Trump Was Fined $9,000 For Speaking

Freedom of speech includes false and unpopular speech. That's kind of the entire point. This isn't a fascist country where you get to choose what is truth and what is lies and then take away someone's freedom based on your opinions. Holy cow.

 

do the crime, do the time, no one is above the law

 

do you think he did not try to hide the hush money payment?

 

Even if he did, what's the crime? His bookkeeper paid the cost as invoiced by his attorney as a "legal expense." It was annotated in the ledger as a legal expense and the check was paid for the same. The whole point of an NDA is to keep everything private. That's not illegal... just like it's not illegal to criticize a judge.

 

Of course he did. He tried to hide it from his wife. One witness stated that. Paying hush money is not illegal.

 

it's not legal to cover up a hush money payment for a candidate, the cover up is what gets them

 

It is pure unadulterated hatred. Operating from a position of hatred isn't very pretty. I hope we do better than the Roman empire did when it began rotting from within.

 

Not true. There is no law banning hush money payments. Hence covering them up is no crime either. The problems for candidates occur when they cover up illegal activity - i.e. Richard Nixon.

 

had he reported it, be fine...

heck, had he paid it before he put his hat in the ring, be fine

but agree, the cover-up is what gets them.....

 

It is what gets them politically, not necessarily judicially. This prosecution is politics.

 

up to the jury, guess we will see if they believe his is guilty of the crimes accused of or not

 

you mean jury members can have speech about the trial with friends and family too?

would we say "Freedom of speech"

 

Paying hush money to help a campaign is not, and has never been, a "legal expense."

 

His lying is not an opinion but a fact that should disgust all yet it rallies some. Sad. I would be embarrassed.

 

Where in the world did you get that idea. Of course covering them up is a crime! There is no law banning me from buying all my friends gifts. But if I use funds from my business and report them as "legal fees" I commit a crime.

So why can't I do it, but Trump can?

If Trump is acquitted, I can write off anything as "legal fees" and my taxes will come tumbling down... And I can use the Trump case as a precedent when I'm indicted.

 

But within the law, right ?

What sat we let the jury(s) decide ?

 

Will then , the jury should return a verdict in a few minutes. Right?

 

Since there is no crime in this case then it really doesn't matter judicially. It will be resolved in appellate court in the event of a guilty verdict. It only matters politically which is the point of the thing. Nixon's fall was political, not judicial, as we know.

The "crime" was hiding hush payments which were intended to help the Trump campaign making it an election law problem. He certainly hid them but there is no evidence that it was for political purposes. The testimony so far says it was to hide the indiscretions from his wife; That all happened years ago and any "crime" has passed its statute of limitations. The election board and dept of justice both investigated and decided there was nothing illegal so the matter was closed.

Bragg is now trying to resurrect the "crime" as breaking a state election law. State election laws don't apply to national presidential elections so neither Bragg nor the judge have any jurisdiction in the matter. In a nutshell, if this trial ends in conviction, the legal experts are certain it will be reversed on appeal because the law isn't on the side of the prosecution. Bragg and the judge know this. This trial isn't about a crime. It is about defeating Trump politically. The public knows it and it is actually helping Trump. The verdict is immaterial.

I recommend you hang your hat on a future prosecution. This one isn't going to work. The Georgia fraud trial in which nobody was defrauded isn't worth your time either. It won't hurt Trump at all. People don't like fraud prosecution without a victim. Maybe the argument between Trump and the National Archives will prove to be fruitful. I don't know. I don't like seeing Trump on the ballot either but I think it is inevitable. The right way to beat trump is at the ballot box. Get busy on that by finding a candidate that can beat him. Biden isn't that candidate.

 

I think it's more embarrassing to promote fascist truth police policies where people lose their rights if their political adversaries call them liars.

 

What are you talking about? The post I was responding to was "When did we start to defend lying horribly as defending free speech?"

The answer is: since the foundation of America and it was encapsulated in the First Amendment as a guarantee of this freedom. But go ahead and promote fascism because of some awkward rant about jury members. I thought the previous argument that it was illegal to criticize a judge was going to be the biggest whopper.

 

Good thing that the people who told you to say that's what is happening are liars.

 

There's no law that you can't engage in an NDA if you're running for office, lol.

 

While you have been told to believe that Trump is the first person in US history to have a gag order, that is simply not the case. And, no, gag orders are not unconstitutional.

 

Your talent for straw men will never be underestimated. Try reading. I promise it isn't hard. That isn't the claim I, or anyone else, made.

 

It's inappropriate to call StillBlue a liar. You don't have to agree with his attacks on the First Amendment, but respectful disagreement is needed. Ad hominems aren't needed.