Criminal Charges Against Trump / Trump Indicted Part II

[Stacyhs]

Originally Posted by The Don

He may not perjury himself but he cannot contradict the official GOP narrative.

Pence has never said the election was stolen or rigged. The most he has said was that he supported the right to investigate any allegations of irregularities and that there were some irregularities, but none that would have changed the outcome. This is not contradicting the official GOP narrative but neither is it repeating it.

Quote:

He will highlight the number of proven cases of voter fraud and repeat the GOP call for better voter ID.

No, he won't because almost all voter fraud, what very little there was of it, was done by Republicans.

Quote:

As far as J6, he won't recall anything that's not on the record.

Again, if he's asked a direct question, I highly doubt he would lie/perjure himself.

[Orphia Nay]

Originally Posted by The Don

He may not perjury himself but he cannot contradict the official GOP narrative.

But are we sure there IS an official GOP narrative at the moment?

Signs are that it is somewhat divided.

[Stacyhs]

Originally Posted by Orphia Nay

But are we sure there IS an official GOP narrative at the moment?

Signs are that it is somewhat divided.

True, but Trump and his MAGA sycophants are the ones in control of most of the party.

[The Don]

Originally Posted by Orphia Nay

But are we sure there IS an official GOP narrative at the moment?

Signs are that it is somewhat divided.

That the election was stolen due to voter fraud is certainly the official narrative.

Some (most ?) actually believe it was, the rest use it as an excuse to implement increasingly stringent voter ID laws.

Likewise with January 6th, a proportion of the party believe it was an over exuberant self guided tour of the Capitol with Antifa causing any trouble. The rest are reluctant to directly criticise the rioters - and more importantly those who fanned the flames - for fear of being primaries.

[The Don]

Originally Posted by Stacyhs

Pence has never said the election was stolen or rigged. The most he has said was that he supported the right to investigate any allegations of irregularities and that there were some irregularities, but none that would have changed the outcome. This is not contradicting the official GOP narrative but neither is it repeating it.




No, he won't because almost all voter fraud, what very little there was of it, was done by Republicans.



Again, if he's asked a direct question, I highly doubt he would lie/perjure himself.

IMO they will learn nothing from Pence because he lacks the spine to stand up to the MAGA crowd (and because he's fully on board with 90%+ of what they want).

As you point out he hasn't contradicted the party line on the stolen election and his memory will become very fuzzy when it comes to testifying about colleagues relating to things not already on the public record.

IMO we will learn nothing from his testimony.

[arthwollipot]

Originally Posted by Orphia Nay

But are we sure there IS an official GOP narrative at the moment?

For a while there, the official GOP narrative was literally "whatever T**** said".

[Crazy Chainsaw]

Originally Posted by arthwollipot

For a while there, the official GOP narrative was literally "whatever T**** said".

That has gone on for years now it's time for them to chose their new God of Grift.

[Norman Alexander]

Originally Posted by Crazy Chainsaw

That has gone on for years now it's time for them to chose their new God of Grift.

Please! Make it be me!

[Segnosaur]

To probably nobody's surprise, Trump lawyer TacoPenis has requested a mistrial in the sexual assault case...

From: CTV News
Attorney Joe Tacopina cited "pervasive unfair and prejudicial rulings" by Judge Lewis A. Kaplan as his basis for the mistrial request...Since mistrials, though sometimes frequently requested at trials, are rarely granted, Tacopina was more likely hoping the judge would grant a version of his alternative requests.... Tacopina asked that Kaplan correct the record for any rulings that mischaracterized the evidence or permit Tacopina more latitude in questioning E. Jean Carroll...In his mistrial request Monday, Tacopina complained that the judge shut down his questioning when he pushed Carroll to explain why she did not scream, why she didn't tell police or attempt afterward to retrieve footage from video cameras at the store's doors to prove that she and Trump were there together.

(I think TacoPenis was also complaining that the judge criticized postings by one of Trump's Klan.)

Hopefully Trump's team gets the smackdown over this. They've been handled with kid gloves so far.

[Skeptic Ginger]

From the OMFG file, Trump's deposition was indeed more than "I don't recall":

Trump deposition excerpt.

