Posted on 04/28/2024 2:56:20 PM PDT by E. Pluribus Unum
There’s a ton of buzz about the so-called “hush money” trial unfolding in New York City. Can President Trump really expect a fair trial in the liberal stronghold of Manhattan? Not a chance—and that seems to be exactly the point. It’s just another play from the left’s election interference playbook, deploying activist judges and juries to secure the verdict they crave: guilty. At the heart of this trial is none other than erstwhile porn actress Stormy Daniels, a name that has lingered in the media spotlight. While many of us are familiar with her notorious “Trump affair” story, there are significant, overlooked details about a piece that hasn’t seen the light of day for about 11 years, and now, thanks to an insider source who spoke to Revolver, it’s time for that piece of the puzzle to see the light of day.
As for the hush money trial that has thrust Stormy and her claims of a sordid affair into the public spotlight, the most reputable legal experts are labeling the case as a humiliating black mark on the US injustice system.
Fox News legal analyst Jonathan Turley said Monday on Fox News Channel’s “America Reports” that former President Donald Trump’s New York trial for allegedly falsifying business records is an “embarrassment.”
Turley said, “What is clear is in this case, Trump is right this is an embarrassment. The fact that we are actually talking about this case being presented in a New York court room leaves me in utter disbelief.”
He continued, “The arguments today did in fact capture all the problems here. You had this misdemeanor under state law that had run out. This is going back related to the 2016 election. They zapped it back into life by alleging that there was a campaign finance violations under the federal laws...
(Excerpt) Read more at revolver.news ...
If I were Bragg and James, I would be googling “non extradition countries” right about now.
Furthermore, STORMY DANIELS ADMITTED, IN WRITING, THAT SHE NEVER HADW AN AFFIR WITH DONALD TRUMP. She signed a statement to that effect. She tried to weasel out of it later by claiming that her agent pressured her into signing it. But if it wasn't true, why did she admit to this alleged pressure?
Was she lying then, or is she lying now?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.