ThunderCougarFalconBird said:

---

aggiehawg said:

---

It is very hard to overcome really bad judges, state. Federal? Impossible.

---

I've seen the 5th Circuit reverse, remand, and reassign cases from Lynn Hughes before specifically because of the behavior of the judge.

---

you wont be seeing that happen any more. or anything from him.

Ellis Wyatt said:

---

Anyone else listening to this "legal expert" imbecile on WBAP? I don't think she has correctly stated a single fact about the case. It's clear she hates Donald Trump, though.

I wouldn't want this idiot taking care of a parking ticket for me.

---

Here it is. About 6 minutes to listen to.

Jump ahead to 1:50. This woman is so stupid, she is a threat to the legal system. I have no doubt someone will appoint her to a judgeship somewhere.

https://omny.fm/shows/the-rick-roberts-show/rick-roberts-can-the-da-prove-trump-is-guilty

Pick out all the lies/misinformation...

BMX Bandit said:

---

ThunderCougarFalconBird said:

---

aggiehawg said:

---

It is very hard to overcome really bad judges, state. Federal? Impossible.

---

I've seen the 5th Circuit reverse, remand, and reassign cases from Lynn Hughes before specifically because of the behavior of the judge.

---

you wont be seeing that happen any more. or anything from him.

---

Oh, that's right. He took senior status and went completely inactive really recently.

Yes, all of his cases were reassigned to other judges, and he is no longer being given new cases.

A "forced retirement". A very credible source told me that another judge, who I wont name here, found him roaming the halls completely incoherent and not knowing where he was.

To give y'all an understanding of how impossible it is to impeach a judge just look at Robert F Collins, yet ANOTHER example of a Carter appointment. He's was convicted of bribery, yet refused to step down, I believe still serving two years after his conviction. First impeachment proceeding died on the vine, so they started proceedings again. FINALLY he resigned, eventually served federal time

Quote:

---

Alvin Bragg alleges that Donald Trump defrauded voters into electing him president on November 8, 2016.

Alvin Bragg also alleges that the first crime Donald Trump committed occurred on February 14, 2017.
Are you seeing the problem here?

There may not be enough space in the mega-verse to describe the sundry flaws in the Manhattan district attorney's indictment against the former president of the United States.

It fails, despite its 34 counts, to state a crime. It is time-barred under the statute of limitations.

---

Quote:

---

Bragg is attempting to enforce either federal election laws that a state prosecutor lacks jurisdiction to enforce or state election laws that do not apply to US presidential elections.

The DA's biggest problem, however, is that his indictment is utterly incoherent.

As a standard-issue Trump-deranged progressive Democrat, Bragg naturally cannot accept that Hillary Clinton lost the 2016 election because she was a historically bad candidate. Ergo, the election must have been stolen from her.

The thief, Bragg deduces, was Trump, who stole the election by sinister fraudulent schemes.

---

Quote:

---

In fact, to the extent anything was even on the edge of a crime, Trump was a victim the NDAs happened because people made extortionate threats to humiliate him if they did not get their paydays.

As a good woke progressive, Bragg is upset because this is Donald Trump we're talking about, so if embarrassing information about him was kept under wraps prior to Election Day, that simply must be a crime.

But since Bragg well knows, however much it grates on him, that NDAs are not crimes, the DA is left to make up crimes to fit his fever dream of a stolen 2016 election.

He tries to do this by taking a single transaction Trump's reimbursement to Michael Cohen of the $130,000 Cohen paid to Stormy Daniels to stay mum about an alleged 2006 fling and ludicrously slicing it into 34 transactions, each of which he brands as felony falsification of business records.

---

LINK

Quote:

---

A key member of the Federal Election Commission today rejected the Manhattan district attorney's indictment of former President Donald Trump as a violation of federal election laws.

"It's not a campaign finance violation. It's not a reporting violation of any kind," said FEC Commissioner James E. "Trey" Trainor. …

"I don't know how you get around the evidence that both the Department of Justice in their investigation of the federal campaign finance issues and the Federal Election Commission in their ultimate jurisdiction over campaign finance issues, neither of them found there to be any violations whatsoever, and I think the jury is going to see that and they're going to have to rely upon the fact that both the law enforcement experts and the civil enforcement experts, as far as campaign finance are concerned, didn't find any violation of the law here," said Trainor.

---

Via Hot Air

Not to mention some of what is alleged happened after Trump was president and not in control of his business. It is trash.

Ellis Wyatt said:

---

Not to mention some of what is alleged happened after Trump was president and not in control of his business. It is trash.

---

First check came from a revocable trust with Jr and the CFO signing as trustees. I don't think Trump was trustee at that point, either. So there is another question.

The tolling issue on the SOL will be interesting on the question of Trump not being physically present within NY state. But they always knew where he was. His movements everyday were logged while he was President. He was not "in flight" of NY's jurisdiction while he was absent. Ditto a change in domicile is not "flight" either. So the claim they could not bring the indictment in a timely manner due to Trump's absence from the state fall flat.

