Is this any different?

https://www.foxnews.com/politi...l-harassment-accuser

"New Mexico Gov. Michelle Lujan Grisham defended her decision to settle with a former campaign staffer who accused her of sexual harassment in 2018, speaking to reporters about it for the first time Friday.

Grisham's campaign has paid at least $62,500 to James Hallinan, a 2018 campaign spokesman, who claimed she once dropped water in his lap and then grabbed his crotch in a pre-election meeting. "

quote:

Originally posted by Greymann:
Is this any different?

https://www.foxnews.com/politi...l-harassment-accuser

"New Mexico Gov. Michelle Lujan Grisham defended her decision to settle with a former campaign staffer who accused her of sexual harassment in 2018, speaking to reporters about it for the first time Friday.

Grisham's campaign has paid at least $62,500 to James Hallinan, a 2018 campaign spokesman, who claimed she once dropped water in his lap and then grabbed his crotch in a pre-election meeting. "

Not quite. As I understand the essential core basis of the charges to be that Trump's campaign paid off Stormy, funneled through Cohen and the payments from his campaign were categorized as "Legal fees" when they clearly were for another purpose.

It's very similar to how Hillary's campaign paid to have the Russian hoax and fake dossier cooked up by calling the payment, "legal fees" when they weren't. Her campaign was caught and paid a fine.

Trump's likely defense is that Cohen was his attorney and negotiated the payment and the method and Trump will claim that he can't see or pretend to understand every campaign expense. He relied on his attorney of record who represented that all of this was above board and quite legal. He followed the advice of his attorney.

I wonder what the remaining facts are for the other 30+ charges. Is it Trump telling someone 30+ times he didn't have an affair or pay her off? Same thing said to one person 30+ times?

Wasn't this pushed in one of the Durham cases for one of his defendant? I might be confusing this with someone else. Usually the same lie told to the same person is treated as one lie and not individual lies every time it's repeated to the same person.

Yes Grisham is some kind witness, in a case in GA. against Trump.


Grisham paid out of her campaign money, but claims it was legal because the accuser was an employee.

.

As I understand it, the statute of limitations ran out years ago. The D.A. is claiming Trump’s time as president doesn’t count towards that time.

I can’t see how any judge would allow this to continue.

quote:

Originally posted by sigalert:
As I understand it, the statute of limitations ran out years ago. The D.A. is claiming Trump’s time as president doesn’t count towards that time.

I can’t see how any judge would allow this to continue.

This will be an interesting argument that I think Bragg loses.

The SOL has run. That's pretty clear but it's novel to suggest there can't be criminal charges against a sitting president until he leaves office and that somehow tolls the running of the SOL. I'd be interested to see his Points and Authorities that staff drew up to support this idea.

Usually a civil matter can be filed while the president is in office but courts defer action on it until after he leaves office. There's nothing that I'm aware of that states that the DA or AG can't investigate a sitting president for possible criminal conduct or file charges.

Bragg will have a hard time overcoming a SOL argument, IMO.

Alan Dershowitz believes the indictment will be quickly tossed from court. The indictment remains sealed, even Trump's lawyers haven't seen it yet.

quote:

"I think the most important thing is they indicted him when he was out of New York, and that means they could have indicted him within the statute of limitations when he was out of New York. The statute of limitations is way expired. They claimed they couldn't have indicted him because he was outside of New York, but now they've indicted him when he's not in New York.

Dershowitz says Bragg made a "foolish, foolish decision, which will cause the case to be thrown out, I think, on statute of limitations grounds."
Dershowitz predicts Trump's attorneys will file an immediate motion to dismiss the case based on statute of limitations grounds.

https://www.theblaze.com/news/...atute-of-limitations

quote:

Originally posted by oddball:
Alan Dershowitz believes the indictment will be quickly tossed from court. The indictment remains sealed, even Trump's lawyers haven't seen it yet.

quote:

"I think the most important thing is they indicted him when he was out of New York, and that means they could have indicted him within the statute of limitations when he was out of New York. The statute of limitations is way expired. They claimed they couldn't have indicted him because he was outside of New York, but now they've indicted him when he's not in New York.

Dershowitz says Bragg made a "foolish, foolish decision, which will cause the case to be thrown out, I think, on statute of limitations grounds."
Dershowitz predicts Trump's attorneys will file an immediate motion to dismiss the case based on statute of limitations grounds.

https://www.theblaze.com/news/...atute-of-limitations

In a sane world, yes, it'd all be thrown out the first day. But I expect Trump is going to have to fight every single one of the 34 counts separately.

They're going to tie him up in court for months, and when this witch hunt is over, there'll have a couple more waiting for him. They're not going to stop.

Just saw a TV ad from the Make America Great Again PAC. First I have heard of them. It was an attack AD against Ron DeSantis saying he is not ready to be President.

quote:

But I expect Trump is going to have to fight every single one of the 34 counts separately.

I like to think, that there are always possibilities.

quote:

Originally posted by Fed161:
Just saw a TV ad from the Make America Great Again PAC. First I have heard of them. It was an attack AD against Ron DeSantis saying he is not ready to be President.

Ok great. Thanks.

"No one is above the law"

"The rule of law"

It's as if all these leftists have gotten their talking points from Commie Central. I'm already sick of hearing the squawking of these parrots.

They make a mockery of our system of justice and they are criminals and hypocrites of the highest order. If I thought it could happen, I would pray to God to sweep a hand over the face of the planet and catapult all of this America-hating slime into the void of outer space.

And not a one of them can tell you what law he broke.

quote:

Originally posted by Gustofer:
And not a one of them can tell you what law he broke.

Of course not. What they are doing is repeating crap so the mindless masses can recite it by rote whenever someone disagrees with them.

Nancy Pelosi commented that he must have a chance in trial to prove his innocence. Say what?

flashguy

quote:

Originally posted by flashguy:
Nancy Pelosi commented that he must have a chance in trial to prove his innocence. Say what?

flashguy

In congress since 1987, and that’s how she thinks our justice system works, pitiful.

quote:

Originally posted by Fed161:
Just saw a TV ad from the Make America Great Again PAC. First I have heard of them. It was an attack AD against Ron DeSantis saying he is not ready to be President.

I saw that last night. Pissed me off.

quote:

Originally posted by BOATTRASH1:

quote:

Originally posted by Fed161:
Just saw a TV ad from the Make America Great Again PAC. First I have heard of them. It was an attack AD against Ron DeSantis saying he is not ready to be President.

I saw that last night. Pissed me off.

I wondered if it was a lefty group posing as a DT support group, but a cursory internet search suggests it is related to DT. I still have doubts this group is connected to DT. It seems more like an ad that opposition would run to stir up division among Republicans.

I saw that ad last night too. Pissed me off too.
The timing was particularly bad with DeSantis saying supportive things on Trump's indictment.
If the primary were held today, I'd vote for Trump. But it's still 11 months away... and my vote is Trump's to lose.

quote:

Originally posted by flashguy:
Nancy Pelosi commented that he must have a chance in trial to prove his innocence. Say what?

flashguy

It was so ignorant and such an egregious misrepresentation of how our justice system works that Twitter had to fact check her.

And as far as I can tell, she didn't even have the shame to remove it yet.