Jump to content

Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty


Recommended Posts

Posted
1 hour ago, dcbc said:

My guess is she has better things men to do.

FIFY.

1 hour ago, bolverk said:

 

image.thumb.png.fb5bc921b89335d786f0a42e90404e2d.png

MAGAcultmember/ "See, it says it right there it was a Classy Felony.  Trump is all about being Classy.  Perfect Felony.  The finest Felony.  The man and his family just ooze Classy."  

  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Haha 1
Posted

"jaw kept falling on his chest and his mouth kept going slack"

Couple things here:  "Mouth Kept Going Slack", what the fucker gets for making fun of stutters/stammerers  

"Jaw kept falling on his chest."  Imagine the sound of that droopy vaginal jowl thing he calls a chin/neck slapping on his bloated chest.  

ENJOY YOUR DINNER, FUCKERS!  

Posted
5 hours ago, 4th&Five said:

 

This is why I’m not that worried about the MAGA masses.  The January 6 convictions/felonies/jail time/lost jobs/etc. is probably acting as both a deterrent to would-be future traitors, but also wrapped up some of the worst that would be likely to do something.

The rest are going to sit at home on Facebook or TexAgs and just whine.

MAGA just has a shitload of pussies that won’t show up to support him no matter how much he whines on truth.social about the Deep State fucking him.  Hell, these people are liable to stay home because they believe him when he says the election is rigged.  What’s the point of voting in a rigged election?

  • Hook 'Em 2
Posted
3 hours ago, Bullneck said:

image.thumb.png.ff0690601158e509a0c7766909ade302.png

‘Angling like a big dog’ aggy gonna aggy

Also using that ag degree for some hourly gig being a chode.  

‘My employer pays for me to be on a jury pool!’


Nice humble brag, pal.  

  • Haha 2
Posted
2 minutes ago, atomheartbevo said:

Good to see that TexAgs is full of Christians that care about adultery, lying, etc.


the politics board is an open white supremacy meeting. Some here would be very at home there 

  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Rage+1 1
Posted

Decent rundown of who might testify to what from Politico: https://www.politico.com/news/2024/04/14/trump-hush-money-trial-witnesses-00151816

Quote

NEW YORK — Donald Trump’s first criminal trial, scheduled to begin Monday, is set to feature a familiar cast of characters on the witness stand.

That’s because the felony charges against the former president center on a well-trodden sequence of salacious events: Trump’s affair with porn star Stormy Daniels; hush money payments to prevent Daniels from going public on the eve of the 2016 election; and the alleged scheme to falsify records tied to those payments.

But even though the allegations are widely known, some of the people most intimately involved in them have never spoken about them publicly. And beyond the episode involving Daniels, prosecutors may introduce evidence of two lesser-known efforts by Trump or people operating on his behalf to suppress negative stories about him during the 2016 campaign.

Though neither prosecutors with the office of Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg nor Trump’s defense lawyers have publicly released their witness lists, some of the expected witnesses have been disclosed in court filings.

Here’s what we know about the people who might testify in the first criminal prosecution of a former president:

DAVID PECKER

Pecker is the former CEO of American Media, Inc., which published the National Enquirer during the period when it executed so-called “catch and kill” schemes to bury negative stories about Trump.

One of the prosecution’s central goals will be to persuade jurors that Trump orchestrated the cover-up — and falsified his company’s records — as part of a scheme to influence the 2016 election, rather than merely to avoid personal embarrassment. Connecting the conduct to the election will help prosecutors maintain the charges against Trump as felonies, rather than misdemeanors. And Pecker may be a key witness on that point.

He is expected to testify about his efforts to aid Trump by brokering these deals, including any conversations he had with Trump or Cohen, as well as any communication he had with those being silenced — namely Daniels, or her representatives.

According to state prosecutors, Pecker, at the time a close friend and ally of Trump, met with Trump and his then-lawyer Michael Cohen in August 2015 at Trump Tower. Pecker, the prosecution says, agreed to help Trump’s presidential campaign by acting “as the ‘eyes and ears’ for the campaign by looking out for negative stories” about Trump and flagging them for Cohen before they were published. Pecker “also agreed to publish negative stories about [Trump’s] competitors for the election.”