Regarding the Access Hollywood tape:

Quote:

During his October deposition as part of the rape and defamation trial brought against him by the writer E. Jean Carroll, former President Donald Trump told prosecution lawyers that “stars” like him had, “unfortunately or fortunately,” historically been permitted to carry out unwanted sexual assault.

That's a stunning admission. Even though we probably all know he feels that way, this was stupidly saying the quiet part out loud.

[Stacyhs]

Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger

From the OMFG file, Trump's deposition was indeed more than "I don't recall":

Trump deposition excerpt.

Regarding the Access Hollywood tape:



That's a stunning admission. Even though we probably all know he feels that way, this was stupidly saying the quiet part out loud.

Trump's inability to stop incriminating himself with such stupid statements is exactly why his lawyers don't want him in court, much less on the stand.

[dirtywick]

in the unsealed depositions, he also said carroll isn't his type or a woman he'd ever be attracted to, but then when shown an old picture of her thought it was marla maples who is totally his type being as how he cheated on his wife and later married and had a child with.

i also think a lot of what is in there clearly proves defamation. that and the fact that he has put forward no defense, no witnesses, or even bothered to testify, i think he's going to lose pretty badly

[Mike!]

Originally Posted by dirtywick

in the unsealed depositions, he also said carroll isn't his type or a woman he'd ever be attracted to, but then when shown an old picture of her thought it was marla maples who is totally his type being as how he cheated on his wife and later married and had a child with.

i also think a lot of what is in there clearly proves defamation. that and the fact that he has put forward no defense, no witnesses, or even bothered to testify, i think he's going to lose pretty badly

No defence? What do you think he means by, "When you're a star you can get away with it."?

[Stacyhs]

Originally Posted by Mike!

No defence? What do you think he means by, "When you're a star you can get away with it."?

Badda boom, badda bing!

When was the last time Donnie actually won a case in court?

[Norman Alexander]

Originally Posted by Mike!

No defence? What do you think he means by, "When you're a star you can get away with it."?

He means "Nice judge's bench you got there! Would be a shame if anything was to happen to your little dog..."

[Crossbow]

Originally Posted by dirtywick

in the unsealed depositions, he also said carroll isn't his type or a woman he'd ever be attracted to, but then when shown an old picture of her thought it was marla maples who is totally his type being as how he cheated on his wife and later married and had a child with.

i also think a lot of what is in there clearly proves defamation. that and the fact that he has put forward no defense, no witnesses, or even bothered to testify, i think he's going to lose pretty badly

Thanks much! I was thinking about the same thing.

While I believe that Carroll will not win the part of her case dealing with the Trump sexual assault since she has had so much difficulty in proving this part of her case.

Conversely, Carroll has done an excellent job at proving the Trump defamation part of her case.

As a result, I expect that Trump will have to pay some rather serious money to Carroll.

[Lurch]

Trump will be merely the conduit for any such awarding of financial damages. That cash will have been donated by his coterie of addled rubes.

And speaking of... It would be sweet if those hundreds of millions raised to supposedly fight against the stolen election resulted in a wire fraud charge.

[Segnosaur]

Originally Posted by Lurch

Trump will be merely the conduit for any such awarding of financial damages. That cash will have been donated by his coterie of addled rubes.

You don't understand Trump's mindset...

To Trump, any money collected in his name is "his". When he was elected in 2016, he was upset that he had to pay for a 'transition' from Obama's administration to his, even though the money was coming from donations rather than from his own pocket.

In Trump's fantasy, he can collect money from the MAGAchud "Help support your poor desperate billionaire in his time of need", and then never pay her a cent.

Quote:

And speaking of... It would be sweet if those hundreds of millions raised to supposedly fight against the stolen election resulted in a wire fraud charge.

I believe Jack Smith's team is actually looking into it...

From: MSNBC
...federal prosecutors have recently “sought a wide range of documents related to fundraising after the 2020 election, looking to determine if former President Donald Trump or his advisers scammed donors by using false claims about voter fraud to raise money.” Smith’s team is “interested in whether anyone associated with the fundraising operation violated wire fraud laws..."

[Segnosaur]

Latest tactic by the Trump lawyers in the NY hush money case... try to move the case to federal court.

