You proudly voted for Bill Clinton and his enabler Hillary and today you pretend you have morals? gtfoh.
Even if your fellow Democrat is a serial child rapist that does NOTHING to diminish his legal opinions and decades of expertise. 2+2 doesn't stop equaling 4 just because someone you don't like says it.
You're not bright enough to realize it but you are really showing your cult membership credentials here.
Just use your other name? Only one idiot talks like this.
While obviously not nearly as delusional as his permanent name, it is good in that it better advertises his gross mental simplicity.
Mitch McConnell: "I think the demonization of Ukraine began by Tucker Carlson, who in my opinion ended up where he should've been all along, which is interviewing Vladimir Putin"
could someone explain to me how it's an illegal conspiracy for a newspaper to write stories and spend money as it wishes in favor of its preferred candidate?
Newspapers don't have to be fair and balanced.
Are their stories somehow considered campaign contributions? Does every newspaper have to add up money spent covering candidates?
I don't get it. or am I missing a point?
This post was edited 56 seconds after it was posted.
could someone explain to me how it's an illegal conspiracy for a newspaper to write stories and spend money as it wishes in favor of its preferred candidate?
Newspapers don't have to be fair and balanced.
Are their stories somehow considered campaign contributions? Does every newspaper have to add up money spent covering candidates?
I don't get it.
The catch and kill it's categorized as an in kind campaign donation. Because, the Enquirer didn't benefit from killing the story that they paid for. The only person that benefited was Trump and his campaign.
Nate Schweber A day after Trump issued a call for more supporters to gather outside the Manhattan Criminal Courthouse, the number reached its nadir. The number of identifiable Trump fans across the street in Collect Pond Park on Tuesday sank to the mid-single digits, after hovering at about a dozen for a week.
Fake news. There were LOTS of them there, AND STRONGLY.
could someone explain to me how it's an illegal conspiracy for a newspaper to write stories and spend money as it wishes in favor of its preferred candidate?
Newspapers don't have to be fair and balanced.
Are their stories somehow considered campaign contributions? Does every newspaper have to add up money spent covering candidates?
I don't get it.
The catch and kill it's categorized as an in kind campaign donation. Because, the Enquirer didn't benefit from killing the story that they paid for. The only person that benefited was Trump and his campaign.
I hear you but seems like a bad road to go down...to tell newspapers what they can and can't do with their money and reporters. I just don't see it as a crime, in theoretical terms.
The catch and kill it's categorized as an in kind campaign donation. Because, the Enquirer didn't benefit from killing the story that they paid for. The only person that benefited was Trump and his campaign.
I hear you but seems like a bad road to go down...to tell newspapers what they can and can't do with their money and reporters. I just don't see it as a crime, in theoretical terms.
They catch and kill alone isn't illegal. It's being categorized as and illegal campaign donation, since it solely benefitted the Trump campaign.
The case isn't ruling on the legality of catch and kill, nor is it ruling on what news organizations can and can't do with their money. The actions of the news organization aren't on trial.
Donald Trump's actions are on trial and only Donald Trump's actions are on trial. Did he falsify business documents to cover up campaign finance fraud in order to mislead the voting public? That's it
I hear you but seems like a bad road to go down...to tell newspapers what they can and can't do with their money and reporters. I just don't see it as a crime, in theoretical terms.
They catch and kill alone isn't illegal. It's being categorized as and illegal campaign donation, since it solely benefitted the Trump campaign.
The case isn't ruling on the legality of catch and kill, nor is it ruling on what news organizations can and can't do with their money. The actions of the news organization aren't on trial.
Donald Trump's actions are on trial and only Donald Trump's actions are on trial. Did he falsify business documents to cover up campaign finance fraud in order to mislead the voting public? That's it
Good lucking proving a married man wouldn't have any non-political reasons for not wanting a story that would get him in trouble with his wife to be made public.
They catch and kill alone isn't illegal. It's being categorized as and illegal campaign donation, since it solely benefitted the Trump campaign.
The case isn't ruling on the legality of catch and kill, nor is it ruling on what news organizations can and can't do with their money. The actions of the news organization aren't on trial.
