980
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 14 May 2024
980 points (98.5% liked)
politics
19072 readers
1881 users here now
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
It's about falsifying business records although they still haven't said what the actual crime was and Trump has always denied the sex allegations. Stormy even lost a defamation case against Trump and owes him 500k. The MSM tries to get you to think they slept together though
How do you think they just skipped the parts where they would state the actual alleged crimes? They in fact didn't skip that part.
Alright then, what is the folony crime they're claiming he committed?
It's falsifying business records, which becomes a felony when combined with it being a campaign finance violation.
Not as strong of a case as the docs one but it is a crime.
Right, that's why the FEC and Braggs office declined to prosecute the case already, and then wouldn't ya know, campaign season rolls around and all the sudden it's being prosecuted. I'm just not that naive. I see it for what it is although I do expect a guilty verdict to come and then to get overturned on appeal
You're just imagining facts that are convenient to what you want to think but are not true. This case has been in the works for years. It didn't just happen recently all of the sudden because it is election season.
Yeah, it was in the works before and 2 courts declined to prosecute it, one being the very court that it's being tried in now, the other being the Federal Election Commission. I'm not imagining anything. That's just the facts bud
Falsifying business records is an actual crime.
So what? Even if he did falsify them (which they failed to prove) statute of limitations already ran up. They're trying to claim he falsified them to influence the outcome of the election but that's impossible considering that they weren't labeled as a legal expense until after the election was over. Facts matter
Moving the goalposts I see.
Again, do you think they can just ignore things like statute of limitations and proceed anyway just because they don't like Trump and are out to get him? The case would not be in progress if that claim of yours was accurate. The charges were indeed filled before the statute of limitations expired. This is a real court with real rules that apply and matter. It isn't a clown sham court like Trump wants you to think it is. Facts do indeed matter. Stop fabricating them (or believing someone else's fabrications) to fit a narrative that you want to be true.
The statute of limitations ran up on the bookkeeping charge, so Bragg claimed that the false bookkeeping was done in order to hide another supposed crime which allows him to try and make a felony out of it, but they haven't proved the first or second crime. Some say the second crime was election interference but the problem with that theory is that Trump didn't sign the bookkeeping documents until well after the election was already over, so that wouldn't make any sense. We've basically just gotta wait until the judge gives his directions to the jury to find out what this second crime is
You obviously don't understand how it works. If you have a corrupt jusge and prosecutor, you can absolutely bring cases to court that doesn't belong in court. They have the power to do so. The judge doesn't have some boss standing over his shoulder telling him what he's allowed to do or not do. They've got the power to just about anything they want. The judge can decide what evidence to allow and what evidence not to allow and right now, the judge doesn't want the defense to allow an expert witness to testify and he has that power. The jury could decide in the end that Trumps not guilty and the judge even has the power to override the jury verdict and impose a sentence anyway. Sure, it's not ethical, but he can certainly do it. The powers above him don't come into play until the case is over and there is appeal made by the defense, and everything the judge did could be overturned. Our Justice system isn't perfect at all and a judge having that much power is a big problem in my opinion and it largely goes unnoticed most of the time because like you, a lot people think that if it's the court system it must be legit, but there's more people waking up to it now that they're using against political opponents so we'll see if something changes down the road but as it stands a corrupt judge and prosecutor can destroy a completely innocent person with no problem