IMO
Trump doesn't have a prayer, he will be convicted on Hick's testimony, weak as it was.

I think he gets 4-8 years.

This is a tainted jury, they don't want Trump as President. This is a bias judge, registered democrat who contributed to Biden.

This is NYC, the jury don't convict him they better move along with all their relatives but they don't need that incentive, they hate Trump.

The Democrats are so empowered when it comes to Trump because there never has been push back from the right.

A lot of people go to prison for paperwork crimes. These are felonies and there's a few dozen counts.

Class E felonies in NY carry up to 4 years.

Stat Monitor Repairman said:

---

Still amazed that no federal case was able to get traction but ...

---

The Federal Election case and Classified Documents case say hello.

What exact part of Hicks testimony are you referring to, like be specific on what she said that makes you feel this way.

I agree. I am fairly certain I read all of it and I am not sure how you draw that conclusion?

Oh... and HH is still smoking hot!!!

CNN article this morning: Hope Hicks testimony devastating for the defense

Fox News article this morning: Hope Hicks testimony devastating for the prosecution

Both articles agree testimony further showed Cohen paid money to Daniel's and that Trump knew about payment but Fox News article is 'so what? Did it to not embarrass family which is not a crime' while CNN article is 'Got Him!'

No fan of Trump as a person. His elite narcissism has always turned me off and I would be shocked if he hadn't cheated on every wife he's ever had.

But this trial is a ridiculous political show trial that also turns me off. A Circus clown show.

I suppose since it is in New York the jury will more likely than not convict. Whether this trial and whatever it's result changes a small 'swing' vote that actually affects the election who knows. Trump can still run for President regardless. And who knows who wins because both Biden and Trump are pretty pathetic menu choices. I will be curious whether the number of people who vote in this one is significantly less than 2020 because of the poor menu.

Reality Check said:

---

PA24 said:

---

IMO
Trump doesn't have a prayer, he will be convicted on Hick's testimony, weak as it was.

I think he gets 4-8 years.

---

You're on crack, Nobody goes to prison for a paperwork crime -- especially not a former president.

---

I didn't believe it either but after reading the comments on Fox News from the NYC readers, I came back to reality.

Pumpkinhead said:

---

CNN article this morning: Hope Hicks testimony devastating for the defense

Fox News article this morning: Hope Hicks testimony devastating for the prosecution

Both articles agree testimony further showed Cohen paid money to Daniel's and that Trump knew about payment but Fox News article is 'so what? Did it to not embarrass family which is not a crime' while CNN article is 'Got Him!'

No fan of Trump as a person. His elite narcissism has always turned me off and I would be shocked if he hadn't cheated on every wife he's ever had.

But this trial is a ridiculous political show trial that also turns me off. A Circus clown show.

I suppose since it is in New York the jury will more likely than not convict. Whether this trial and whatever it's result changes a small 'swing' vote that actually affects the election who knows. Trump can still run for President regardless. And who knows who wins because both Biden and Trump are pretty pathetic menu choices. I will be curious whether the number of people who vote in this one is significantly less than 2020 because of the poor menu.

---

Agree, if what Trump is alleged to have done was actually a crime, this is a slam dunk. But nothing in this case constitutes criminal activity. It's the epitome of a sham trial over trumped-up charges. (no pun intended)

The hicks testimony does hurt Trump because she is first to tie Trump to knowing about the payments

On the flip side, she also established Trump paid the money in part to protect his family which destroys using violating campaign finance laws as the crime this allegedly covered up

I must have missed it, but when did Hicks confirm that payment was made? Or confirm that the Trump team knew about it?

BMX Bandit said:

---

The hicks testimony does hurt Trump because she is first to tie Trump to knowing about the payments

On the flip side, she also established Trump paid the money in part to protect his family which destroys using violating campaign finance laws as the crime this allegedly covered up

---

The crime wouldn't have been 'covered up' until 2017 when the accounting entry was made anyway, so…none of the prosecution's 'theory of the case' makes any sense at all.

notex said:

---

BMX Bandit said:

---

The hicks testimony does hurt Trump because she is first to tie Trump to knowing about the payments

On the flip side, she also established Trump paid the money in part to protect his family which destroys using violating campaign finance laws as the crime this allegedly covered up

---

The crime wouldn't have been 'covered up' until 2017 when the accounting entry was made anyway, so…none of the prosecution's 'theory of the case' makes any sense at all.