From: Globe and Mail
Lawyers for Donald Trump on Thursday asked the federal court in Manhattan to take over a state criminal case charging him with falsifying business records over a hush money payment...His lawyers argued that the federal court had jurisdiction because the charges had to do with conduct that took place while he was president.

I assume this is either 1) a delaying tactic, or 2) if he does get the case transferred, he is hoping a future Republican president will act to slow the case down or quash it completely.

Also the article said this:

Justice Merchan also asked Mr. Trump’s lawyers and prosecutors to see if they can agree on a trial date in February or March, 2024, which would be in the thick of his campaign for the presidency.

This could really screw up the republican primaries. They start in January, so voters will be deciding whether to pick trump not knowing if he will be found guilty or not.

[Pixel42]

Originally Posted by Segnosaur

This could really screw up the republican primaries. They start in January, so voters will be deciding whether to pick trump not knowing if he will be found guilty or not.

Anyone who is still considering voting for Trump clearly doesn't give a toss what crimes he is accused or convicted of.

[Segnosaur]

Originally Posted by Pixel42

Quote:

This could really screw up the republican primaries. They start in January, so voters will be deciding whether to pick trump not knowing if he will be found guilty or not.

Anyone who is still considering voting for Trump clearly doesn't give a toss what crimes he is accused or convicted of.

Oh, I agree that there is a large block of MAGAchud who wouldn't care if Trump were sentenced to the death penalty for eating a baby on live TV. But, there may be a few who are considering supporting Trump not because they actually support him, but because "he is best to beat the democrats". (Their allegiance goes to "win republican" rather than "win Trump". They don't care if Trump is in jail from a moral point of view but from an electability point of view.)

And then you have the republican party leaders themselves, who are probably in a panic because their front runner (who's ability to win was already questionable) might be even less electable after a conviction.

[varwoche]

Yesterday it was reported there's an "insider witness" in the Mar a Lago documents investigation. This must drive Trump bat **** crazy. I'm investing in popcorn futures.

[Darat]

Originally Posted by Stacyhs

Trump's inability to stop incriminating himself with such stupid statements is exactly why his lawyers don't want him in court, much less on the stand.

I doubt there would be any way to make Trump understand why his statement was stupid.

[Foster Zygote]

"Mr. Trump, why do you think your council is unwilling to put you on the stand to testify in your own defense?"

"I don't have a clue."

"Do you mean...? Never mind, it works both ways."

[Foster Zygote]

Originally Posted by Pixel42

Anyone who is still considering voting for Trump clearly doesn't give a toss what crimes he is accused or convicted of.

I'm sure he has the solid support of every incel who thinks that women should be legally required to give them sex on demand.

[pgwenthold]

Originally Posted by Crossbow

Thanks much! I was thinking about the same thing.

While I believe that Carroll will not win the part of her case dealing with the Trump sexual assault since she has had so much difficulty in proving this part of her case.

Remember this is a civil case, so the burden is "proponderance of evidence."

So far we have her testimony, yes. Collaboration of her testimony by witnesses (who have testified that she told them about it at the time). I don't think they ever got to test for DNA.

His response: When you are a star you can get away with sexual assault (he confirmed the "grab them by the pussy" tapes). He would only rape women who are his type. Carroll reminds him of his ex-wife.

Tell me again why it is more likely than not that it didn't happen (intentionaly double-negative there)? Has any of her testimony been impeached? Or the other witnesses? The closest he has come to insisting that he didn't do it is that she wasn't his type. Which was then exposed as being baseless. So it's not even a case of he said-she said. It's she-said, he blathered.

Is the big problem really that she can't remember specifically what year it actually happened? The case does not rely on when it happened, only that it did.

[dudalb]

Originally Posted by varwoche

Yesterday it was reported there's an "insider witness" in the Mar a Lago documents investigation. This must drive Trump bat **** crazy. I'm investing in popcorn futures.

ANother day, another insider Rats on Trump.
The final shot in "The Departed" comes to mind....

[Stacyhs]

In his deposition, Trump said,

Quote:

He's accusing me of rape, of raping her, the worst thing you can do, the worst judge. It's a big fat hoax. She's a liar, and she's a sick person, in my opinion. Really sick, There's something wrong with her.