That fall, according to prosecutors, Pecker directed AMI to pay $30,000 to a former Trump Tower doorman, Dino Sajudin, who was attempting to shop a story about a “love child” Trump had fathered. Pecker did so “because of his agreement” with Trump and Cohen, prosecutors have said. After AMI concluded the story wasn’t true, Cohen instructed Pecker to keep the agreement with the doorman in place until after the presidential election, according to prosecutors.

In June 2016, according to prosecutors, Pecker, after consultation with Trump and Cohen, again came to Trump’s rescue. He directed AMI to pay $150,000 to a former Playboy Playmate, Karen McDougal, to keep her quiet about claims she had a sexual encounter with Trump. Pecker expected, based on his conversations with Cohen, that AMI would be reimbursed for the payment by either Trump or the Trump Organization, but that never happened.

In October 2016, Pecker aided Trump yet again, this time telling the National Enquirer editor-in-chief to alert Cohen to the fact that Daniels was claiming to have had a sexual encounter with Trump. Trump’s campaign had just been roiled by the release of the infamous Access Hollywood tape, in which Trump boasted about sexual assault, and a potential sex scandal involving Daniels’ account would have further damaged the campaign. Cohen then struck the $130,000 deal with Daniels.

Pecker may also be questioned about a non-prosecution agreement that AMI signed with Manhattan federal prosecutors in August 2018 in conjunction with their prosecution of Cohen. In that agreement, the company admitted that it paid $150,000 to McDougal to ensure that she “did not publicize damaging allegations” about Trump “before the 2016 presidential election and thereby influence that election.”

Pecker’s testimony will likely prove important because he can corroborate much of what Cohen is expected to testify about, and Pecker will come to the witness stand with far fewer credibility issues than Cohen.

MICHAEL COHEN

Cohen stands at the center of the Daniels deal since he both paid Daniels and got reimbursed by Trump for the payment. That reimbursement resulted, according to prosecutors, in the very acts for which Trump is on trial: 34 counts of allegedly falsifying various business records to mask the true purpose of his payments to Cohen.

 Here are the core topics Cohen is expected to testify about: his conversations with Pecker to forge the ongoing “catch and kill” agreement to benefit Trump; his involvement with each payment to suppress a negative story and what Trump directed him to do about it; and, perhaps most critically, his conversations with Trump about the Daniels payment and its timing around the election.

Cohen could also be questioned about his knowledge of Trump’s reaction to the Access Hollywood tape’s release. Prosecutors have said they will seek to persuade the jury that Trump was motivated to keep Daniels quiet in the wake of the release of that tape, so as not to further jeopardize his campaign just before Election Day.

STORMY DANIELS

The porn star could be asked to testify about her alleged sexual encounter with Trump, her effort to go public with her story in 2016 and the contract she signed to agree to keep quiet about her allegations.

What may be of most interest to prosecutors, however, is her account of what happened when Cohen, at Trump’s direction, attempted to delay paying her until after the election “because at that point it would not matter if the story became public,” as state prosecutors put it in a court filing accompanying the indictment. That aspect of the timeline is likely critical to prosecutors because it speaks to their argument that Trump orchestrated the payment to Daniels to influence the election.

HOPE HICKS

Hicks was Trump’s campaign press secretary at the time of the Daniels deal, so prosecutors could question her about her knowledge of Trump’s efforts at the time to prevent the Daniels allegation from becoming public — and what, if anything, Trump privately communicated to her about its threat to his campaign.

Prosecutors may also ask Hicks about Trump’s reaction to the Access Hollywood tape. And they could question her about what she knew about the general “catch and kill” arrangement with Pecker.

In an affidavit filed in federal court, an FBI agent who investigated Cohen said Hicks had been involved in conversations about silencing Daniels, whose birth name is Stephanie Clifford.

“I have learned,” the agent wrote, “that in the days following the Access Hollywood video, Cohen exchanged a series of calls, text messages and emails with Keith Davidson, who was then Clifford’s attorney, David Pecker and Dylan Howard of American Media Inc. (“AMI”), the publisher of the National Enquirer, Trump, and Hope Hicks, who was then press secretary for Trump’s presidential campaign.”

