Jump to content

The Trial


Recommended Posts

Not the Kafka novel of the same name, but the the first of the four criminal trials against DJT, which commences today.

Rather oddly, the premise of the trial centres around activity which is not criminal, namely that he paid a sum of money to a porn star to keep quiet about an alleged sexual encounter they had. DJT denies this took place.

As ever DJT's pre-trial approach has been to bad mouth everybody concerned with the trial, even those whose link is only by familial relationship to others.

This trial ought to straightforward. DJT denies that the sexual encounter took place. The payments, he states, to his legal representative were not to reimburse for the payment to the porn star, because he never made those payments. Well, okay. But presumably a "successful businessman" like DJT does not make payments of multiple tens of thousands of dollars without keeping a record of the reason for the payment. So he should be able to kill the case by showing the services rendered by his legal advisor that led to the payments. If he cannot show this, then his case is significantly weaker. But he is a "successful businessman" and I am sure totally reputable and will disprove the allegation easily.

Of course, making such a payment (if he did) is not illegal. But it becomes illegal if he tries to put it through his business accounts, to reduce his tax burden for example.

The difficulties come for DJT because having denied the sexual encounter and by implication denied that the payments were to cover it up, then if the sexual encounter turns out to have occured (as let's face it, just about everyone believes it did), then his implied defence falls away. Unless of course he has kept adequate and accurate records to show for what the payment was reimbursement.

Reading between the lines, it strikes me that DJT cannot provide the proof that the payment was for a legitimate purpose. If he could, then he would presumably have done so already, when asked by the prosecutor.

Sit back and get yourself some pop corn.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It isn’t illegal to make those hush money payments, so you have to look at his reasoning for hiding that payment from any scrutiny… the most likely answer is to avoid all the bible bashing right wingers that are his base, from discovering his many affairs and out of marriage sexual encounters in the run up to the election of 2016. It should be noted that the Stormy Daniels event occurred while his wife was pregnant with their son! 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Sparkler said:

It isn’t illegal to make those hush money payments, so you have to look at his reasoning for hiding that payment from any scrutiny… the most likely answer is to avoid all the bible bashing right wingers that are his base, from discovering his many affairs and out of marriage sexual encounters in the run up to the election of 2016. It should be noted that the Stormy Daniels event occurred while his wife was pregnant with their son! 

But if he hadn't tried to declare them as a business expense, they would have been hidden. Assuming of course that the payment in the business expense is a hush money payment.

If it is a hush money payment, then he put them in his business to avoid tax. Greed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Alteredbhoy said:

But if he hadn't tried to declare them as a business expense, they would have been hidden. Assuming of course that the payment in the business expense is a hush money payment.

If it is a hush money payment, then he put them in his business to avoid tax. Greed.

I demand you post the solicitors license you have stated you have. You have 24 hours in which to do so. If you are non-compliant in this request you will be held in confinement until medical practitioners are able to perform a lower lobotomy on your noggin. The children are on holiday. As such, the schedule is open.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, rowlf said:

I demand you post the solicitors license you have stated you have. You have 24 hours in which to do so. If you are non-compliant in this request you will be held in confinement until medical practitioners are able to perform a lower lobotomy on your noggin. The children are on holiday. As such, the schedule is open.

So you have nothing to say about whether you think DJT is likely innocent or guilty of the offences charged against him? Perhaps you would say whether you think the Court is biased or impartial in advance of its verdict?

Or do you just want to avoid the subject and make insults towards the other posters?

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Alteredbhoy said:

So you have nothing to say about whether you think DJT is likely innocent or guilty of the offences charged against him? Perhaps you would say whether you think the Court is biased or impartial in advance of its verdict?

Or do you just want to avoid the subject and make insults towards the other posters?

