This page is no longer updated, and is the old forum. For new topics visit the New HOL forum.
Register | Edit Profile | Subscriptions | Forum Rules | Log In
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() |
---|---|
Originally posted by HKOwen
so they claimed Ray Rongan and Ken Johnnedy are common names.
|
|
![]() |
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() |
---|---|
Originally posted by Wisbech Eagle
Having followed the trial on a daily basis it looked like a “slam dunk” to me. The only thing that might have stopped it being a determined hold out, so when they came back quickly that tended to suggest there wasn’t one. He could still though succeed on appeal and get a retrial that wouldn’t actually happen. Whether that could be heard before November is unknown. We heard plenty of salacious stories from Miss Daniels and no argument about the accounting irregularities. Please explain where the electoral interference was? Did Trump stuff ballot boxes? If Trump is guilty as charged then why not Bill Clinton and George Bush senior. Bush after all promised the voters no tax rises and did the opposite surely that is worst then a man covering up his infidelity.
One more point |
|
![]() |
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() |
---|---|
Trumps donations have sky rocketed. People who have never voted for trump in the past are now saying they will vote for him. Businesses are pulling out of New York. Only "postal votes" can stop trump now.
|
|
![]() |
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() |
---|---|
A great day for Trump. Unless the kill him off, he is likely to be the next POTUS.
|
|
![]() |
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() |
---|---|
Originally posted by Badger11
We heard plenty of salacious stories from Miss Daniels and no argument about the accounting irregularities. Please explain where the electoral interference was? Did Trump stuff ballot boxes? If Trump is guilty as charged then why not Bill Clinton and George Bush senior. Bush after all promised the voters no tax rises and did the opposite surely that is worst then a man covering up his infidelity. The salacious stories might fill pages in the tabloids but played no part in the prosecution's case. Prosecutors cannot control witnesses' answers to defence questions, who quite possibly goaded her into introducing them as a means to divert and a reason to appeal. The election interference arises from the concealment of the way the suppression of a story was paid for. A story that, coming so soon after the "Access Hollywood" tape, would likely have damaged his prospects with urban female voters. Making promises isn't illegal. Nor is infidelity. Trump messing around with Daniels wasn't a crime. Nor were Clinton's escapades. Nor was buying silence. Falsifying records to cover it up, was.
For the avoidance of doubt any comments in response to a previous post are directed to its ideas and not at any, or all, posters personally. |
|
![]() |
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() |
---|---|
Originally posted by eaglesdare
Trumps donations have sky rocketed. People who have never voted for trump in the past are now saying they will vote for him. Businesses are pulling out of New York. Only "postal votes" can stop trump now. It's not the Trump supporters who stupidly throw money at him who matter. It's the slice of undecideds in the middle and how they will move. Some will go each way. It's where the balance rests that matters.
For the avoidance of doubt any comments in response to a previous post are directed to its ideas and not at any, or all, posters personally. |
|
![]() |
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() |
---|---|
Originally posted by Hrolf The Ganger
A great day for Trump. Unless the kill him off, he is likely to be the next POTUS. If being found to be the first President, ex-President or Presidential candidate to be guilty of a crime in a Court by a jury represents a great day in any way, then democracy is finished. This was a disaster for Trump and a triumph for the rule of law. The concern is that it might ultimately make no difference but it's far too soon to determine that.
For the avoidance of doubt any comments in response to a previous post are directed to its ideas and not at any, or all, posters personally. |
|
![]() |
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() |
---|---|
Originally posted by Wisbech Eagle
The salacious stories might fill pages in the tabloids but played no part in the prosecution's case. Prosecutors cannot control witnesses' answers to defence questions, who quite possibly goaded her into introducing them as a means to divert and a reason to appeal. The election interference arises from the concealment of the way the suppression of a story was paid for. A story that, coming so soon after the "Access Hollywood" tape, would likely have damaged his prospects with urban female voters. Making promises isn't illegal. Nor is infidelity. Trump messing around with Daniels wasn't a crime. Nor were Clinton's escapades. Nor was buying silence. Falsifying records to cover it up, was. This is a minor accounting crime akin to a parking ticket. The NY DA has bootstrapped this into Electoral interference something no court has ever done before. Electoral interference refers to stuffing ballot boxed, denying the voter, gerrymandering not paying hush money to a p*** star.
One more point |
|
![]() |
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() |
---|---|
The first felony conviction of a former US President wasn’t for Iraq or Afghan, illegal CIA coups, drone striking weddings, or spying on Americans… It was over missclasified hush money to a p*** star. Hilarious really. Still no charges on the Epstein list either.....
|
|
![]() |
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() |
---|---|
Originally posted by Badger11
This is a minor accounting crime akin to a parking ticket. The NY DA has bootstrapped this into Electoral interference something no court has ever done before. Electoral interference refers to stuffing ballot boxed, denying the voter, gerrymandering not paying hush money to a p*** star. It just isn’t a minor accounting crime. It might be if there was a benign reason for it, like a mistake, or even an attempt at tax avoidance. It became a crime because the reason was to conceal it from the electorate, thus making it election interference. It wasn’t the payment of money to a p*** star that was the crime. That’s not illegal. It was the intention behind the falsification of records that was. That has been held to be election interference by the jury on the evidence presented. You cannot just dismiss it because it doesn’t fit your preconceptions of what constitutes election interference! I am actually quite shocked that this isn’t better understood by someone here. I realise how Trump and his supporters are going to present it but surely we can see through their nonsense and make a more accurate appraisal. It was all very clearly laid out during the trial.
For the avoidance of doubt any comments in response to a previous post are directed to its ideas and not at any, or all, posters personally. |
|
![]() |
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() |
---|---|
Originally posted by eaglesdare
The first felony conviction of a former US President wasn’t for Iraq or Afghan, illegal CIA coups, drone striking weddings, or spying on Americans… It was over missclasified hush money to a p*** star. Hilarious really. Still no charges on the Epstein list either..... Activities by a President, in the pursuit of their duties are, rightly or wrongly, immune from prosecution. Deliberately falsifying records to conceal something embarrassing ,which could influence the electorate, by a candidate for President, is illegal.
For the avoidance of doubt any comments in response to a previous post are directed to its ideas and not at any, or all, posters personally. |
|
![]() |
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() |
---|---|
I couldn't agree with your analysis, contained in many posts, more; what was also astonishing to me was how poor his defence was - two people were called one of whom was Costello - a lawyer right out of the same mode of those so called lawyers who were involved in the Georgia case other cases. Indeed the judge had to close the court and issue a stern rebuke given his behaviour. He claims he is an innocent man; not in my book or the jury. It will be interesting to see what happens on July 11th re a very significant fine or beyond. He certainly has done himself no favours with the judge given all his ranting and personal attacks.
|
|
![]() |
![]() ![]() |
Registration is now on our new message board
To login with your existing username you will need to convert your account over to the new message board.
All images and text on this site are copyright © 1999-2024 The Holmesdale Online, unless otherwise stated.
Web Design by Guntrisoft Ltd.