“Based on the timing of these calls, and the content of the text messages and emails,” the agent continued, “I believe that at least some of these communications concerned the need to prevent Clifford from going public, particularly in the wake of the Access Hollywood story.”

KAREN MCDOUGAL AND DINO SAJUDIN

Justice Juan Merchan has ruled that McDougal and Sajudin can be questioned about the payments they received from AMI to keep their stories quiet.

“The steps taken to secure the stories of McDougal and Sajudin complete the narrative of the agreement that was reached at the meeting” at the 2015 Trump Tower between Pecker, Cohen and Trump, Merchan wrote.

BRADLEY SMITH

Smith, a former chairman of the Federal Election Commission and a law professor at Capital University Law School in Columbus, Ohio, is set to testify as an expert witness for the defense. He may help Trump’s lawyers rebut the prosecution’s theory that Trump’s reimbursements to Cohen violated campaign finance laws. If prosecutors can’t persuade the jury of that theory, they will have a harder time proving that the falsification-of-business-records charges count as felonies instead of misdemeanors.

Merchan has ruled that Smith can offer testimony on a limited selection of subjects, including general background on what the FEC is, background on who makes up the FEC, what its function is, what laws it’s responsible for enforcing and general terms and definitions “that relate directly to this case, such as for example ‘campaign contribution.’”

DONALD TRUMP

Trump is the wild card here. The former president told reporters on Friday that he “absolutely” would take the stand. But it’s far from clear if he will stick to that plan.

His lawyers may be reluctant to call him as a witness, given his well-known credibility issues and his tendency to bloviate on the stand. But he may not be able to resist speaking in his own defense. That was true in both the recent civil fraud trial against him and in this year’s federal defamation trial in a lawsuit brought by the writer E. Jean Carroll. Trump testified in both of those cases — and he lost both cases badly, with a pair of civil judgments totaling over a half-billion dollars. This time around, losing could mean something even graver: the prospect of prison.

 

  • Hook 'Em 5
Posted
8 minutes ago, atomheartbevo said:

Good to see that TexAgs is full of Christians that care about adultery, lying, etc.

An aggy does not lie, cheat, or steal, or tolerate those who do.  Unless it's football recruiting.  Or lying about football national championships.  Or cheating on wives.  Or lying about cheating on wives.  Or lying about how the Corps of Cadets got those red asses.  Or, you know what, there are some exceptions, okay?  An aggy uses his best judgment, and if he finds hisself on a morally slippery slope, he can just lie his way out of it.  The important thing to remember is that aggy liberated France, okay?  Get off our red asses.

  • Hook 'Em 4
  • Like 3
  • Drool 1
Posted
17 minutes ago, C-Man said:

Decent rundown of who might testify to what from Politico: https://www.politico.com/news/2024/04/14/trump-hush-money-trial-witnesses-00151816

 

Two things from that article:

1. The CEO of the National Enquirer is Mr. Pecker. Can’t make that up.

2. Said CEO of the National Enquirer is called out in the article for having far fewer credibility issues than Michael Cohen. Imagine having so little credibility that the CEO of a supermarket tabloid is a more credible witness than you are.

  • Hook 'Em 2
Posted

This is all performance theatre. Aint a damn thing gonna happen to that orange bag of shit between now and the election, except maybe a couple of fines which he appeal/refuse to pay. Its ridiculous that this fucking clown is still walking around after 3+ years after trying to obstruct the transfer of power and leading an insurrection. I honestly dont give a fuck about this trial, and would far prefer he take the stand and get grilled about his election fuckery, but I guess  4 years wont be enough time to get that ball rolling. 

  • Hook 'Em 3
  • Like 1
  • Rage+1 4
Posted
20 minutes ago, atomheartbevo said:

This is why I’m not that worried about the MAGA masses.  The January 6 convictions/felonies/jail time/lost jobs/etc. is probably acting as both a deterrent to would-be future traitors, but also wrapped up some of the worst that would be likely to do something.

The rest are going to sit at home on Facebook or TexAgs and just whine.