It's just all silly. If you can't understand the situation where a man must pay $83m for sexual abuse, and the woman can't remember the month, day and the year it happened, then you're an idiot. I asked you this before. Do you know why she would say she 'can't remember? Put on you stinking err thinking cap!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

35 minutes ago, rowlf said:

It's just all silly. If you can't understand the situation where a man must pay $83m for sexual abuse, and the woman can't remember the month, day and the year it happened, then you're an idiot. I asked you this before. Do you know why she would say she 'can't remember? Put on you stinking err thinking cap!

Because she took him to court and her lawyers provided EVIDENCE which was put before the jury, his lawyers lost the argument and he did not testify despite having ample opportunity to do so. The jury UNANIMOUSLY found he did indeed commit the offence.

THAT is why… it’s called THE LAW… or do you still think some people are above the law?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, rowlf said:

It's just all silly. If you can't understand the situation where a man must pay $83m for sexual abuse, and the woman can't remember the month, day and the year it happened, then you're an idiot. I asked you this before. Do you know why she would say she 'can't remember? Put on you stinking err thinking cap!

And this trial is a different one, it's the hush money trial that he allegedly claimed as a business expense.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

47 minutes ago, Alteredbhoy said:

And this trial is a different one, it's the hush money trial that he allegedly claimed as a business expense.

But isn't it all the same to you? It's what you would call a non-answer.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 minutes ago, rowlf said:

But isn't it all the same to you? It's what you would call a non-answer.

It is a perfectly reasonable statement because, as was previously posted, he claimed hush money as a business expense.

However you love trump so much (yuck) you are blind to his proven lies.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

34 minutes ago, rowlf said:

But isn't it all the same to you? It's what you would call a non-answer.

Your man for POTUS is involved in a criminal fraud trial, but you don't care.

That says all we need to know about you. You'll vote for whoever is going to punch down the hardest on the victims of prejudice.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

49 minutes ago, Alteredbhoy said:

Your man for POTUS is involved in a criminal fraud trial, but you don't care.

That says all we need to know about you. You'll vote for whoever is going to punch down the hardest on the victims of prejudice.

He's not my man. He's running for office, and I plan on voting for him................  if he can stay out of jail. Fortunately, his political enemies are as braindead as you and your ilk, I believe he going to make it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, rowlf said:

He's not my man. He's running for office, and I plan on voting for him................  if he can stay out of jail. Fortunately, his political enemies are as braindead as you and your ilk, I believe he going to make it.

His political enemies are not the ones in court again today and facing half a billion in fines for previous crimes…  who’re the brain dead ones here?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

57 minutes ago, rowlf said:

He's not my man. He's running for office, and I plan on voting for him................  if he can stay out of jail. Fortunately, his political enemies are as braindead as you and your ilk, I believe he going to make it.

Don't be coy. Admit he is your man. You wub him 😍.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, rowlf said:

He's not my man. He's running for office, and I plan on voting for him................  if he can stay out of jail. Fortunately, his political enemies are as braindead as you and your ilk, I believe he going to make it.

What if he is found guilty of a criminal offence, but is sentenced to a lower punishment than jail? Will you still vote for a convict to enter the White House?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Alteredbhoy said:

What if he is found guilty of a criminal offence, but is sentenced to a lower punishment than jail? Will you still vote for a convict to enter the White House?

What if a frog had wings?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, rowlf said:

What if a frog had wings?

So you are prepared to imply that if hypothetically DJT was sentenced to jail time, you would not vote for him. But you are not prepared to offer an opinion in the hypothetical but much more likely instance that he is found guilty but given a non-custodial sentence?

Not only that, but you seek to ridicule the question. Why? 

And why are you so ashamed of your opinions? Is it because you know that you will vote for DJT, whatever the outcome of this and the other trials? That your hatred of the Democrats is so great you would rather have a convicted criminal as POTUS than a Democrat? A convicted criminal who has also been found by the Courts to have committed sexual assault?

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, Sparkler said:

Noted that Fox, and Trump amplifying their comments, forced a juror off of the trial… fearing for her safety. NY AG states, this behaviour has to stop and is seeking sanctions.

In a normal society, the defendant would be in a cell, and would appear via video link.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, c_cubed51 said:

In a normal society, the defendant would be in a cell, and would appear via video link.

