So what do you care? According to you you're above all this. You also claim you're not for either side. So what's your point? Oh wait that's right you don't have a point, you're just here thinking you're ruining everyone else's fun, (which you're not). So you must be just a troll whose life has become so pathetic you waste your time and energy trying to do what you can to piss off people you don't know and will never meet. Good job! I bet you're mother is so proud of you.…well at least you’re not holding your breath waiting. That would be tragic.
Trump is an old man. Even if the “legal ride” lasts until the end of his days…it’s absolutely nothing new to the guy.
So ok Trump doesn’t become president again. Big deal. Such a great victory! We already have another old mindless fuck nut in officeCrisis averted!
That's not how it works either. In order for a judge to dismiss a case the prosecution first has to present his/her case only then does the judge get to rule on whether the case can be dismissed. The grand jury is the entity that decides if there is enough to go to trial or not and they ruled that there was and so the DA proceeded to indictment. The only thing needing to be proved at this point is the base charge of business fraud and there is plenty of proof of that. All that is left is for the DA to tie it to another crime to elevate it to a felony and the DA has outlined in the document called "statement of facts" that was submitted with the indictment. In fact the DA outlined three or four different ways he can get there. Likely because just as armedoldhippy said, he's not trying to give everything away before the trial. As long as the base charge is sound, which it is, then the DA gts his chance to prove the case. Sure Trump's lawyers will try to attack the base charge before hand likely on the statute of limitations but that's going nowhere because if the DA makes his connection to another crime to elevate it to a felony then the statute of limitations is no longer applicable.
theconversation.com
That's not how it works either. In order for a judge to dismiss a case the prosecution first has to present his/her case only then does the judge get to rule on whether the case can be dismissed. The grand jury is the entity that decides if there is enough to go to trial or not and they ruled that there was and so the DA proceeded to indictment. The only thing needing to be proved at this point is the base charge of business fraud and there is plenty of proof of that. All that is left is for the DA to tie it to another crime to elevate it to a felony and the DA has outlined in the document called "statement of facts" that was submitted with the indictment. In fact the DA outlined three or four different ways he can get there. Likely because just as armedoldhippy said, he's not trying to give everything away before the trial. As long as the base charge is sound, which it is, then the DA gts his chance to prove the case. Sure Trump's lawyers will try to attack the base charge before hand likely on the statute of limitations but that's going nowhere because if the DA makes his connection to another crime to elevate it to a felony then the statute of limitations is no longer applicable.
What Trump’s business fraud charges mean – a former prosecutor explains the 34 felony counts and obstacles ahead for Manhattan’s DA
False business records – not hush money payments – are at the heart of New York’s prosecution of former President Donald Trump. But not all the alleged crimes have been revealed.
Alas we are just going to have to sit back and wait for nearly a year before we see where this all goes. Don't worry though, even if this one does end up getting thrown out. There's still 3 or 4 other cases right around the corner This thing here in New York isn't the main event, it's just the opening act.
Just because I gave you a source of info so you can educate yourself doesn't mean that's my source. I only posted that because for some reason you've gotten it into your head that you know better then anyone else. Fortunately though this time it's not your thread so you can't take your toys and go home like you did with the last thread when people stop treating you like some sort of expert. Think about what you're saying, iff the defendent or judge can just motion to dissmiss any time for any reason, no case would ever go to trial. You have to have grounds for dismissal and the only possible grounds so far are the statute of limitations which will become null and void if the DA makes his case, so it's not getting dismissed on those grounds. I never said you were pulling the info out of your ass either, I give you more credit then that and I noticed in your previous post where you indicated you talked to some lawyers you know. What I expect was that you just didn't drill down enough on the info you were given. You heard enough that the situation you're trying so desperately to forecast of the case going nowhere, sounded like a reality and you just didn't ask any further questions but decided to run with what you were told. You should read the link I posted, sure it came from the internet but it was written by someone who is a former prosecutor and law professor. Just talking to a lawyer isn't always the best opinion to get. Some lawyers specialize in just certain types of law and therefore may not be the most credible source. For all we know you talked to a divorce lawyer.
Sure that's fine, I don't expect you to just take me at my word, that's why I posted a link to a piece written by a former prosecutor and law professor to back up what I was saying. If you choose to ignore the opportunity to educate yourself though, that's on you.
All true but if a grand jury decides to okay an indictment generally the judge doesn't just arbitrarily motion to dismiss the case before it ever goes to trial the way you were suggesting. Now once it actually goes to trial if the judge feels the prosecutor isn't making his case then he can motion to dismiss but this trial isn't even starting until sometime in December at the earliest. The biggest hurdle the DA has to overcome is proving that Trump was in on the decision to pay off the porn star and then disguise the payments as multiple smaller payments to his lawyer, which is exactly what David Pecker is there to testify to. Since it was his suggestion to do a catch and kill operation on the story that he discussed with Trump and Cohen.
I didn't call you dumb, there's a difference between being dumb and needing to educate yourself on a topic. As for your legal troubles I would hope you're not turning to a weed forum for advice on a charge you were facing, that would be dumb. But we're not talking about a charge you are facing we're talking about a charge Trump is facing and I'm pretty sure he's not visiting a weed site for any reason let alone legal advice.
Wow, buddy….I’m entertaining myself. Just like you. If I’d said what you just did…I’d get censored/banned out of the Speakers Hole.
Stormy, Man, I'll bet she's seen allot of dick in her day.
this ^ is technically correct. any attorney/defendant is free to be laughed out of the court room at any point. there is exactly zero percent chance of that happening, however. The Chump is gonna thrash around like a coyote caught in a foot-hold trap for quite a while, lol. he'll end up trying to gnaw his "foot" off before it is over, maybe even toss his family members under the bus in one of his usual "it wasn't ME, it was THEM!" attempts. but, he's got a grip on the tar baby like no one i've ever seen before...
