dense you didn't realize the letter you were swallowing wholesale was written by the perjurer you were claiming you'd never believe?

You're welcome to provide evidence of this retainer agreement.

[RumTumTugger]

You declare in bold that you don't believe anything coming from his mouth, but you were just lauding this letter which.... literally freaking came from his mouth, you dillweed.

He bleats whilst literally basing his belief on the letter of said perjurer..

I am not basing my disbelief on that letter I don't need the letter, I am looking at more credible witnesses who say it was retainer fees. You on the other hand have only Cohen's, a convicted perjurer, testimony that it was not retainer fees. Like I said in my last post give us someone else besides Cohen who was a part of this that says the checks retainer. Repeating that the checks are the evidence does not cut it and if that is all you have you have nothing and are showing how delusional your unfounded hatred of Trump has made you. I guess next you will be telling us that black is white.