Here we are finally,after 8 years of gnashing of teeth and false dawns, the Donald has finally been charged with something. Is everyone fully versed on the nature of the charges?
The charges aren’t public yet, will be unsealed Tuesaday when he is expected to surrender and be formally charged. While there could be surprises in terms of the scope of charges, the basic charge is related to a hush payment to a adulyt movie “star” beofre the 2016 electiona and whether business fraud was conducted. The payment was apparently filed as a legal expense, when arguably it should have been filed as a campaign expense to help win the election. If that’s the jist of it then fairly easy to argue reasonable doubt as there’s other reasons to pay hush money, like protecting your pristine public image or saving your marriage. There has to be more if there is any chance of a conviction.
Should be massive craic, we are seeing history unfold, uncharted waters.
@Bandage would you be so good as to lift the maximum 3 post per topic rule for a ;poster who has 7,000 posts and 7,200 likes, a >1:1 ratio that very few members can claim.
While Trump is a despicable individual, on the face of it these charges seem nothing more than misdemeanours.
It does seems this indictment is motivated just to try him up on court and tarnish is already murky image prior to him running again.
Regardless of what you think about Trump, reflect on what Nancy Pelosi said yesterday when the indictment was announced: “Trump will have a chance to prove his innocence in court”.
This is the ex speaker of the House, the third on line to the presidency, and Trump has broken her brain so badly she utters this dangerous nonsense. Nobody in the history of the US legal system has to “prove their innocence” but of course this is the exception.
It’s slightly ironic that a Trump supporter is bring critical of his opponent for making a slight mistake in terminology when Trump makes wildly inaccurate and false statements almost every time he speaks.
A “slight mistake”?? The entire legal system is based on the presumption of innocence and the onus on the government to prove their case beyond a reasonable doubt. To a jury that has to be neutral (so no lunatics who have been spewing TDS for the past 8 years).
This case hasn’t a hope of a conviction precisely because of incredibly stupid comments like this, the key witness going on TV before the trial, and stupid cunts like you who would be disqualified from serving on the jury in one minute of questioning.
Keep doubling down though and eventually you’ll convince even yourself what a stupid moron you are.
Nonsense, a defense team doesn’t have to prove anything, they just have to introduce reasonable doubt in the prosecution case.
In this case it’s quite simple. The prosecutuion case is that Trump paid off the woman to help his election chances. His defense will argue he did it to protect his family. Case closed, as at least one member of a neutral jury (if they can find them) will accept the latter. FFS sake this was after the grab her by the pussy tape was being played on every network, ya think a payment to a porn star was going to sway the electorate?
What??? Of course it’s likely/almost certain he paid her off to help his election chances, the point is what a member of a jury (you only need one) belives is reasonable doubt. It won’t be people like you or Sid or glas on the jury. Assuming there are a few men on there, the average American male would say yeah that’s reasonable to pay off a porn star to hide something from your wife.
No, but if they had anything more significant it surely would have been uncovered or leaked since 2016. Anyway we will see on Tuesday when it’s unsealed.