MAGA just has a shitload of pussies that won’t show up to support him no matter how much he whines on truth.social about the Deep State fucking him.  Hell, these people are liable to stay home because they believe him when he says the election is rigged.  What’s the point of voting in a rigged election?

Yeah but just because they don’t show up at the courthouse doesn’t mean they won’t show up at the polls. We can’t get complacent and overconfident. I think that’s part of why Trump won in ‘16. I can’t prove it but I believe he would’ve lost if they held a re-vote the day after the election. I think a lot of voters stayed home because they assumed he had no chance. I think a lot of them woke up the next morning thinking Hillary didn’t look so bad after all.

I’m not suggesting you disagree but I think we must never lower our guard and should always take seriously the threat that Trump might actually win. No one can afford to sit on their hands. Anything but a vote for Joe Biden is a vote for Donald Trump and against American constitutional democracy. We can’t assume the fascist sympathizers will sit at home on Nov. 5. We have to assume they’ll turn out and we have to show up ourselves because there are more of us than there are of them.

Stay vigilant.

  • Hook 'Em 8
  • Like 1
Posted
53 minutes ago, atomheartbevo said:

Good to see that TexAgs is full of Christians that care about adultery, lying, etc.

The state of Texas is a beautiful woman that you fall in love with, then you wake up next to her, and she rolls over and the back of her head has this hideous attached fetal twin, and it's alive and spitting blood, pus, piss, the runny shits, and jism all at the same time while clacking its stunted limbs like a crab, and on one grotesquely misshapen finger you see a ring. An Aggy ring.

"Don't mind him, hon," she purrs, "that's just Aggy."

  • Haha 7
  • Drool 2
Posted

Ok I have a legal question I’ve never understood. Explain it to me like I’m 15:

Forget that this Trump for a minute. Why does a DA care if some guy pays some ho to shut the fuck up? I keep reading about “falsifying business records”. I get that he called the payment a legal fee but to who? Who were these business records certified to that falsifying them makes it a felony? I mean I can call my ho payments whatever I want in my Quicken app and the DA wouldn’t care.

Don’t get me wrong, I detest this cunt as much as anyone. But this one has alway felt like a reach from a criminal legal perspective to me. What am I missing?

Posted
6 minutes ago, tbone_ said:

Ok I have a legal question I’ve never understood. Explain it to me like I’m 15:

Forget that this Trump for a minute. Why does a DA care if some guy pays some ho to shut the fuck up? I keep reading about “falsifying business records”. I get that he called the payment a legal fee but to who? Who were these business records certified to that falsifying them makes it a felony? I mean I can call my ho payments whatever I want in my Quicken app and the DA wouldn’t care.

Don’t get me wrong, I detest this cunt as much as anyone. But this one has alway felt like a reach from a criminal legal perspective to me. What am I missing?

Why did Michael Cohen go to jail?

Do you think election interference is okay?

Not sure what’s confusing. 

  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Like 2
Posted
10 minutes ago, RDCanecutter said:

The state of Texas is a beautiful woman that you fall in love with, then you wake up next to her, and she rolls over and the back of her head has this hideous attached fetal twin, and it's alive and spitting blood, pus, piss, the runny shits, and jism all at the same time while clacking its stunted limbs like a crab, and on one grotesquely misshapen finger you see a ring. An Aggy ring.

"Don't mind him, hon," she purrs, "that's just Aggy."

This analogy isn’t quite right. Thirty seconds after you met said beautiful woman, aggy would’ve been screaming that he went to a&m to get your attention because aggy can’t stand getting zero attention.

  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Drool 1
Posted
Just now, tbone_ said:

Ok I have a legal question I’ve never understood. Explain it to me like I’m 15:

Forget that this Trump for a minute. Why does a DA care if some guy pays some ho to shut the fuck up? I keep reading about “falsifying business records”. I get that he called the payment a legal fee but to who? Who were these business records certified to that falsifying them makes it a felony? I mean I can call my ho payments whatever I want in my Quicken app and the DA wouldn’t care.

Don’t get me wrong, I detest this cunt as much as anyone. But this one has alway felt like a reach from a criminal legal perspective to me. What am I missing?

The DA doesn’t care he paid a porn star money. They care he falsified business records to cover up a crime. 

