Trump found guilty on all 34 counts

[QvQ]

Well, if you are suggesting that you wouldn't think less of Trump knowing that he cheated on his wife and had sex with a porn star a few weeks after his son was born and you would ignore this confirmation of his lack of character

There was a video of Stormy Daniel with Bill Maher where she states she did not have sex with Trump.
Bill Maher posted that television interview to show that she had made conflicting statements.
Maher hates Trump but he stated he was posting that to show that Stormy lied.
Do I believe Stormy Daniels? A person of very questionable morals? And motive to lie?
Trump denied having sex with her.
If you hate Trump, then you believe Stormy but which version of her tale do you believe?
It is bias, pure and simple.

 

[childeye 2]

That doesn't change the substance of the statement.

Respectfully it does. It changes from a definitive statement to an opinion. In other words, Biden is not making any claims of fact.

Saying you would be the best president. Meaning better than Hilary or Trump, neither of whom had even won the race yet, and having never been president himself before, shows a exaggerated over confidence in is own ability. "Exhibiting an unrealistic sense of superiority" is a trait of narcissism. Hence it is narcissistic and boastful.

But Biden didn't claim as a matter of fact that he would be the best President as if it was a popularity contest between who is the better person. It's not unreasonable that his confidence arises from his credentials and experience as a senator and his knowledge from being the Vice President, which neither of the other candidates could rival. He actually would be stupid to run for President if he thought the other candidate would make a better President.

Opinions can also be narcissistic/boastful statements.

So can false humility. But Biden even pre-empted such mischaracterizations by acknowledging that it sounds like an awful thing to say, before he said it.

 

[ozso]

Well, if you are suggesting that you wouldn't think less of Trump knowing that he cheated on his wife and had sex with a porn star a few weeks after his son was born and you would ignore this confirmation of his lack of character - and that all his other supporters would likely ignore it as well...then I guess he wasted his money.

Trump's opinion, for what it is worth, is that it would cause some reasonable people to have serious doubts about his suitability for the presidency. So he paid her off and broke the law in doing so.

JFK had extramarital affairs. FDR had a longstanding extramarital affair. Bill Clinton in the Oval Office no less. And I bet a few more well respected US presidents can be added to the list. So it's highly unlikely Trump thought his world would have come crashing down if it had been found out. And what possible difference does it make what age his or JFK's kids were? Are we supposed to calculate the ages of FDR's six kids all the years he was hooking up with Lucy Mercer?

That was Michael Avenatti's melodramatic line. He had a newborn son at home! Funny he was defending a porn star who had sex with a married man who had a newborn son at home. Yeah it was just Trump who was the sleaze in that affair.

 

[ozso]

There was a video of Stormy Daniel with Bill Maher where she states she did not have sex with Trump.
Bill Maher posted that television interview to show that she had made conflicting statements.
Maher hates Trump but he stated he was posting that to show that Stormy lied.
Do I believe Stormy Daniels? A person of very questionable morals? And motive to lie?
Trump denied having sex with her.
If you hate Trump, then you believe Stormy but which version of her tale do you believe?
It is bias, pure and simple.

Neither Stormy Daniels nor Michael Cohen are credible.

 

[childeye 2]

So what is the crime?

Pecker, Trump, and Cohen conspired in August of 2015 to use the National enquirer as an arm of the Trump campaign. That counts as an unreported campaign contribution and the contribution is also over the limits one can legally contribute.

I'm uncertain which parts (if any) of New York State law, pertaining to the falsifying records in the first degree, allows for federal statutes that had already been adjudicated in this case to be taken into account. But when Cohen went to prison, he had plead guilty to federal campaign finance violations described as one count of causing an unlawful campaign contribution; and one count of making an excessive campaign contribution.

The Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971, as amended, Title 52, United States Code, Section 30101, et seq., (the “Election Act”), regulates the influence of money on politics. At all relevant times, the Election Act set certain limitations and prohibitions, among them: (a) individual contributions to any presidential candidate, including expenditures coordinated with a candidate or his political committee, were limited to $2,700 per election, and presidential candidates and their committees were prohibited from accepting contributions from individuals in excess of this limit; and (b) Corporations were prohibited from making contributions directly to presidential candidates, including expenditures coordinated with candidates or their committees, and candidates were prohibited from accepting corporate contributions.

Some media outlets edit stories to make Trump look bad or Biden look good
Or simply don't print what will make the favored candidate look bad.

Some outlets generate clickbait and spin to compete for a market audience.

Biden even called editors on the carpet to say the outlets weren't touting his "success"
That is against the law or it should be; strong arming the press

It's free speech to complain about coverage or lack of coverage. It shouldn't be against the law to complain. That's not the same as conspiring with a media outlet like the National enquirer to influence an election.

You mean Bragg could prosecute MSM for bias? This sounds like great good fun.

No. I don't mean to imply that.

If National Enquirer didn't get any money, what crime is there?

Illegal campaign contributions in the form of conspiring to use the National enquirer as an arm of the campaign.

That Trump didn't report that National Enquirer was biased?

No. This is not about bias. This was a conspiracy between Pecker, Trump and Cohen, to use the National enquirer as an arm of the campaign.

 

[Bradskii]

There was a video of Stormy Daniel with Bill Maher where she states she did not have sex with Trump.

Seems you can post whatever you like because maybe somebody told you or you read somewhere or this story said such and such. I know as a fact what you haven't done is spend any time looking for either the video or a transcription of it. She said nothing of the sort: Bill Maher unleashes on Stormy Daniels’ testimony in Trump trial: 'She's a bad witness!'

"You say it's not a Me Too case," Maher said to her at the time.