He certainly would not be allowed to criticise the judge and the proceedings if he was being tried in a UK Court.

It's a strange nation when a criminal defendant can try to have the judge trying his case be removed before the trial has even begun. 

 It shows a contempt of the justice system.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, c_cubed51 said:

In a normal society, the defendant would be in a cell, and would appear via video link.

 

2 hours ago, Alteredbhoy said:

He certainly would not be allowed to criticise the judge and the proceedings if he was being tried in a UK Court.

It's a strange nation when a criminal defendant can try to have the judge trying his case be removed before the trial has even begun. 

 It shows a contempt of the justice system.

At times like this I can understand why big gov has an obligation to protect the unfortunate.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, rowlf said:

 

At times like this I can understand why big gov has an obligation to protect the unfortunate.

The defendant in a criminal prosecution should not be able to choose the judge. That is just an irrational way to deliver justice.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If he gets acquitted it’ll not be because he’s innocent, but because the jurors are scared for their lives and the lives of their friends and family! I repeat, what a crazy society where right wing nut jobs get told who jurors are.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So now DJT's appeal in the federal court against the verdict in the Carroll case has been rejected as entirely without merit.

Doubtless it is a biased Court.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 16/04/2024 at 06:58, Sparkler said:

Noted once again that Rowlf is ignoring several points, probably because he has no counter point or argument to make because the evidence is so strong.

He hardly ever has any reasonable counter point or argument, just his lame Alt Right beliefs. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Alteredbhoy said:

So now DJT's appeal in the federal court against the verdict in the Carroll case has been rejected as entirely without merit.

Doubtless it is a biased Court.

The thing that Trump doubtless does not understand is that you can’t appeal a case simply because you don’t like the verdict. You have to present some valid reason, some error, some new evidence, simply stamping your feet like a petulant child won’t ever work!

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Apparently on Thursday at a “gag order” hearing, Trumps attorneys entered into the record the fact that Michael Cohen refers to him as “von shitzin pants”.. which sparked laughter from the court. Also the title “SuperVictim”… also raised laughs… Trump had to sit there and endure being ridiculed by his own defence lawyer… you couldn’t make it up!

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, c_cubed51 said:

Any thoughts on the situation, following Stormy Daniels' testimony and cross-examination?

Well we are talking about events that happened nearly twenty years ago when DJT was 60 and Daniels in her twenties.

It all comes across as sleazy and tawdry and almost Weinsteinesque.

Who do we believe DJT, the self confessed pussy-grabber, who has been found by a Court to have sexually assaulted a woman, or a porn actress?

Certainly if it was an allegation of this nature against current rather than past POTUS, I'm sure rowlf would be behind the words of the porn star.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 10/05/2024 at 04:58, Alteredbhoy said:

Well we are talking about events that happened nearly twenty years ago when DJT was 60 and Daniels in her twenties.

It all comes across as sleazy and tawdry and almost Weinsteinesque.

Who do we believe DJT, the self confessed pussy-grabber, who has been found by a Court to have sexually assaulted a woman, or a porn actress?

Certainly if it was an allegation of this nature against current rather than past POTUS, I'm sure rowlf would be behind the words of the porn star.

https://www.instagram.com/videomattpresentsofficial/reel/C6jwHMHpzm-/

He who has eyes yet cannot see...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, rowlf said:

The Champion of the Conspiracy Theory returns. Somehow the words of a 98 year old actor are supposed to carry weight.

You're clutching at straws.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Alteredbhoy said:

The Champion of the Conspiracy Theory returns. Somehow the words of a 98 year old actor are supposed to carry weight.

You're clutching at straws.

And the rest....

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Alteredbhoy said:

The Champion of the Conspiracy Theory returns. Somehow the words of a 98 year old actor are supposed to carry weight.

You're clutching at straws.

That 98 yo is more of a man now than you will ever be. And it isn't by any need for dependence on any one or any thing, as do you. I feel sorry for you.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...