CNN Panel Stuns Viewers, Shreds Alvin Bragg’s Case against Trump

[Cow Poke]

I think this case is another example of the left hyping the next thing that'll "get Trump". When it was originally launched, there was a general sense that this was weak, too clever for its own good, etc. Even liberal legal scholars were skeptical of it.

At the time though, Trump was facing other challenges, so this case wasn't important.

Now, The other two cases are struggling, so this is likely the only case that may "get Trump" before the election. Naturally this means the analysis is foing to become motivated. What was too clever will become genius, weak will become rock solid, and every witness will be devastating to Trump.

Its another lurch on the get Trump bandwagon that many have hyped each time...just like the 14th Amendment lurch.

And, from what I can tell, even IF he is convicted, he can still run, win and occupy.

[Diogenes]

So by paying for Stormy's silence Trump was donating money to his campaign illegally?

Given that the money did not positively contribute to the running of the campaign as exampled by the FEC regarding in kind contributions and that the Access Hollywood tape was repeatedly brought up throughout the election, Trump having an affair with Stormy Daniel's would have been a nothing burger so the secondary crime isn't there.

[Sparko]

Given that the money did not positively contribute to the running of the campaign as exampled by the FEC regarding in kind contributions and that the Access Hollywood tape was repeatedly brought up throughout the election, Trump having an affair with Stormy Daniel's would have been a nothing burger so the secondary crime isn't there.

If there were campaign finance fraud going on like Sam seems to be claiming, the DOJ would have prosecuted him for that directly, instead of waiting for Georgia to somehow charge him for it indirectly.

[Sam]

Sure Sam, just like the discussion about the horrific saw bladed barriers in the Rio Grande. When we showed you that they are not saw blades and that the entire story was blown out of proportion, you just kept on claiming to be right, despite photographs proving you wrong. Nothing ever gets you to admit you are wrong about anything, does it?

What I described was accurate and documented. What y'all did was deny the accuracy of the language until you couldn't, then switched to lampooning your own hyperbolic descriptions as though they could be attributed to me.

A perfect example of the phenomenon of imagining that you're still right, somehow.

If there were campaign finance fraud going on like Sam seems to be claiming, the DOJ would have prosecuted him for that directly, instead of waiting for Georgia to somehow charge him for it indirectly.

The campaign finance crimes were committed in 2016, putting them outside the statute of limitations. Another swing & miss.

-Sam

[Cow Poke]

What I described was accurate and documented. What y'all did was deny the accuracy of the language until you couldn't, then switched to lampooning your own hyperbolic descriptions as though they could be attributed to me....

Sure, Sam.

ETA: Maybe we were "succinctly paraphrasing".

[One Bad Pig]

Sure, Sam.

ETA: Maybe we were "succinctly paraphrasing".

At this point, I'm becoming convinced that, if it was pointed out that Sam said "the moon is made of green cheese," he would find a way to parse the words in such a way as to proclaim the statement is accurate rather than admit that he misspoke. This ironically makes all his proclamations essentially worthless.

[Sparko]

What I described was accurate and documented. What y'all did was deny the accuracy of the language until you couldn't, then switched to lampooning your own hyperbolic descriptions as though they could be attributed to me.

A perfect example of the phenomenon of imagining that you're still right, somehow.

LOL. Yes a perfect example of Sam never admitting he is wrong about anything.

The campaign finance crimes were committed in 2016, putting them outside the statute of limitations. Another swing & miss.

-Sam

Then why didn't they charge him back then? They were trying to find any way to impeach him. Campaign finance fraud would have been a good way.

[Sam]

At this point, I'm becoming convinced that, if it was pointed out that Sam said "the moon is made of green cheese," he would find a way to parse the words in such a way as to proclaim the statement is accurate rather than admit that he misspoke. This ironically makes all his proclamations essentially worthless.

If you find such an example, feel free to introduce it with adequate critique. But you don't strike me as the sort to subject yourself to that sort of work so I'll just suggest that sniping without showing cause doesn't demonstrate the value of your own opinions.

-Sam

[Sam]

LOL. Yes a perfect example of Sam never admitting he is wrong about anything.

Then why didn't they charge him back then? They were trying to find any way to impeach him. Campaign finance fraud would have been a good way.

You're suggesting that DOJ should have charged Trump with campaign finance violations while he was president so that he could then be impeached.

How ran DOJ while Trump was president?

-Sam

[Sparko]

You're suggesting that DOJ should have charged Trump with campaign finance violations while he was president so that he could then be impeached.

How ran DOJ while Trump was president?