Quote

 

Prosecutors say that 11 checks were doled out for this spurious purpose – and that Trump signed nine of them; the Trump Organization processed each of these checks “disguised as a payment for legal services rendered pursuant to a non-existent retainer agreement”.

Trump’s alleged passing off hush-money payouts as remittance for legal work “made and caused a false entry in the business records of an enterprise”, prosecutors say in the counts of his indictment. This was done, they say, “with intent to defraud and intent to commit another crime and aid and conceal the commission thereof …”.

 

  • Hook 'Em 5
  • Like 1
Posted
6 minutes ago, tbone_ said:

Forget that this Trump for a minute. Why does a DA care if some guy pays some ho to shut the fuck up? I keep reading about “falsifying business records”. I get that he called the payment a legal fee but to who? Who were these business records certified to that falsifying them makes it a felony? I mean I can call my ho payments whatever I want in my Quicken app and the DA wouldn’t care.

Don’t get me wrong, I detest this cunt as much as anyone. But this one has alway felt like a reach from a criminal legal perspective to me. What am I missing?

One of the key facts is that he used this in kind contribution from the national enquirer to keep a critical story quiet at a critical moment of the election, and then covered up his tracks of doing so to hide it from the people that elected him. 

"Separating trump" from the facts removes critically important context. Perhaps instead of "trump" you should mentally model it as "the sitting American President used fraud to hide crimes from before he was president"

  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Like 2
Posted
1 minute ago, Red Five said:

What graduation is Eric talking about that's taking place in April?

Barron is graduating High School (presumably in Palm Beach). 

And the judge has yet to issue a decision on whether dotard can go

Posted
2 minutes ago, Gil Bang said:

Barron is graduating High School (presumably in Palm Beach). 

And the judge has yet to issue a decision on whether dotard can go

Probably shouldn't have talked a bunch of shit publicly about the judge and his family. 

  • Hook 'Em 2
Posted
47 minutes ago, GenXer said:

This analogy isn’t quite right. Thirty seconds after you met said beautiful woman, aggy would’ve been screaming that he went to a&m to get your attention because aggy can’t stand getting zero attention.

My Texas existence was mainly in cities up and down I-35, and I somehow avoided learning about the depths of Aggy weirdness. Until I worked there. The day after I finished that contract, I was in Mexico, trying to heal a shattered mind.

  • Like 1
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, tbone_ said:

Ok I have a legal question I’ve never understood. Explain it to me like I’m 15:

Forget that this Trump for a minute. Why does a DA care if some guy pays some ho to shut the fuck up? I keep reading about “falsifying business records”. I get that he called the payment a legal fee but to who? Who were these business records certified to that falsifying them makes it a felony? I mean I can call my ho payments whatever I want in my Quicken app and the DA wouldn’t care.

Don’t get me wrong, I detest this cunt as much as anyone. But this one has alway felt like a reach from a criminal legal perspective to me. What am I missing?

You raise a pretty valid point. This is a weird little statute on NYs books. But, it gets prosecuted with some regularity, although I think in contexts where someone is actually deceived. Especially where the deception occurs in the course of the "second" crime that elevates it to a felony. 

Edited by TwiceHorn
Posted
54 minutes ago, Captainant said:

One of the key facts is that he used this in kind contribution from the national enquirer to keep a critical story quiet at a critical moment of the election, and then covered up his tracks of doing so to hide it from the people that elected him. 

"Separating trump" from the facts removes critically important context. Perhaps instead of "trump" you should mentally model it as "the sitting American President used fraud to hide crimes from before he was president"

Except he isn't actually charged with an election crime, and, as a federal crime, Bragg has no jurisdiction to prosecute it. 

But it is a scheme to conceal it. But the NY crime prompts the question from whom, because no one was looking at his books to try to prove it. 

Posted
1 minute ago, TwiceHorn said:

Except he isn't actually charged with an election crime, and, as a federal crime, Bragg has no jurisdiction to prosecute it. 

Cohen went to prison for crimes that he pled guilty to, and that trump aided and abetted as a co-conspirator. That is the federal campaign finance law violation that was prosecuted by SDNY in 2018.