"It's not a Me Too case," Daniels responded. "I wasn't assaulted. I wasn't attacked, or raped, or coerced or blackmailed…. They tried to shove me in the Me Too box to further their own agenda. And first of all, I didn't want to be part of that because it's not the truth and I'm not a victim in that regard."

So he did have sex with her. So I'll repeat: 'Well, if you are suggesting that you wouldn't think less of Trump knowing that he cheated on his wife and had sex with a porn star a few weeks after his son was born and you would ignore this confirmation of his lack of character...'

So are you suggesting that? You can't now deny it happened (which was a risible position in any case) so you have to now confront it. Which is what you should have done in the first place.

 

[Bradskii]

JFK had extramarital affairs. FDR had a longstanding extramarital affair. Bill Clinton in the Oval Office no less. And I bet a few more well respected US presidents can be added to the list. So it's highly unlikely Trump thought his world would have come crashing down if it had been found out.

Well, gee...yeah. That's exactly what he thought. Anyone who cheats on his wife wants to keep it a secret because it's damaging to people's perception of their character. So if he's standing for office then he thought she needed some hush money. To protect his campaign.

Tough luck he was too dumb to be able to hide it. So he broke the law, was caught, was tried and found guilty by a jury of his peers. And all his lawyers had to do was convince a single juror that there was reasonable doubt. They couldn't even do that. Tune in soon for the sentencing.

And the irony is off the scale by the way. He paid good money to keep this quiet and by doing so endured that everyone on the planet knows about it. His wife must be loving all this.

 

[Bradskii]

Neither Stormy Daniels nor Michael Cohen are credible.

Unlucky for Trump that that wasn't your decision to make. A convicted liar and a porn star are the main witnesses for the prosecution and Trump's lawyers still couldn't swing a single juror.

 

[ozso]

Well, gee...yeah. That's exactly what he thought. Anyone who cheats on his wife wants to keep it a secret because it's damaging to people's perception of their character. So if he's standing for office then he thought she needed some hush money. To protect his campaign.

No doubt about that. But I doubt he was desperate.

Tough luck he was too dumb to be able to hide it.

What was he supposed to do, ice Stormy?

So he broke the law, was caught, was tried and found guilty by a jury of his peers. And all his lawyers had to do was convince a single juror that there was reasonable doubt. They couldn't even do that. Tune in soon for the sentencing.

From what I heard there were restrictions placed on the defense.

And the irony is off the scale by the way. He paid good money to keep this quiet and by doing so endured that everyone on the planet knows about it. His wife must be loving all this.

Probably as much as all the other presidents wives. That is if she believes it happend.

 

[ozso]

Unlucky for Trump that that wasn't your decision to make. A convicted liar and a porn star are the main witnesses for the prosecution and Trump's lawyers still couldn't swing a single juror.

Yeah that doesn't really say much regarding the credibility of the trial.

 

[KCfromNC]

Just an FYI: Trump's MO is to lose in the lower courts and win in the higher courts.

Or to settle for millions :

Trump Pays $2 Million to 8 Charities for Misuse of Foundation (Published 2019)

Under a settlement, the president admitted he had used his charity to bolster his campaign and settle business debts.

www.nytimes.com

Trump's $175 million bond in New York civil fraud judgment case is settled with cash promise

New York state lawyers and an attorney for former President Donald Trump have settled their differences over a $175 million bond that Trump posted to block the collection of a large civil fraud judgment while he pursues appeals.

apnews.com

Unfortunately that only works for civil cases.

 

[KCfromNC]

I agree with you. People are programmed to hate Trump.

I can only imagine we're hearing empty rhetoric like this because the sources of GOP talking points are having a hard time coming up for factual reasons why Trump's felony conviction should be reversed.

 

[KCfromNC]

Neither Stormy Daniels nor Michael Cohen are credible.

If true, it is kinda weird the defense couldn't find someone more credible to explain Mr. Trump's actions.

 

[Bradskii]

No doubt about that. But I doubt he was desperate.

You don't pay a few thousand unless you are desperate.

What was he supposed to do, ice Stormy?

How about: Be faithful to his wife and not have sex with her.

From what I heard there were restrictions placed on the defense.

Maybe you should front up to the appeal and tell them 'what you heard'.

Probably as much as all the other presidents wives. That is if she believes it happend.

You have just got to be kidding me.

 

[7thKeeper]

If true, it is kinda weird the defense couldn't find someone more credible to explain Mr. Trump's actions.

I'm wondering what exactly is supposed to make Daniels not credible. For Cohen, his involvement and jail time would tend to actually lend credence to his statements about the matter as he was directly involved.

 

[Bradskii]

Yeah that doesn't really say much regarding the credibility of the trial.

I don't think you get it. You really don't. That shows the paucity of the defence. The evidence of his guilt was so strong that not one of the jurors had even reasonable doubt.

 

[ozso]

You don't pay a few thousand unless you are desperate.

How about: Be faithful to his wife and not have sex with her.

People make mistakes.

Maybe you should front up to the appeal and tell them 'what you heard'.

That's an absurd statement.

You have just got to be kidding me.

Try and prove me wrong.

 

[ozso]

I don't think you get it. You really don't. That shows the paucity of the defence. The evidence of his guilt was so strong that not one of the jurors had even reasonable doubt.

But it wasn't all that strong. That's the point. A definite candidate for appeal. Why do you think appellate courts exist?

 

[ozso]

If true, it is kinda weird the defense couldn't find someone more credible to explain Mr. Trump's actions.

Not really considering how hampered the defense was.

 

[KCfromNC]

But it wasn't all that strong.

The jury disagreed.