Trump Was Fined $9,000 For Speaking

Yes.

 

never said they were, what is your point?

yep, they thought there was enough to go to trial, the trial is where Trump and his lawyers can try to pull their mumbo jumbo

 

no they can't

 

You're conflating arguments now. You said freedom of speech shouldn't extend to false speech. Now you're talking about canceling someone you disagree with. One is a blatantly fascist ideology attacking our first amendment which is an odd thing to be so transparent about on a political forum.

Your new argument is an overly emotion reaction that is common among the far left to "cancel" people they dislike. I notice you've never called for canceling Biden despite him lying all day long. I've only seen you advocating for canceling conservatives which goes back to my former point.

I notice when people change the subject to backtrack without admitting they are doing so. But in an effort to do so you've only doubled down on an awkward fringe ideology that still supports silencing people.

"The best remedy for false speech is true speech." - Justice Anthony Kennedy

 

The prosecution is trying to cobble together two misdemeanors, which have gone past the statute of limitations, and turned them into an election law felony. The law has been stretched to the upmost to create this indictment and trial. That’s why everyone, except Alvin Bragg, refused to prosecute.

 

And for the record, even Alvin Bragg refused to prosecute. It wasn't until a senior Biden DoJ official, Michael Colangelo, strangely downgraded his career to go work for Bragg that he decided to press charges. That former senior Biden DoJ official is now leading the prosecution.

He worked for Letitia James on her nonsense. Helped on the Biden DoJ investigations into Trump. Then when Jack Smith was appointed to take over he immediately resigned and went to work for Bragg and start this prosecution. And they were all timed for the election. Go figure.

 

All of that fits with a political prosecution of a person rather than a crime. Bragg knows it isn't going anywhere but it isn't intended to go anywhere. It is intended to muddy up a political opponent.

 

Of course they can. Perhaps they won't.

 

That's how it works.

 

sure is

 

It’s possible. It’s also possible that the jury will acquit.

Personally , based on his history going back to the very beginning of his business career and based on who benefited from his actions, I think he is guilty.

 

Which is still a lawful order.

 

Many lawyers disagree with that. Gag orders normally apply to everyone. It is very unusual to burden just the defendant with one while his opponents are free to say what they like in public. Also the gag order doesn't include talking about what happened in court. It applies only to what didn't happen in court. Maybe lawful maybe not. I can only report what lawyers say since I am not one myself.

 

Its possible yes.

 

Please dumb it down for me. What type of expense is when you pay your attorney for their time and the cost of an NDA agreement. You said it's a "lie" to call it a "legal expense." So what type of expense it? I see you're still you're still active, but you're not answering my question. Is it a rent expense? Office supplies? Utilities? What type of expense does someone need to mark in their ledger in NY to not get prosecuted when they annotate payments to their attorney for their time and an NDA agreement? NDAs happen all the time in NY. How many businesses who pay their attorney and NDA costs as "legal expenses" get prosecuted? Does nobody else consider this a legal expense? Trump is the first person in NY to ever do this? And if this was a "lie," why wasn't the bookkeeper charged? Shouldn't they have been charged??? They're the ones who made the "false" business reports after all. The prosecution knows Trump doesn't do his own bookkeeping since the bookkeeper is a witness.

 

put "loan payment" in the memo line... it worked for other people...

 

If your lawyer pays an NDA expense (very usual, by the way) to help your campaign, then that is a campaign expense. If you repay them for that, that's also a campaign expense. Why pretend you are incapable of understanding that?

 

The prosecution's witness has said Trump was worried about Melanie's feelings and not the campaign. Additionally, this was a federal election. The FEC and the DOJ looked into whether or not this was required to be a campaign expense and determined it was not.

It also doesn't change the fact that you repeatedly said it was a "lie" as you attempted to "dumb down" your argument that paying an attorney isn't a "legal expense" and is a criminal act for calling it such. I appreciate you're running away from that ridiculous position you repeatedly defended and now you're moving the goalposts, but it looks really silly after all your harsh posts of complete nonsense.

 

You haven't kept up with the case. Witnesses have contradicted this argument. For obvious reasons.

 

I haven't kept up with the case? You're the one who says paying your attorney cannot be called a "legal expense" in a ledger.

 

Congrats on another pathetic straw man. I see more dumbing down is required.

 

Is a LAWYER a legal expense?
yes or no?

 

Depends on what you are paying them for. If you pay a lawyer to give you a blowjob, you claim that is a legal expense . . . just because the person you are playing is a lawyer. That's obviously insane.

 

That's what happens in a kangaroo system. The kangaroos have all the say and the defendants aren't allowed to say anything.

 

Yes please do. You have said the payments in relation to this case are not classified as a legal expense. You've offered to dumb it down, but you've failed to explain what payments to an attorney and for a legal contract should be labeled in a ledger. Is it rent? Utilities? Office supplies? You've said repeatedly it's not a "legal expense" and you can dumb it down for me. Go ahead. We're all ears.

Please dumb it down for all of us. Because apparently, you know something about this case and the law than everybody else in America. Which is ironic because you're accusing me of not knowing enough about the case when I've been patiently trying to explain basic information to you. You keep moving the goalposts and making ridiculously embarrassing statements with a very snarky tone like the posts below.

So let's hear you "dumb it down." Why isn't paying your attorney for his time a legal expense? Why is paying for a legal contract not a legal expense? Why is it a lie to call these things "legal expenses" in a business ledger? And if it's a lie to record these statements in a ledger, why wasn't the bookkeeper also charged with felonies? There are a ton of clients of practicing attorneys in New York who are making payments for "legal expenses" that are due felony charges according to your interpretation of this case.

So dumb it down for us. Why do you think this?