Judge Judy slams hush money case against Trump as ‘nonsense’

th1bill · Jun 25, 2024

The entire case, all thirty plus ¿sub charges? stem from President Trump paying a Video Hooker who had nothing but her say so to make an unprovable accusation that, even if it were true would cause him no more than a few minutes in jail. The entire basis of everything has to do with him purportedly breaking NY Election Law because he did not report the payment as a Campaign Expense. It is a farce.

Pommer · Jun 25, 2024

th1bill said:
The entire case, all thirty plus ¿sub charges? stem from President Trump paying a Video Hooker who had nothing but her say so to make an unprovable accusation that, even if it were true would cause him no more than a few minutes in jail. The entire basis of everything has to do with him purportedly breaking NY Election Law because he did not report the payment as a Campaign Expense. It is a farce.

He was fine if Ms Daniels had blabbed about their tryst until right before the 2016 Presidential Election when he would have definitively wanted to keep that under wraps…and did, then covered up this “shield” to his campaign by fudging the books, to make the crime look innocent.
Nixon didn’t never do anything near as bad and he got told what-for, back when politicians were still mostly not corrupt.

ozso · Jun 25, 2024

A2SG said:
Your assertion has been shown to be empty.

Incorrect.

A2SG · Jun 25, 2024

Ceallaigh said:
Incorrect.

You're wrong, dude. I quoted her, remember? She said nothing about the trial that showed any expertise. She did say, though, that she was unclear on the charges...and that I could figure out, and the closest I've come to law school was a couple semesters doing work study in the law library back in college.

You came up empty.

-- A2SG, but at least you're cool with that....

ozso · Jun 25, 2024

Pommer said:
He was fine if Ms Daniels had blabbed about their tryst until right before the 2016 Presidential Election when he would have definitively wanted to keep that under wraps…and did, then covered up this “shield” to his campaign by fudging the books, to make the crime look innocent.
Nixon didn’t never do anything near as bad and he got told what-for, back when politicians were still mostly not corrupt.

Saying this is worse than Watergate is overexaggerating.

Pommer · Jun 25, 2024

Ceallaigh said:
Saying this is worse than Watergate is overexaggerating.

At least Nixon had the sense to be President while he did his criming.

ozso · Jun 25, 2024

A2SG said:
You're wrong, dude. I quoted her, remember? She said nothing about the trial that showed any expertise. She did say, though, that she was unclear on the charges...and that I could figure out, and the closest I've come to law school was a couple semesters doing work study in the law library back in college.

Judge Judy is able to figure it out a lot better.

ozso · Jun 25, 2024

Pommer said:
At least Nixon had the sense to be President while he did his criming.

This case is a lot closer to Bill Clinton than Nixon.

A2SG · Jun 25, 2024

Ceallaigh said:
Judge Judy is able to figure it out better.

But she couldn't. She said so. Didn't you read the article?

-- A2SG, doesn't look like it....

A2SG · Jun 25, 2024

Ceallaigh said:
This case is a lot closer to Bill Clinton than Nixon.

When did Bill Clinton falsify business documents? Did he ever own a business at all, let alone one in NY state?

-- A2SG, maybe you're as confused about the charges as Judge Judy....

ozso · Jun 25, 2024

A2SG said:
But she couldn't. She said so. Didn't you read the article?

-- A2SG, doesn't look like it....

A judge with 60 years practical experience said the trial was nonsense. You a complete novice disagree. End of story.

ozso · Jun 25, 2024

A2SG said:
When did Bill Clinton falsify business documents? Did he ever own a business at all, let alone one in NY state?

Nixon didn’t either. But that's not @Pommer's point as I understand it.

A2SG · Jun 25, 2024

Ceallaigh said:
A judge with 60 years practical experience said the trial was nonsense. You a complete novice disagree. End of story.

That's already been covered. You came up empty. Do you really want to go through it all again? I'll quote her again, if it will help you realize where you went wrong.

-- A2SG, maybe you should have read what she said the first time, before making up your mind....

A2SG · Jun 25, 2024

Ceallaigh said:
Nixon didn’t either. But that's not @Pommer's point as I understand it.

Maybe you should have read Pommer's post before replying to it. That usually works better.

-- A2SG, but that doesn't seem to be your style....

ozso · Jun 25, 2024

A2SG said:
Do you really want to go through it all again?

It seems pretty obvious you do.

A2SG · Jun 25, 2024

Ceallaigh said:
It seems pretty obvious you do.

Not really, but I try to educate where I can.

-- A2SG, that and I seem to have a penchant for brick walls as pillows....

ozso · Jun 25, 2024

A2SG said:
Maybe you should have read Pommer's post before replying to it. That usually works better.

Flaming and goading is a violation of CF rules. Please don't do it again.

ozso · Jun 25, 2024

A2SG said:
Not really, but I try to educate where I can.

You already made it clear that you have no practical education in the matter.

A2SG · Jun 25, 2024

Ceallaigh said:
Flaming and goading is a violation of CF rules. Please don't do it again.

There it is.

-- A2SG, footloose and fancy free....

A2SG · Jun 25, 2024

Ceallaigh said:
You already made it clear that you have no practical education in the matter.

And yet, I didn't have to twist myself into a pretzel to figure out the charges. I just read the indictment. So I'm one up on Judge Judy.

-- A2SG, not that we're keeping score....

Judge Judy slams hush money case against Trump as ‘nonsense’

A Believer/Follower

CoPacEtiC SkEpTic

Ingenious Member

Gumby

Ingenious Member

CoPacEtiC SkEpTic

Ingenious Member

Ingenious Member

Gumby

Gumby

Ingenious Member

Ingenious Member

Gumby

Gumby

Ingenious Member

Gumby

Ingenious Member

Ingenious Member

Gumby

Gumby

Similar threads