Donald Trump's actions are on trial and only Donald Trump's actions are on trial. Did he falsify business documents to cover up campaign finance fraud in order to mislead the voting public? That's it
Yes. That line of questioning of Pecker established the purpose of his relationship (conspiracy) wit Trump and cohen. It was to influence the election. There was no crime in publishing lies for Trump. It is noteworthy that Pecker made sure all tabloids did not publish. Not just the National Enquirer.
Pecker took a plea deal because he was guilty of campaign finance crimes himself by making payments to a woman and the doorman at Trumps direction.
They catch and kill alone isn't illegal. It's being categorized as and illegal campaign donation, since it solely benefitted the Trump campaign.
The case isn't ruling on the legality of catch and kill, nor is it ruling on what news organizations can and can't do with their money. The actions of the news organization aren't on trial.
Donald Trump's actions are on trial and only Donald Trump's actions are on trial. Did he falsify business documents to cover up campaign finance fraud in order to mislead the voting public? That's it
Good lucking proving a married man wouldn't have any non-political reasons for not wanting a story that would get him in trouble with his wife to be made public.
The guy that performed the catch and kill testified today that the intention of the catch and kill was to help the Trump campaign.
The guy that already served time for the scheme, will testify to the same. Trump Org. CFO. actually wrote the plan out. The prosecution has it.
Trump paid $130k of his campaign funds to silence an allegation for PR purposes. The US has already sent close to $111 billion of your dollars to fund the quagmire in Ukraine that Biden’s son received bribes for and are poised to send another $61 billion to. Anthony Blinken instigated the letter that was signed by 51 former intelligence officials (many of whom are now on the payroll of the firms producing the arms we are sending to Ukraine) that attempted to discredit the Hunter Biden laptop.
They catch and kill alone isn't illegal. It's being categorized as and illegal campaign donation, since it solely benefitted the Trump campaign.
The case isn't ruling on the legality of catch and kill, nor is it ruling on what news organizations can and can't do with their money. The actions of the news organization aren't on trial.
Donald Trump's actions are on trial and only Donald Trump's actions are on trial. Did he falsify business documents to cover up campaign finance fraud in order to mislead the voting public? That's it
Good lucking proving a married man wouldn't have any non-political reasons for not wanting a story that would get him in trouble with his wife to be made public.
FFS everyone knew trump had an open marriage - he had affairs while married his whole life.
we will be hearing about the affairs through the trial.
remember karen macdougal?I bet you don't. You will tho.
Can't say 'oh trump's wife would have cared about THIS affair.'
Good lucking proving a married man wouldn't have any non-political reasons for not wanting a story that would get him in trouble with his wife to be made public.
FFS everyone knew trump had an open marriage - he had affairs while married his whole life.
we will be hearing about the affairs through the trial.
remember karen macdougal?I bet you don't. You will tho.
Can't say 'oh trump's wife would have cared about THIS affair.'
And yet you're trying to argue that the voters would care about THIS affair.
Good lucking proving a married man wouldn't have any non-political reasons for not wanting a story that would get him in trouble with his wife to be made public.
FFS everyone knew trump had an open marriage - he had affairs while married his whole life.
we will be hearing about the affairs through the trial.
remember karen macdougal?I bet you don't. You will tho.
Can't say 'oh trump's wife would have cared about THIS affair.'
Good lucking proving a married man wouldn't have any non-political reasons for not wanting a story that would get him in trouble with his wife to be made public.
The guy that performed the catch and kill testified today that the intention of the catch and kill was to help the Trump campaign.
The guy that already served time for the scheme, will testify to the same. Trump Org. CFO. actually wrote the plan out. The prosecution has it.
It's not going to be hard to prove.
And a defendant often has multiple motivations for their actions. That does not negate his formal scheme of making payments to keep people silent in the weeks before the election. To influence the election. Remember. Bragg only has to prove the falsification of records happened. And the motivation was another crime. He doesn’t need to prove the other crime happened or not.
Also, to have any weight with the jury this testimony about protecting Melania as motivation would need to come from Trump himself. He would need to take the stand . A lawyer making that case would ring hollow.
And yet you're trying to argue that the voters would care about THIS affair.
It doesn’t matter. If the Trump campaign placed an ad for TV spots in Chicago they can’t later say it didn’t qualify as a campaign buy because voters wouldn’t care about those ads. They need to be reported. Can’t commit records fraud to hide them.