Trump Criminal Trials

Originally posted by hersuit: ↑

"You claim that by paying the bribe he only committed a bookkeeping error which should be a misdemeanour. So putting his "little mushroom" into Stormy whilst his wife was having his child needed to be hidden from his family and the public prior to the election and this deception is a "bookkeeping error" is it? The instruction to his then lawyer to pay a bribe to hide the facts was a bookkeeping exercise? Asking him to pay it in cash so there was no record of it was to simplify the bookkeeping was it? Classifying the bribe as a legal expense so that its true nature could be concealed from election officials was a bookkeeping error? Claiming the bribe to a prostitute as a tax deduction ..... also a bookkeeping error?"

All may be true.
Except those aren't federal crimes.
How'd they get to the federal statute and why?
The statute of limitations was over
And btw...the only "crime" is perhaps, he used campaign funds for personal use. Where's the proof of that? and if there was so much proof why'd the Feds...multiple agencies...refuse to have a go.

It took a FITH Soros-backed DA who campaigned on GETTING TRUMP to manufacture this case and you, like a doo little trained seal...clap loudly from the pool

And if you think paying off someone for what they did as a political act of gamesmanship or to avoid family turmoil or whatever other reason used is something only DT has done ...and deserves this sort of treatment ...displays the bias that reeks from you. Indeed, everything in your post reeks of your bias.

And as for the gag order...show me an example of when a criminal defendant was gagged about the process of the prosecution to which he is being exposed. The C demands he be given due process...so go ahead and give us your expertise in this

If there ever was a case for the need for the freedom of speech it is when the Govt is trying to charge its opposition in a way as to inflict damage to the political process. Banana republic stuff

And honestly, if you dont see this lawfare for what it is...an attempt to hamstring their opposition...you're an even bigger fool than the other loons on this thread

Bottom line... of my points, you poorly addressed one or two and ignored the others. Well done...here they are for review

So...................
Except for this being the first time an ex-POTUS has ever faced this
Except that the actual "crime" may have been a simple bookkeeping misdemeanour
Except that if that's the case, the statute of limitations expired ages ago
Except for the fact that a corrupt DA chose to piggyback that misdemeanour as a vehicle for another THIRTY-FOUR FEDERAL offences
Except for the fact that THAT VERY federal offence was declined to be used to prosecute DT by a whole slew of Fed agencies
Except for the fact that a State DA doesn't have the legal jurisdiction to implement a federal law
Except for the fact their star witness is a convicted liar
Except for the fact that a gag order is used to protect a criminal defendant's rights
Except for the fact its never been used before to gag a defendant

Except for all those trifling little details ....we also have a
DA, as we said, corrupt and paid for Soros...a virulent anti-GOP, DT-hating billionaire
a judge who is a Dem-appointed man
the Judge is a donor to the Dem party
his daughter is a Dem fund raiser
her firm has raised millions off this VERY trial and
the county where the trial was selected to run is (I think) the 2nd highest Dem:GOP voter margin where 87% voted against DT
that's the jury pool
And...all done in the runup to the Election and the judge DEMANDING he be there every day.

Expand

If anyone would know about bias its you. Like your idol you spend most of your time searching for arguments to prevent him having his day in court. If he was in fact innocent then surely you would want to have his day in court like anybody else and give him the chance to prove it wouldn't you? If the evidence wasn't damning against him you would want to see it presented for all to see so that there was no doubt that he was innocent wouldn't you think. But Nooooo. He and you don't want him to have his day in court. You don't want the evidence to be presented. I think deep down we all know why don't we !

The thing that is most interesting in your posts that that despite the mountain of evidence against Trump you have unilaterally decided that he is innocent and shouldn't be held to account but conversely in the very same post to have decided that a bunch of other people are guilty of various acts from which you offer absolutely no proof. If your wondering what that source taste in your mouth is its hypocrisy.