April 13, 2024
"I’m testifying. I tell the truth. I mean, all I can do is tell the truth. And the truth is that there’s no case. They have no case."
Said Donald Trump, quoted in "Trump Says He Intends to Testify in His Manhattan Criminal Case/Jury selection begins Monday in the prosecution of Donald J. Trump on charges of covering up a sex scandal. He said he would try to sway jurors personally, though he has backed away in the past" (NYT).
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
15 comments:
Daniels continues to lie about everything but the number of sex partners she’s had.
It's all about getting butts in seats
NY statute 63(12), was created in 1957 for precisely the type of decades-of-fraud Trump has engaged in.
Who wants to bet? Come on; let's make this interesting. I say Trump WILL NOT testify. Let's get a little action on this.
Here is former Marine, former Florida prosecutor, former defense attorney, former DeSantis administration attorney and now-Meidas Touch network editor Ron Filipkowsi on all the times that Trump said he would testify, but didn't:
"Trump's Long History of Not Testifying After Saying He Would"
...in the prosecution of Donald J. Trump on charges of covering up a sex scandal.
Isn't the charge based on an alleged "incorrect" general ledger accounting entry of "Legal Services" for a payment made to a law firm that included settlement of a threatened lawsuit?
It’s true. Very stable genius always tells the truth. But why do MAGAts say not to take his utterings seriously, or not literally or some sort of cultish horseshit.
Trump has lied about screwing Stormy Daniels, and Karen McDougal, and then there is the doorman who was paid to keep information quiet about an illegitimate child that Donald sired. Testimony is set at the trial for David Pecker of American Media, Michael Cohen, Stormy, Karen, the doorman, and the former lawyer, Keith Davidson, the negotiator for their Trump deals through Cohen and AMI.
Now he can only make things worse at a criminal trial by opening his yapper when he does not have to respond to any charges since the Manhattan DA has to prove his prosecution case beyond a shadow of a doubt.
Chuck! found something to feed his gambling urge. Just takes a few T&Ts to surface it.
It’s all just so stupid.
Wince said...
...in the prosecution of Donald J. Trump on charges of covering up a sex scandal.
Isn't the charge based on an alleged "incorrect" general ledger accounting entry of "Legal Services" for a payment made to a law firm that included settlement of a threatened lawsuit?
Donald paid the bribes to hide money spent illegally using company funds which he then deducted from corporate profits, reducing taxes. Company auditors and tax preparers would be all over an account called "Illegal Services" because such an expense is not deductible from profits or taxes.
The money was spent to hide his lifestyle from voters. So he wanted to have his cake and eat it too.
NY statute 63(12), was created in 1957 for precisely the type of decades-of-fraud Trump has engaged in.
Rich,
Please list for me the number of people who have been charged with breaking that statute over the last 67 years.
Why does anyone expect politicians not to lie about certain things? We all lie about certain things, if we’re being honest with ourselves.
The Bragg case itself is a lie, isn’t it? There is no illegal campaign contribution that can be construed to belong in a city court regarding a federal campaign.
If you define anything in a politician's "personal" life that might negatively or positively affect his or her political campaign as part of that campaign, then in theory the shakedown payment was a "political expense".*
Do we as a society really want criminal** prosecutions for that sort of thing? (No, but "TRUMP!!!). Think about it as applied to just about anyone who is in political office or who might consider running.
*In this instance, what made the shakedown work was the threat to the political campaign, and its timing.
**Of course, there are entities charged with enforcing campaign finance laws whose province this is--not politically motivated bounty-hunting prosecutors. The penalties are appropriately financial, not criminal.
Who wants to bet? Come on; let's make this interesting. I say Trump WILL NOT testify.
Who cares?
Seriously - who gives a hoot? He's posturing, he's making a "promise" that he "won't keep," he's talking against the advice of his attorney - what difference does it make? Eventually he either will or won't testify and his testimony will it won't help or hit him and the case will our won't go in his favor.
But this stupid things - "he says he'll testify, but look at all the times he's said that and have done it!" - why do you care?
Jamie said...
Who wants to bet? Come on; let's make this interesting. I say Trump WILL NOT testify.
Who cares?
Seriously - who gives a hoot? He's posturing, he's making a "promise" that he "won't keep," he's talking against the advice of his attorney - what difference does it make? Eventually he either will or won't testify and his testimony will it won't help or hit him and the case will our won't go in his favor.
But this stupid things - "he says he'll testify, but look at all the times he's said that and have done it!" - why do you care?
I guess that I am perhaps not addressing you. I know very well that there is an unreachable group of Trump supporters who are beyond any discussion. For whom no argument against Trump will work, no matter how well-based in fact and no matter how cogently convincing.
So I suppose I don't care, if you don't care. I'm working on the folks who care; who care about what a Presidsent says and how he says it. The educated suburbanites, professionals, independents and Trump-disliking Republicans who do care about such things. In Michigan, where it matters.
But rest assured that no matter how many times you ask, "Who cares?", I'm your guy for bookmarking this page; to come back to it at the conclusion of Trump's NY criminal trial and to laugh about his pre-trial assurance that he would testify.
Post a Comment