-Sam

Who was trying to convict Trump of such things as being a Russian spy? And all the other nonsense they were trying to impeach him on? Why not toss in Campaign finance fraud? And from what I understand the statute of limitations is 5 years, so the DOJ could have charged him with campaign fraud in 2020/21 when Biden was in office.

[One Bad Pig]

If you find such an example, feel free to introduce it with adequate critique. But you don't strike me as the sort to subject yourself to that sort of work so I'll just suggest that sniping without showing cause doesn't demonstrate the value of your own opinions.

-Sam

It's okay, Sam. I wasn't writing for your benefit. You've already sufficiently demonstrated that no critique will be adequate; I have better things to do with my time. Ta.

[Sam]

Who was trying to convict Trump of such things as being a Russian spy? And all the other nonsense they were trying to impeach him on? Why not toss in Campaign finance fraud? And from what I understand the statute of limitations is 5 years, so the DOJ could have charged him with campaign fraud in 2020/21 when Biden was in office.

Biden wasn't in office in 2020. DOJ could have potentially charged Trump for campaign finance charges in 2021 and perhaps contemplated it but there 1) isn't much value in prosecuting a conspiracy to commit campaign finance violations five years ago and 2) DOJ was kinda busy in 2021 with Jan. 6-related investigations and prosecutions — including investigating Trump for his role in an unprecedented attempt to subvert an election. Pursuing a five-year old campaign violation would not have necessarily been the best use of DOJ's time.

Regardless, the declination to charge does not, as you suggest, demonstrate that the underlying conduct is legal. It's illegal and Cohen was convicted of it. Arguing that a decision to not pursue a charge means it's not illegal is as dumb as arguing that parking violations don't exist because the you weren't hauled before a judge for double parking that one time.

-Sam

[Sam]

It's okay, Sam. I wasn't writing for your benefit. You've already sufficiently demonstrated that no critique will be adequate; I have better things to do with my time. Ta.

Being mouthy and derogatory about others without being willing to put in the work does and always will demonstrate a lowness of character. If you're going to make snide remarks without backing them up, don't make snide remarks.

-Sam

[Sparko]

Biden wasn't in office in 2020. DOJ could have potentially charged Trump for campaign finance charges in 2021 and perhaps contemplated it but there 1) isn't much value in prosecuting a conspiracy to commit campaign finance violations five years ago and 2) DOJ was kinda busy in 2021 with Jan. 6-related investigations and prosecutions — including investigating Trump for his role in an unprecedented attempt to subvert an election. Pursuing a five-year old campaign violation would not have necessarily been the best use of DOJ's time.

You basically just said that the only reason they are going after Trump now is because they want to interfere with the election and prevent him from becoming President again. If he were not a threat, they would never have bothered to try to charge him with all this nonsense. This is election interference.

Regardless, the declination to charge does not, as you suggest, demonstrate that the underlying conduct is legal. It's illegal and Cohen was convicted of it. Arguing that a decision to not pursue a charge means it's not illegal is as dumb as arguing that parking violations don't exist because the you weren't hauled before a judge for double parking that one time.

-Sam

and again, if it really happened, and was campaign fraud, they (the democrats) could have easily used that in their impeachment attempts. Yet they did not.

This is, as Trump keeps saying, a Witch Hunt. They are using any means necessary or available to try to prevent Trump from becoming President again. That is the entire motivation for this nonsense. It is not about justice or crimes, it is simply "Lawfare"

[Sam]

You basically just said that the only reason they are going after Trump now is because they want to interfere with the election and prevent him from becoming President again. If he were not a threat, they would never have bothered to try to charge him with all this nonsense. This is election interference.




and again, if it really happened, and was campaign fraud, they (the democrats) could have easily used that in their impeachment attempts. Yet they did not.

This is, as Trump keeps saying, a Witch Hunt. They are using any means necessary or available to try to prevent Trump from becoming President again. That is the entire motivation for this nonsense. It is not about justice or crimes, it is simply "Lawfare"

No, that's not what I said. I wrote that there isn't much value for DOJ in pursuing a five-year old campaign finance violation charge. DOJ typically doesn't. And DOJ didn't "bother to try to charge him with all this nonsense". The current trial is a state prosecution. You're simultaneously complaining that DOJ is charging Trump with nonsense campaign finance violations and that DOJ declined to charge Trump with nonsense campaign finance violations.

You're searching for a reason to remain indignant after your initial reasons were sequentially refuted.


Impeachment is reserved for conduct taken in office. The campaign finance violations were committed prior to Trump taking office. Again, you're hunting for reasons to maintain your preconceived belief (well, belief may be too strong a word) that this is all somehow illegitimate.

-Sam