- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: WSJ: Without limits placed on testimony, the jurors can now learn why the case was faulty
Posted on 6/4/24 at 4:48 am to texridder
Posted on 6/4/24 at 4:48 am to texridder
If youre ever on trial for anything im going to testify against you about how you spit on my kid and kicked my dog. Who cares if its relevant to the charge, right?
0
Posted on 6/4/24 at 4:57 am to RockyMtnTigerWDE
That mental midget with his crayon law degree incoming.
Posted on 6/4/24 at 5:32 am to TerryDawg03
They would have ignored his testimony just like they'd ignore this article. The jurors wanted to find Trump guilty as much as the judge did.
Posted on 6/4/24 at 5:38 am to texridder
quote:
The reason she was allowed to testify about it is because Trump denied that it even happened.
Which is irrelevant. The payment is relevant. She could have been blackmailing him for listening to Nickelback and it would be the same thing.
This post was edited on 6/4/24 at 6:12 am
Posted on 6/4/24 at 6:19 am to RockyMtnTigerWDE
quote:
SFP incoming, “that was a stupid article, and has no relevance to Trump’s crimes”
Texridder beat him to the punch.
Posted on 6/4/24 at 6:32 am to texridder
quote:
The reason she was allowed to testify about it is because Trump denied that it even happened.
She also denied it ever happened.
And there was no reason to allow it. It added nothing to the case. The entire sex was not relevant to the case.
Oh, you don't understand that, do you?
This case had nothing to do about the sex act.
About was about the labeling of the payment in the books.
And then the even more dumb statement that it was done in the commission of another crime.
Posted on 6/4/24 at 6:37 am to GetmorewithLes
quote:
Stormy’s salicious testimony was for jury opinion manipulation and nothing more.
/\ the entire situation defined perfectly /\
there is no logical rebuttal of that
Posted on 6/4/24 at 6:39 am to thetempleowl
quote:
Oh, you don't understand that, do you?
This case had nothing to do about the sex act.
About was about the labeling of the payment in the books.
And then the even more dumb statement that it was done in the commission of another crime.
and if anyone wants to challenge the previous post - /\ here is your rebuttal. /\
Posted on 6/4/24 at 6:39 am to texridder
I found the “highly partisan” poster.
Posted on 6/4/24 at 6:41 am to Tchefuncte Tiger
quote:
quote:
SFP incoming, “that was a stupid article, and has no relevance to Trump’s crimes”
===
Texridder beat him to the punch.
I wonder if SFP and TexRidder are the same person - when SFP wants to post really stupid stuff that doesn't fit his SFP image of 'fair contrarian.'
Posted on 6/4/24 at 6:43 am to texridder
quote:
quote:
WSJ: Without limits placed on testimony, the jurors can now learn why the case was faulty
Stupid article. He says that Daniels should not have been allowed to testify about the sex act.
The reason she was allowed to testify about it is because Trump denied that it even happened.
That was a swing and a miss.
So is the attempt to deflect from the point of the article. There were no electiion laws broken...no extended statue of limitations ...as per the man that oversees the body that had supposed laws broken.
The Babylon Bee was 100% right... Trump was only guilty of breaking laws that Bragg made up and Merchan was complicit in the execution. If liberals can't see how dangerous that this tactic s ... Then the will be some dark days ahead
Posted on 6/4/24 at 6:58 am to TerryDawg03
quote:
jurors can learn what Journal readers have known for more than a year—hush-money payments to alleged mistresses are not campaign contributions.
This has been known for more than a year so the jurors knew this
Posted on 6/4/24 at 7:07 am to RockyMtnTigerWDE
quote:I would love to see anyone defend the Judge's conduct in this case.
SFP incoming, “that was a stupid article, and has no relevance to Trump’s crimes”
How is the defense not allowed to call witnesses or testify themselves?
How is this case even brought as a felony on the state level?
The final instructions to the jury? Wow.
Case could get tossed on appeal due solely to jurisdiction issues.
Posted on 6/4/24 at 7:12 am to Vacherie Saint
quote:
Idiot. She needed to go into graphic detail about specific sex acts that she previously denied in order to refute someone else’s denial? Resulting in an NDA that wasn’t even being legally contested in this trial?
Daniels either perjured herself on the stand or perjured herself in her previous disclosure.
Cohen either perjured himself on the stand or perjured himself in his previous statements.
Both have made statements in the press that indicate they have it out personally for Trump.
Neither should be taken seriously and any objective hurt when presented with their previous statements and social media would laugh at them.
Posted on 6/4/24 at 7:21 am to TerryDawg03
quote:And that's why he was not charged with a campaign violation... hence Mr. Smith's testimony was irrelevant because it didn't pertain to any charges indicted on.
In 2010, in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, 558 U.S. 310, the Supreme Court held 5 to 4 that the freedom of speech clause of the First Amendment prohibits the government from restricting independent expenditures for political campaigns by closely allied corporations and groups like The Trump Organization. Under Citizens United, it was perfectly legal for The Trump Organization to pay Daniels $130,000 in hush money to conceal her alleged affair with Donald Trump…
Nevermind it was the lynchpin of both the verdict and the indictment, of felonies. It's circular logic, with intent, to violate a citizen's constitutional rights (to take ours who would like to choose our next leader that doesn't have both the constitution and cognitive skills of a 9 month old).
Posted on 6/4/24 at 7:22 am to TerryDawg03
They'll never admit they were wrong. And the fact the 2 lawyers won't should cost them their licenses
Posted on 6/4/24 at 7:30 am to TrueTiger
quote:
I'm sorry the media has done this to you.
Tex is a moron ex nihilo. She is not dependent on outside sources.
Posted on 6/4/24 at 7:33 am to texridder
quote:He called the dress blue, but it was royal blue. . .so therefore everything he said can be ignored as a lie.
Stupid article. He says that Daniels should not have been allowed to testify about the sex act.
The reason she was allowed to testify about it is because Trump denied that it even happened.
That was a swing and a miss.
This is what you are going with?
Posted on 6/4/24 at 7:33 am to TerryDawg03
A trial..for paying a whore.
Posted on 6/4/24 at 7:44 am to TerryDawg03
This prosecution marked a first time in history. This whole trial was curated for 1 man. Nobody else would ever be prosecuted.
quote:
"In fact, no state prosecutor — in New York, or Wyoming, or anywhere — has ever charged federal election laws as a direct or predicate state crime, against anyone, for anything. None. Ever," CNN Chief Legal Analyst Elie Konig wrote.
Page 2 of 3
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News