To put the final emphasis on this, Bragg did indict Trump while he was in Florida, not NY. So he was in no way prevented before then.

DEVELOPING: DA Bragg claims he's obtained "new evidence" Trump intended hush money payments as in-kind donations to his 2016 campaign, but this contradicts Cohen's lawyer, who saw no smoking-gun docs implicating Trump, who doesn't text or email, in grand jury hearings he attended

— Paul Sperry (@paulsperry_) April 7, 2023

will25u said:

---

DEVELOPING: DA Bragg claims he's obtained "new evidence" Trump intended hush money payments as in-kind donations to his 2016 campaign, but this contradicts Cohen's lawyer, who saw no smoking-gun docs implicating Trump, who doesn't text or email, in grand jury hearings he attended

— Paul Sperry (@paulsperry_) April 7, 2023

---

How stupid is that? Trump, much like Romney in 2012, can donate whatever he wants to his own campaign. He's not subject to limits.

How is that "developing"? Bragg said that Tuesday.

I've only seen 2 tweets from this Paul Sperry character, but they both started with that word. It is pure hype clickbait titling to get people sucked in. Twitter and the rest of social/main stream media is just pure garbage.

Bragg wants to go back after the fact and declare Trumps 2016 victory illegitimate.

Casual Cynic said:

---

Bragg wants to go back after the fact and declare Trumps 2016 victory illegitimate.

---

They still can't get over that, can they?

Sea Speed said:

---

I've only seen 2 tweets from this Paul Sperry character, but they both started with that word. It is pure hype clickbait titling to get people sucked in. Twitter and the rest of social/main stream media is just pure garbage.

---

I only pay attention to tweets that start with BREAKING and have siren emojis.

In about 2-3 weeks, trump will likely be indicted again. This ridiculous one now will fade out of the news then.

Ags77 said:

---

In about 2-3 weeks, trump will likely be indicted again. This ridiculous one now will fade out of the news then.

---

Well when someone runs for office on the premise of "getting Trump", they're going to throw anything against the wall to see if it sticks. I'm sure if democrats donate more they'll finally get him this time.

Gigem314 said:

---

Ags77 said:

---

In about 2-3 weeks, trump will likely be indicted again. This ridiculous one now will fade out of the news then.

---

Well when someone runs for office on the premise of "getting Trump", they're going to throw anything against the wall to see if it sticks. I'm sure if democrats donate more they'll finally get him this time.

---

Yes, that's why i said this RIDICULOUS one will go away soon. This indictment was completely political and illegitimate, imo.

The likely next indictment will be in a few weeks in Georgia. Much more legit, but still not an easy conviction, imo.

I predict any other potential indictments will be even more blatantly exposed for the witch hunts they are.

Many have only heard, read or believed the out of context request to "find more votes" and not the broader conversation about there being a debated number of votes outstanding due to various reasons, Trump's team thought the number was much larger than Raffleburger and friends were saying and Trump was clarifying that they only needed to adjudicate x many of votes.

Regarding the special counsel on MAL docs, thats more nonsense. They found ZERO documents that are problematic for Trump from a national security, Espionage Act, or "classified" materials. If they did, the leaks coming out of the special counsel office would indicate so. Instead, they are down to what many of us thought... no docs but a fabricated obstruction of justice claim because Trump team said they turned over all classified / presidential records and maybe they didn't, but since Trump did not immediately submit to a cavity search, then its a (bowel) obstruction of justice.

And finally, not even mentioning the other. Lock him up with the 3 TN legislators and with BLM leaders, ANTIFA, Nancy, Maxine, AOC, Schumer, and all the myriad of others who have stoked tension. Or just kindly shut the **** up about insurrections.

Ags77 said:

---

Yes, that's why i said this RIDICULOUS one will go away soon. This indictment was completely political and illegitimate, imo.

The likely next indictment will be in a few weeks in Georgia. Much more legit, but still not an easy conviction, imo.

---

Flagged for posting misinformation.

Not sure where you get your info, but see above for sitrep on the Georgia shenanigans. Its not legit, not legit at all and will just serve to embarrass libs and CMs just as much as Bragg has been embarrassed.

That case as well has ZERO merits and is not based on any alleged violation of law. Just more feelz.

Quote:

---

Yes, that's why i said this RIDICULOUS one will go away soon. The likely next indictment will be in a few weeks in Georgia. Much more legit, but still not an easy conviction, imo.

---

The Georgia case? Trump said, "Find" not "manufacture" votes during a supposed recount. Do your job and conduct a thorough and accurate recount. Which we know did not happen in Fulton County.

fka ftc said:

---

Ags77 said:

---

Yes, that's why i said this RIDICULOUS one will go away soon. This indictment was completely political and illegitimate, imo.

The likely next indictment will be in a few weeks in Georgia. Much more legit, but still not an easy conviction, imo.

---

Flagged for posting misinformation.

Not sure where you get your info, but see above for sitrep on the Georgia shenanigans. Its not legit, not legit at all and will just serve to embarrass libs and CMs just as much as Bragg has been embarrassed.

That case as well has ZERO merits and is not based on any alleged violation of law. Just more feelz.