Well, there goes another irony meter.

CNN is reporting that at least 8 of the 16 fake electors are being given immunity for their cooperation in the GA election interference investigation.

They're turning on each other.

[dudalb]

That high up on Margo Largo who is apparently ratting on Donald must drvie him crazy.
I can see him doing Jack Nicholson's tirade on how he is surrounded by rats in "The Departed".

[acbytesla]

Originally Posted by Segnosaur

Latest tactic by the Trump lawyers in the NY hush money case... try to move the case to federal court.

From: Globe and Mail
Lawyers for Donald Trump on Thursday asked the federal court in Manhattan to take over a state criminal case charging him with falsifying business records over a hush money payment...His lawyers argued that the federal court had jurisdiction because the charges had to do with conduct that took place while he was president.

I assume this is either 1) a delaying tactic, or 2) if he does get the case transferred, he is hoping a future Republican president will act to slow the case down or quash it completely.

Also the article said this:

Justice Merchan also asked Mr. Trump’s lawyers and prosecutors to see if they can agree on a trial date in February or March, 2024, which would be in the thick of his campaign for the presidency.

This could really screw up the republican primaries. They start in January, so voters will be deciding whether to pick trump not knowing if he will be found guilty or not.

Except it didn't. The case was about paying hush money to Stormy Daniels BEFORE the 2016 election. You have to love that even Trump’s lawyers lie in their legal motions.

[dudalb]

Originally Posted by acbytesla

Except it didn't. The case was about paying hush money to Stormy Daniels BEFORE the 2016 election. You have to love that even Trump’s lawyers lie in their legal motions.

When the good lawyers won't touch you with a ten foot pole, that is what happens.

[acbytesla]

Originally Posted by acbytesla

Except it didn't. The case was about paying hush money to Stormy Daniels BEFORE the 2016 election. You have to love that even Trump’s lawyers lie in their legal motions.

Originally Posted by dudalb

When the good lawyers won't touch you with a ten foot pole, that is what happens.

Oh, I don’t know about that. I know that it is questionable that Trump might not pay them. But if he is, it is found money. The problem isn't that these lawyers stink. It's that their side has little to work with. This is them throwing mud on the wall and hoping it sticks.

I mean, in reality this is high priced make work.

[alfaniner]

Originally Posted by Stacyhs

In his deposition, Trump said,

Quote:

[S]He's accusing me of rape, of raping her, the worst thing you can do, the worst judge charge. It's a big fat hoax. She's a liar, and she's a sick person, in my opinion. Really sick, There's something wrong with her.

Well, there goes another irony meter.

CNN is reporting that at least 8 of the 16 fake electors are being given immunity for their cooperation in the GA election interference investigation.

They're turning on each other.


http://www.internationalskeptics.com...58fee57a2a.jpg

I'm not sure where you got the quote from but I made a couple of adjustments. I just heard the actual deposition.

[Stacyhs]

Originally Posted by alfaniner

I'm not sure where you got the quote from but I made a couple of adjustments. I just heard the actual deposition.

I was reading the subtitles and listening to the audio (I have some hearing loss) and it said 'judge' not 'charge' but I had my husband and daughter listen to the tape and they both said they heard "charge". Getting older sucks.

[8enotto]

What must be worst for former fearless leader Donnie is all this legal crap is happening at once.

Multiple cases in different states all making announcements of progress in making their case without revealing anything his legal team can affect.
Every motion submitted to the courts denied, Bragg among others redacting vital information, treating him as a mob boss in courts to protect the jury.,...
And best of all, every old delay tactic shot down near instantly.
It's still too early to guess how many convictions he gets but it most certainly isn't as he used to play the legal system.

[Segnosaur]

Originally Posted by acbytesla

Except it didn't. The case was about paying hush money to Stormy Daniels BEFORE the 2016 election. You have to love that even Trump’s lawyers lie in their legal motions.

I would have to look up the timeline but I think the agreement was made before the election, but at least some of the payments were made (from Trump organization to Cohen) after Trump took office.

Still, the payments would not have had anything to do with his role as president, so it should remain a state prosecution.

