PostmodernProphet
fully immersed in faith..
you want a lot of things.....including rewriting the rules.....
But, he used his own money!
- Thread starter Jarod
- Start date
you want a lot of things.....including rewriting the rules.....
No of course not. You have never been right about anything.
SmarterthanYou
rebel
dunning-krueger............^^^^^^^^^^
Durr-Derp.... ^^^^^^^^^^^^^
You are allowed to spend as much money as you want of your own money, there are no limits. Saying it makes no difference is absurd. There are also a myriad of reasons to want to either promote or hush your tryst with a porn star that have nothing to do with an election. It will be impossible to prove that this was not done for any of those other reasons beyond any reasonable doubt. I get that you don't like him, but this is not a worthwhile prosecution. You won't even need a "if the glove doesn't fit" moment to cast reasonable doubt.
Yes, there is no limit to how much of your own money you spend, but with regards to the rumored charges, it MAKES NO DIFFERENCE that it was his money.
I don’t know the evidence but even if the campaign was only a minor reason, that would be enough. The timing… days after the access Hollywood report, years after the affair would be strong evidence. Additionally they have taken testimony from the likes of Hope Hicks and Kellyann Conway who could have provided evidence about the campaign considerations of paying off Stormy. Just speculation but clearly it’s very possible to have strong evidence on that issue.
It would not be enough because: you need "beyond reasonable doubt" that it was none of the other reasons. It is not illegal to pay hush or promotion money and some folks do this who are not running for office. The reality is spending your own money on something like this would not need to be reported if you were doing it for any of those other reasons. Prove it was not. At this point the prosecution finds itself trying to prove a negative. Unless Trump says something stupid (he might, he does it often) there is no way to prove the negative. Because of this, this tends to look like it is politically motivated, thus feeding the "persecution" syndrome. I believe that the Ds want this to be because it will be more likely for Donald to become the nominee the more it appears as if the system is being used to attack him politically.
No, you are incorrect. You need reasonable doubt that it is at least one of the minor reasons he spent the money, not the only reason he spent the money not even a major reason he spent it. There’s caselaw specifically on point for this, if I’m at my desk later, and have time, I will get it for you, I read it just yesterday.
If Kellyanne Conway were to testify that she had conversations with Trump where, she advised him to pay her off in the days before he did so, that would be very compelling. That is just one of the possible types of testimony that a jury could use to determine that this was at least in part related to the campaign.
Again, it is impossible to prove that it was not for any of those other reasons, thus reasonable doubt will continue to exist. You must prove the negative to remove the reasonable doubt. Thus... making it, as I said earlier, appear politically motivated. Which IMHO only benefits the Ds as they know that even a basement dwelling dementia patient can beat Trump.
I very much disagree, there are a lot of ways to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that it was at least in part in relation to the campaign. The timing itself is very strong evidence, if you were to add testimony from one of his advisers, that he was told it would be a good thing for the campaign, I suspect most juries would say that’s beyond a reasonable doubt that the payoff was at least a small part related to the campaign. I’m not saying that testimony exists, I don’t know, but I could see how it very easily would.
I know you disagree. Regardless, unless Trump's team says something stupid to prove it was because he was running this has built in reasonable doubt even if you disagree. Pretending that you cannot possibly convince 1 out of 12 that there is reasonable doubt in this case is simple pretense. Even a bad attorney could do it.
I never said you cannot possibly convince one juror, that’s always possible, even with the best evidence. What I said, was there could be strong compelling evidence that the payoff was at least tangentially related to the campaign.
When I was a prosecutor, I won weaker cases than that.
But hey, maybe you have a lot more experience with juries than I do.
Well, what I meant with my meandering conversation was that it is foolish to prosecute something with such strong reasonable doubt built in. If you do it tends to appear to be motivated by something other than justice, thus feeding the persecution narrative and promoting the man you say you do not want to be President of these United States.
Experience with juries can come from other sources. (Such as watching and reporting on trials). The expertise fallacy notwithstanding.
I once watched a trial with very little evidence, I was sure the prosecutor would lose. The prosecutor was sure he would lose also. He declined to give an opening or closing statement, and simply put one police officer witness on the stand. The police officer did not give strong evidence at all, the jury came back with a 15 minute guilty.
It would be foolish to prosecute something with strong, reasonable doubt if you do not have good evidence to overcome it. If Kellyanne Conway testifies that on the day, Trump agreed to make the payment. She told him it would be good for the campaign, and he responded. Yes, for that reason I’m going to do it, that would be very good evidence.
So, based on fictional events you have not witnessed you have now decided that there is "compelling evidence"? "If" wishes were fishes we'd all cast nets.
As I stated: Unless the Trump team or Trump himself says something stupid....
So basically, you've agreed with me. The compelling evidence you have just wished into being notwithstanding, the reality is with the evidence we have on hand, that "the timing" is enough for Jarod, and your "wish" that your "IF" statement becomes reality, then you'd have a strong case.... I'd agree, and is the same thing I stated before, just with stupid slathered all over it.
Unless Trump's team says something stupid (has to be the third or fourth time I've said it) this case is full of reasonable doubt and would be taken as political persecution by many if they choose to go with the evidence that isn't just "wished" for.
SmarterthanYou
rebel
that says alot more about that fucked up jury than it does anything else. that is a travesty of justice. what kind of defendant did they have? charles manson?
No I do not know what the evidence is, I am saying it’s very possible this could be a good case, we do not know. It’s also very possible it’s a terrible case. Not knowing the evidence you and I do not know.
You are the one who affirmatively said it’s a bad case, but you know nothing about the evidence either.
There are other imaginable pieces of evidence other than Trump team saying something stupid.
I remain within my opinion as I expressed it, which you keep rewording, "wishing for" and repeating now:
Unless the Trump team says or does something stupid (has to be the fourth time I've said this, and you "wished" into being to make it a magically "strong" case), this case will be seen as political persecution and will only help Trump, which I suspect is the goal of some very misguided individuals who believe they can beat him because he lost to a basement dwelling dementia patient.
The jury was chosen 100% by the defense as the prosecutor did not participate in jury selection.