Conviction Ensures Trump Victory

[friend of]

"The judge donated money — a tiny amount, $35, but in plain violation of a rule prohibiting New York judges from making political donations of any kind — to a pro-Biden, anti-Trump political operation,

I heard it was way way more than that. I wonder what the truth is.

 

[BPPLEE]

I heard it was way way more than that. I wonder what the truth is.

He’s not supposed to donate any amount.

 

[Akita Suggagaki]

Joe Biden and the progressive left is toxic for America in so many ways. Perhaps the Democratic Party ought to move on?

I wish they would. But Trump is off the chart toxic disaster .

 

[BPPLEE]

I don’t believe Trump is squeaky clean and I didn’t think he had any chance of winning the general election but the charges against him are so over the top, obviously politically motivated and in most cases exclusive to him ( no one else has been or would be charged under the same circumstances unless their name was Donald Trump)
that people can see this for what it is and it’s the very thing that is growing support for him.
I wouldn’t want to see Republican prosecutors and judges do this to a Democrat and I don’t want to see it done to him.
The lawfare has backfired and Trump has a very good chance of being the next president.

 

[Akita Suggagaki]

I know you cannot agree. It’s OK. I love you anyway. And when the Trump train pulls into the station, you’ll be made great too.

No. He is not my savior even though he thinks he is.

 

[Akita Suggagaki]

The left doesn't care if it's a banana republic though. they want a banana republic.

Election deniers are hallmark banana republic. Anything that does not go his way is "rigged. He can do no wrong. No accountability. He, Kim Jong Un and Putin are cut from same cloth..

 

[Vambram]

Christian News Headlines - Breaking and Trending Religion News | Crosswalk.com

Your source for the latest Christian news and religion news headlines from the United States and the world. Trending topics and news stories that are important to your Christian faith.

www.crosswalk.com

The closest allies of former president Donald Trump were not the only ones defending him Thursday after he was convicted by a New York jury of 34 criminal counts related to alleged hush money payments. Many of his fiercest critics said the prosecution was a sham.

U.S. Sen. Susan Collins (R-Maine), who voted to convict Trump during the 2021 impeachment trial and said this year she won’t vote for him in November, said Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg “brought these charges precisely because of who the defendant was rather than because of any specified criminal conduct.” National Review, a frequent Trump critic, labeled the verdict “horrendous” in an editorial. Andrew C. McCarthy, a former federal prosecutor who argued in 2021 that Trump should be convicted following his impeachment trial, called the Bragg prosecution “outrageous.”

The charges allege that Trump reimbursed his then-lawyer Michael Cohen after Cohen paid off porn star Storm Daniels to keep an affair with Trump secret ahead of the 2016 election. Trump denied all of it. According to Bragg, Trump falsified business records in order to cover up another crime. Although falsifying business records is a misdemeanor, it rises to a felony if a second crime was involved. Bragg’s office claimed that the second crime was illegal campaign expenses -- paying Daniels.

The problem, Trump’s defenders say, is that Trump was never convicted of illegal campaign expenses.

“Bragg, a state prosecutor, has no jurisdiction to enforce federal campaign law,” McCarthy wrote. National Review’s editorial board criticized Bragg:

“In a case that will eventually be remembered as a textbook instance of selective prosecution, the Manhattan district attorney breathed life into an alleged bookkeeping misdemeanor that the statute of limitations had expired on and, Merlin-like, transformed it into 34 felonies,” the editorial read. “... The idea that it was a violation of federal campaign law is not credible. Paying porn stars for their silence is not a campaign expense. Moreover, Trump would have had to willfully violate the law, and there’s no evidence that he was even thinking of campaign-finance law.”

Bragg has become “the first prosecutor in the history of the country to abuse his office in hopes of damaging an opposition presidential candidate ahead of a national election,” the editorial said.

Collins also criticized New York prosecutors:

“It is fundamental to our American system of justice that the government prosecutes cases because of alleged criminal conduct regardless of who the defendant happens to be,” she said in a statement. “In this case the opposite has happened. The district attorney, who campaigned on a promise to prosecute Donald Trump, brought these charges precisely because of who the defendant was rather than because of any specified criminal conduct.