---

Well that's your opinion. I just disagree, respectfully.

And flagged ? I was banned by someone offended a couple weeks ago. I guess it's not possible to disagree with others if it's about Trump?

Ags77 said:

---

fka ftc said:

---

Flagged for posting misinformation.

Not sure where you get your info, but see above for sitrep on the Georgia shenanigans. Its not legit, not legit at all and will just serve to embarrass libs and CMs just as much as Bragg has been embarrassed.

That case as well has ZERO merits and is not based on any alleged violation of law. Just more feelz.

---

Well that's your opinion. I just disagree, respectfully.

---

How about you go and read the circumstances of the Georgia case before you provide any sort of opinion or commentary.

Spreading misinformation due to an absolute refusal to be informed on the facts of the case is akin to trolling, respectfully.

Ags77 said:

---

And flagged ? I was banned by someone offended a couple weeks ago. I guess it's not possible to disagree with others if it's about Trump?

---

No, you get banned for trolling, ad homs, misinformation and the other listed prohibited items on the sites TOS.

No one gets flagged or banned for simply disagreeing.

fka ftc said:

---

Ags77 said:

---

fka ftc said:

---

Flagged for posting misinformation.

Not sure where you get your info, but see above for sitrep on the Georgia shenanigans. Its not legit, not legit at all and will just serve to embarrass libs and CMs just as much as Bragg has been embarrassed.

That case as well has ZERO merits and is not based on any alleged violation of law. Just more feelz.

---

Well that's your opinion. I just disagree, respectfully.

---

How about you go and read the circumstances of the Georgia case before you provide any sort of opinion or commentary.

Spreading misinformation due to an absolute refusal to be informed on the facts of the case is akin to trolling, respectfully.

---

I gave NO misinformation. NONE. I stated AN OPINION that the case in New York was a political ridiculous indictment and the one in Georgia was more legit, imo.

Yet you flagged

Ags77 said:

---

fka ftc said:

---

How about you go and read the circumstances of the Georgia case before you provide any sort of opinion or commentary.

Spreading misinformation due to an absolute refusal to be informed on the facts of the case is akin to trolling, respectfully.

---

I gave NO misinformation. NONE. I stated AN OPINION that the case in New York was a political ridiculous indictment and the one in Georgia was more legit, imo.

---

Just clarify that its you opinion and not based on any review nor analysis of the circumstances of the case.

fka ftc said:

---

Ags77 said:

---

fka ftc said:

---

How about you go and read the circumstances of the Georgia case before you provide any sort of opinion or commentary.

Spreading misinformation due to an absolute refusal to be informed on the facts of the case is akin to trolling, respectfully.

---

I gave NO misinformation. NONE. I stated AN OPINION that the case in New York was a political ridiculous indictment and the one in Georgia was more legit, imo.

---

Just clarify that its you opinion and not based on any review nor analysis of the circumstances of the case.

---

I did.

My quote ended with IMO

Just clarify that its not based on any review nor analysis of the circumstances of the case.

This case seems to be determined by whether the payments were made to benefit the campaign or to keep it away from his family. If it's the campaign, he's going to have a more difficult time winning.

I can't be any more clear. Its my OPINION.

I'm going down to the club and watch some golf. Feel free to flag away, lol.

Ghost of Andrew Eaton said:

---

This case seems to be determined by whether the payments were made to benefit the campaign or to keep it away from his family. If it's the campaign, he's going to have a more difficult time winning.

---

He can make any payments he wants to benefit his campaign. What law was he violating?

The law is meant to cover payments made by others for the exclusive benefit of his campaign must follow campaign guidelines and be a legitimate campaign expense. Paying for stories to go away is a legitimate campaign expense BTW.

But that is not what Bragg is charging. He says Trump ordered or recorded himself the transactions with Cohen as something other than payments for an NDA, which is not true or at best debatable. Since those records are private and nobody is shown to have knowledge of nor relied upon those statements and no one was harmed by the alleged bookkeeping error, then there is NO case.

Would be nice if people quit listening to Rachel Maddow legal analysis then posting on f16.

Ags77 said:

---

I can't be any more clear. Its my OPINION.

I'm going down to the club and watch some golf. Feel free to flag away, lol.

---

Enjoy watching a bunch of over privileged white dudes beat up on a crippled old Black man at one of the most blatantly racist gold courses in the world, at a tournament aptly named "The Massas".

Ags77 said:

---

Gigem314 said:

---

Ags77 said:

---

In about 2-3 weeks, trump will likely be indicted again. This ridiculous one now will fade out of the news then.

---

Well when someone runs for office on the premise of "getting Trump", they're going to throw anything against the wall to see if it sticks. I'm sure if democrats donate more they'll finally get him this time.

---

Yes, that's why i said this RIDICULOUS one will go away soon. This indictment was completely political and illegitimate, imo.

The likely next indictment will be in a few weeks in Georgia. Much more legit, but still not an easy conviction, imo.

---

Much more legit ain't saying much considering what they've spent the past 7 years doing. Grifters gonna grift.