---

You're not getting it. It doesn't have to make sense. All they're counting on is a biased jury that will hand down a conviction. They know full well this won't hold up to appeal. But the appeals process is long and tedious and will last well beyond the election. They don't even care if he actually goes to jail or not. All they want is the "Convicted Felon Trump" label for the campaign.

If anything in the case is "election interference", it's the case itself.

Judge merchan literally blocked trump from testifying about everything he needed to testify about to defend his case. He can still take the stand and testify about the weather and stuff so democrats are screaming “HE CAN TESTIFY”😂this is shaping up to be the next bloodbath hoax! pic.twitter.com/LrqomKm21V

— Facts matter (@1800factsmatter) May 2, 2024

SwigAg11 said:

---

I must have missed it, but when did Hicks confirm that payment was made? Or confirm that the Trump team knew about it?

---

I thought she said that Trump mentioned some to her about it after Cohen had already done it not him knowing prior

This made me laugh so hard I was in tears. 🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣 pic.twitter.com/L4DKtX5hqx

— Mrs Denosko🇺🇸 🌝 (@Denosko1) May 3, 2024

Reality Check said:

---

Quote:

---

• In relation to WSJ's November 4, 2016, story, she also told the defense that Trump didn't want his family to be hurt or embarrassed by what was happening on the campaign trail.

---

Which completely debunks the prosecution's essential to convict theory that this was all about influencing the election.

I consider myself a fairly well-educated guy; A masters and an additional 63 hours of post-grad study. I don't see how text messages showing a shady lawyer trying to sell a story about Trump to a tabloid proves Trump fraudulently labeled 34 transactions in 2017 about an alleged affair that hit the tabloids in 2011 helped him win an election in 2016..

Absolutely none of this makes sense.

But then again, I remind myself this isn't about any crime Trump committed -- it's a six- to eight-week exercise in the Democrats punishing Trump for winning an election and for daring to run again. He's not able to campaign. They're dragging him through the muck of affairs with porn stars that porn stars said 13 years ago never happened. He's being threatened with jail by a judge whose daughter is literally raising money off of this trial. He's allowing MSM anchors to orgasm on air about the possibility of Trump sitting in jail for contempt. And -- if all 12 jurors can be counted on to follow script -- he'll be a "convicted felon" for a year or so until an appeals court cleans up Merchan's mess.

And then it all makes perfect sense.

---

This whole case baffles me. Since when is it illegal for a candidate to influence an election? Is it illegal to campaign?

captkirk said:

---

Reality Check said:

---

Quote:

---

• In relation to WSJ's November 4, 2016, story, she also told the defense that Trump didn't want his family to be hurt or embarrassed by what was happening on the campaign trail.

---

Which completely debunks the prosecution's essential to convict theory that this was all about influencing the election.

I consider myself a fairly well-educated guy; A masters and an additional 63 hours of post-grad study. I don't see how text messages showing a shady lawyer trying to sell a story about Trump to a tabloid proves Trump fraudulently labeled 34 transactions in 2017 about an alleged affair that hit the tabloids in 2011 helped him win an election in 2016..

Absolutely none of this makes sense.

But then again, I remind myself this isn't about any crime Trump committed -- it's a six- to eight-week exercise in the Democrats punishing Trump for winning an election and for daring to run again. He's not able to campaign. They're dragging him through the muck of affairs with porn stars that porn stars said 13 years ago never happened. He's being threatened with jail by a judge whose daughter is literally raising money off of this trial. He's allowing MSM anchors to orgasm on air about the possibility of Trump sitting in jail for contempt. And -- if all 12 jurors can be counted on to follow script -- he'll be a "convicted felon" for a year or so until an appeals court cleans up Merchan's mess.

And then it all makes perfect sense.

---

This whole case baffles me. Since when is it illegal for a candidate to influence an election? Is it illegal to campaign?

---

Apparently....if you are Trump...it is.

This whole pile of **** the Dems have been piling on him is shameful.

And I don't like Trump.