“The political underpinnings of this case further blur the lines between the judicial system and the electoral system, and this verdict likely will be the subject of a protracted appeals process,” she added.

David French, a columnist for The New York Times and a frequent Trump critic, last year noted that Bragg’s predecessor chose not to bring the case. Further, French said, Bragg’s case relied on “federal criminal claims that the Department of Justice declined to prosecute.”

“Should state officials bring a state claim that depends on an accusation of having violated federal law when federal charges were never filed?” French asked. The answer, French said, is no.

“It’s a local district attorney prosecuting a state-level misdemeanor, potentially tying that to a federal felony that was never prosecuted by the federal government,” French told Ezra Klein of The New York Times. “So that’s why a lot of folks look at this -- and me included -- and say that’s a bit of a reach.”

 

[Pommer]

Ooo....never been mistaken for a woman before, sugar!

Well, you’ll certainly remember your first time then!

 

[Pommer]

I’m the one that used the word alleged. The 6th amendment protects defendants against such vague charges. A defendant has a right to know what he is accused of so that he can properly defend against it

This would have been all covered in the indictment.

 

[rambot]

He did raise $54 million in 24 hours

He would have gotten a windfall either way.
This is not a sign of anything.

 

[ozso]

The political ramifications are irrelevant to the impartial application of the law, which is what Trump has received.

Of course, that's why the law was applied five months before the 2024 election for a crime that took place in 2016.

 

[Hazelelponi]

I wish they would. But Trump is off the chart toxic disaster .

Trump is? He isn't sitting there ruining the country at every turn like Biden is.

Biden took plenty of credit in his creepy little grin of confirmation that he was behind every second of this trial, so if that's the kind of country the Democrats want - one where we just jail our political opponents for daring to run against the powers that are in office - then I consider them an enemy of the people.

That's just honest. We never sat around trying political enemies on trumped up fake charges when I grew up. This isn't what America was created to be.

Americans have a world view that has given an exceptional model to the world, I will fight against anyone to keep that, I won't see it torn down. I don't care how much people hate seeing it.

I voted for Trump in 2016 and 2020 because here is exactly where the Marxist wing of the Democratic party was promising to go... If people can't see it now they never will. We are at war against an enemy we invited in, and they are against our way of life.

 

[7thKeeper]

Of course, that's why the law was applied five months before the 2024 election for a crime that took place in 2016.

Except... It wasn't. Unless you claim that March 30th, 2023 was 5 months before the 2024 election. And that's not taking into account the time spent with the grand jury before that.

 

[ozso]

Except... It wasn't. Unless you claim that March 30th, 2023 was 5 months before the 2024 election. And that's not taking into account the time spent with the grand jury before that.

It all timed out well for them.

 

[Pommer]

It all timed out well for them.

If only President Trump hadn’t delayed, we could’ve been through this part already and waiting for the appeal to drop!

 

[ozso]

If only President Trump hadn’t delayed, we could’ve been through this part already and waiting for the appeal to drop!

Ah so he made it happen by defending himself. Then again he probably knew this would boost his popularly.

 

[ozso]

It's pretty funny that indicting Trump in 2023 for a 2016 crime is supposed to look much less calculated than the 2024 conviction.

 

[Pommer]

It's pretty funny that indicting Trump in 2023 for a 2016 crime is supposed to look much less calculated than the 2024 conviction.

Yes, if Mister Trump had maintained residency in the State of New York the statute of limitations would have expired and he couldn’t have been prosecuted.
But on Halloween day 2019, he declared his residency to be “Florida” and the statute of limitations clock stopped.
Quite the “own goal”.

 

[KCfromNC]

It helps to know when debating US news and politics, that the person you're debating with isn't from the US.

Or it is just a way to turn the debate towards the individual when the facts aren't going the right direction.

 

[KCfromNC]

Academics are notoriously Leftist.

Yeah, weird that well educated intelligent people are statistically more likely to reject right wing propaganda.