7 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

But it is a scheme to conceal it. But the NY crime prompts the question from whom, because no one was looking at his books to try to prove it. 

The concealment was part of the conspiracy to commit a campaign finance law violation.

 

It really is remarkable how quickly you find a way to frame any attempt to prosecute trump as an overreach.

  • Hook 'Em 2
Posted (edited)
17 minutes ago, Captainant said:

Cohen went to prison for crimes that he pled guilty to, and that trump aided and abetted as a co-conspirator. That is the federal campaign finance law violation that was prosecuted by SDNY in 2018.

The concealment was part of the conspiracy to commit a campaign finance law violation.

 

It really is remarkable how quickly you find a way to frame any attempt to prosecute trump as an overreach.

Oh fuck you I do not. 

But the reality, minus the total perspective vortex, is that this is a weird prosecution of a misdemeanor offense that back doors a federal offense to make it a felony. Texas Ed nailed the gist of it. 

The crime that Cohen pled to is a federal offense that Bragg can't prosecute and the feds declined to prosecute against Trump for whatever reason. 

I applaud the gymnastics to get here and hope they succeed. But they are gymnastics that make this legally probably the weakest case against Trump of all of them (as opposed to factually). 

 

Edited by TwiceHorn
  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Like 1
  • Rage+1 1
Posted (edited)
33 minutes ago, Captainant said:

It really is remarkable how quickly you find a way to frame any attempt to prosecute trump as an overreach.

Just because we want Trump to be prosecuted for crimes doesn't mean we're going to be credulous to every accusation and assume every fact against him is correct, and every exonerating bit is wrong.

Y'all are doing that, and it sets you up for this mind-numbingly stupid NoThInG wIlL hApPeN! hE kEePs GeTtInG aWaY wItH iT! every time reality happens and you discover that, oh yes, there is more to the story than just the evidence you want to believe.

TwiceHorn's a defense attorney. It's his job to spot the holes in a prosecution's case. And the more you want a claim to be true, the healthier it is to be skeptical of any evidence in favor of it.

 

Edited by Rimbo
  • Hook 'Em 3
Posted
3 minutes ago, Rimbo said:

TwiceHorn's a defense attorney.

I thought he was a patent/IP guy?  Have I been on Planet Xenon all this time?  (Nobody answer that.)

  • Hook 'Em 3
Posted
2 minutes ago, Rimbo said:

TwiceHorn's a defense attorney.

I thought he was an IP attorney?

3 minutes ago, Rimbo said:

And the more you want a claim to be true, the healthier it is to be skeptical of any evidence in favor of it.

Are you saying that trump did not get an in kind campaign contribution from the national enquirer to kill the story and then use campaign funds to pay hush money to the pornstar he banged? We have a fucking check with his signature on it lol. 

What is there to be skeptical of here? That trump is the victim of a big ol mean conspiracy to UNFAIRLY prosecute him? 

Posted (edited)
1 minute ago, jimmyjazz said:

I thought he was a patent/IP guy?  Have I been on Planet Xenon all this time?  (Nobody answer that.)

No, you’re right. Scottsins did crim law and a few others. Foosters maybe?

Edited by Pig Bellmont
Posted

I mean, I'm off by a year sometimes wrt to my siblings, but 3 years is a bit much.  

I also picture somebody asking Donald, or even just Eric the name of this school where this special graduation is taking place.  And I picture, along with @Biff Tannen, Kramer being asked at the doctor's office about which clinic it is that he works at.

"I see, Mr. Trump...and what school is Barron's graduation taking place again?"

-Uh (adjusts pipe)...........that's correct, yes."  

  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Haha 1
Posted
7 minutes ago, jimmyjazz said:

I thought he was a patent/IP guy?  Have I been on Planet Xenon all this time?  (Nobody answer that.)

No you are correct. I'm not a defense attorney, criminal anyway. 

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted
10 minutes ago, Francisco 2.0 said:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Aside from getting your brother's age wrong, Barron hypothetically getting money sent to his bank account from his his/your dad from shady deals is pretty much the trial-free means by how your trust fund dad became a millionaire by age 8, you whiney asshole. 

  • Hook 'Em 1


×
×
  • Create New...