Sent from my moto e using Tapatalk

[smartcooky]

Originally Posted by pgwenthold

Remember this is a civil case, so the burden is "proponderance of evidence."

So far we have her testimony, yes. Collaboration of her testimony by witnesses (who have testified that she told them about it at the time). I don't think they ever got to test for DNA.

His response: When you are a star you can get away with sexual assault (he confirmed the "grab them by the pussy" tapes). He would only rape women who are his type. Carroll reminds him of his ex-wife.

Tell me again why it is more likely than not that it didn't happen (intentionaly double-negative there)? Has any of her testimony been impeached? Or the other witnesses? The closest he has come to insisting that he didn't do it is that she wasn't his type. Which was then exposed as being baseless. So it's not even a case of he said-she said. It's she-said, he blathered.

Is the big problem really that she can't remember specifically what year it actually happened? The case does not rely on when it happened, only that it did.

Of course, one of his main defenses (in his mind anyway) is "I would not have raped her because she's not my type", (which immediately brings the response "so, you could have raped her if she was your type"?

Well I can report that he shot himself in the foot during the deposition... He was handed this 1995 photo and asked if he recognized anyone...



.. and he immediately pointed to the woman I have indicated with a red arrow and identified her as his ex-wife Marla Maples.

Dear, oh dear, oh dear. Nothing says "she's not my type" like pointing your accuser and identifying her as someone else, as in, someone you were married to.

Yes, the person he identified as his ex-wife, is in fact E Jean Carroll.

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/w...-b2333464.html

[Mike!]

Originally Posted by smartcooky

Of course, one of his main defenses (in his mind anyway) is "I would not have raped her because she's not my type", (which immediately brings the response "so, you could have raped her if she was your type"?

Well I can report that he shot himself in the foot during the deposition... He was handed this 1995 photo and asked if he recognized anyone...



.. and he immediately pointed to the woman I have indicated with a red arrow and identified her as his ex-wife Marla Maples.

Dear, oh dear, oh dear. Nothing says "she's not my type" like pointing your accuser and identifying her as someone else, as in, someone you were married to.

Yes, the person he identified as his ex-wife, is in fact E Jean Carroll.

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/w...-b2333464.html

Yeah, it's almost like a plot twist in a TV movie. Quite fitting, really.

[Fast Eddie B]

Originally Posted by smartcooky

Dear, oh dear, oh dear. Nothing says "she's not my type" like pointing your accuser and identifying her as someone else, as in, someone you were married to.

Yes, the person he identified as his ex-wife, is in fact E Jean Carroll.

He claimed in the deposition that the photo was blurry. It’s clearly not. Trump’s refused to wear reading glasses in the past out of vanity - so that might help explain it. Though not excuse it, mind you.

[Foster Zygote]

Originally Posted by smartcooky

Of course, one of his main defenses (in his mind anyway) is "I would not have raped her because she's not my type", (which immediately brings the response "so, you could have raped her if she was your type"?

Well I can report that he shot himself in the foot during the deposition... He was handed this 1995 photo and asked if he recognized anyone...

https://www.dropbox.com/s/xbc834gntb...tion.png?raw=1

.. and he immediately pointed to the woman I have indicated with a red arrow and identified her as his ex-wife Marla Maples.

Dear, oh dear, oh dear. Nothing says "she's not my type" like pointing your accuser and identifying her as someone else, as in, someone you were married to.

Yes, the person he identified as his ex-wife, is in fact E Jean Carroll.

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/w...-b2333464.html

I think they showed him the photo in response to his claim that he didn't even know who E Jean Carroll was. They weren't expecting him to help them completely demolish his own "she's not my type" defense by mistaking her for his ex wife. But you don't even need him to mistake Carroll for Maples to know he's lying. You just need to see photos of the two of them. Carroll may be 20 years older than Maples, but they look remarkably similar in the mid '90s. Throw in his doubling down on the Billy Bush tape with his egregious statement stars can sexually assault people, "unfortunately, or fortunately", then answering in the affirmative when asked if he considers himself a star, and he may as well change his name to 'Rapey Rapeman'. (Although '****-Face von Clownstick' still works for me.)