The Trump "Hush Money" Trial starts today

[Jolly]

@Axtremus said in The Trump "Hush Money" Trial starts today:

@Jolly said in The Trump "Hush Money" Trial starts today:

Why do you think they put Stormy Weather on the stand today?

Because Stormy is party to the hush money deal that is at the center of the allegations.
You should be surprised and suspicious if Stormy is not put on the stand.

Uh, no.

The basis of this trial is how an expense with Cohen was billed.

[Axtremus]

@Jolly said in The Trump "Hush Money" Trial starts today:

@Axtremus said in The Trump "Hush Money" Trial starts today:

@Jolly said in The Trump "Hush Money" Trial starts today:

Why do you think they put Stormy Weather on the stand today?

Because Stormy is party to the hush money deal that is at the center of the allegations.
You should be surprised and suspicious if Stormy is not put on the stand.

Uh, no.

The basis of this trial is how an expense with Cohen was billed.

It's not just "any expense," but "specific expenses" tied to certain established "crimes," and those "crimes" involve payments to Stormy.

[jon-nyc]

@George-K said in The Trump "Hush Money" Trial starts today:

Remember, this trial isn't about sex. If that were the case we'd be talking about JFK Clinton. It's about an NDA, which somehow they've managed to contort into an election finance violation - even though the event occurred a decade before the election.

The payment happened in 2006?

[George K]

@jon-nyc said in The Trump "Hush Money" Trial starts today:

The payment happened in 2006?

The affair happened in 2006.

Meanwhile, enjoy Lawrence O'Donnel giving Stormy an on-the-air tongue bath.

[jon-nyc]

That’s not the relevant event for the trial.

When did the hush-money payment happen?

[George K]

@jon-nyc said in The Trump "Hush Money" Trial starts today:

That’s not the relevant event for the trial.

Neither is what Trump was wearing in the room, and yet, we heard about it.

When did the hush-money payment NDA happen?

IIRC, 2015.

[jon-nyc]

How about the hush money payment ?

[George K]

@jon-nyc said in The Trump "Hush Money" Trial starts today:

How about the hush money payment ?

That's not illegal, is it?

[taiwan_girl]

@George-K said in The Trump "Hush Money" Trial starts today:

@jon-nyc said in The Trump "Hush Money" Trial starts today:

How about the hush money payment ?

That's not illegal, is it?

It comes back to the fact that he called it a business expense.

If (generic) you had an affair with a porn actor and then tried to expense it off to your business, I am guessing that is illegal. If he would have paid her with personal funds, this all wouldn't be happening.

I haven't heard anything about the other porn actor he paid off. Guessing it was not claimed as a business expense.

[George K]

@taiwan_girl said in The Trump "Hush Money" Trial starts today:

It comes back to the fact that he called it a business expense.

That's not been proven - yet.

Also, statute of limitations on that, even if proven, is long-expired. The only way it could be prosecuted is if it were 'tagged" onto another alleged crime. Remember that Bragg and the feds said there's no there there.

Also, an accountant said that Trump had no knowledge of how the money was entered in bookkeeping.

And, as I mentioned the judge has disallowed testimony from the person (former FEC chairman) who can testify as to what is a business expense, campaign expense, etc. By disallowing a defense witness, who is clearly an expert, that raises some serious questions about the judge's motivations.

[Jolly]

Oh, I don't think there is any question about the judge's motivation.

Bragg's either.

[taiwan_girl]

@George-K said in The Trump "Hush Money" Trial starts today:

Also, an accountant said that Trump had no knowledge of how the money was entered in bookkeeping.

I agree. This is how I believe the situation happened.

Trump aide: "Hey, that porn actor you had an affair with a few years ago is threatening to the news about it."

Trump: "Which one are we talking about?"

Trump aide: "Stormy Daniels."

Trump: "Oh, Honey Bunch. Yeah, just pay that b*tch something to get her off my back."

Trump aide: "will do"

But ultimately, the buck has to stop somewhere. Ignorance is really not an excuse. (Of course this happens all the time)

(However, there was a recent case where a US Fortune 100 company CEO "retired". Well, it turns out that a subsidiary was caught in the US FCPA and had to pay a huge fine to the US Justice Department. Did the CEO have knowledge of this? I doubt it, but he is at the top of the pyramid. Ignorance is not an excuse)

[Jolly]

@taiwan_girl said in The Trump "Hush Money" Trial starts today:

@George-K said in The Trump "Hush Money" Trial starts today:

Also, an accountant said that Trump had no knowledge of how the money was entered in bookkeeping.

I agree. This is how I believe the situation happened.

Trump aide: "Hey, that porn actor you had an affair with a few years ago is threatening to the news about it."

Trump: "Which one are we talking about?"

Trump aide: "Stormy Daniels."

Trump: "Oh, Honey Bunch. Yeah, just pay that b*tch something to get her off my back."

Trump aide: "will do"

But ultimately, the buck has to stop somewhere. Ignorance is really not an excuse. (Of course this happens all the time)

(However, there was a recent case where a US Fortune 100 company CEO "retired". Well, it turns out that a subsidiary was caught in the US FCPA and had to pay a huge fine to the US Justice Department. Did the CEO have knowledge of this? I doubt it, but he is at the top of the pyramid. Ignorance is not an excuse)

You've got a small problem... Please legally explain to me how you can bootstrap an expired state misdemeanor into a Federal election law felony?

[George K]

@Jolly said in The Trump "Hush Money" Trial starts today:

Please legally explain to me how you can bootstrap an expired state misdemeanor into a Federal election law felony?

And how does the Manhattan DA have any jurisdiction with respect to Federal election law?

[Axtremus]

@George-K said in The Trump "Hush Money" Trial starts today:

@Jolly said in The Trump "Hush Money" Trial starts today:

Please legally explain to me how you can bootstrap an expired state misdemeanor into a Federal election law felony?

And how does the Manhattan DA have any jurisdiction with respect to Federal election law?

Manhattan DA charges Trump with violation of NY law ("falsifying business records"), the alleged violations are connected to violations of federal election law -- "falsifying business records" with intend to cover up federal crimes. See https://nodebb.the-new-coffee-room.club/post/276982 .

[Copper]

He must not be allowed to be impolite, occasionally.

[George K]

@Axtremus said in The Trump "Hush Money" Trial starts today:

Manhattan DA charges Trump with violation of NY law ("falsifying business records"), the alleged violations are connected to violations of federal election law -- "falsifying business records" with intend to cover up federal crimes. See https://nodebb.the-new-coffee-room.club/post/276982 .

https://www.nationalreview.com/corner/what-happens-when-the-law-and-the-indictment-do-not-state-what-the-crime-is/

---

Trump’s lawyers pointed that out last week, noting that nondisclosure agreements (a.k.a. “hush-money” deals) are legal and common, Bragg’s assistant prosecutor Joshua Steinglass countered that there was a conspiracy statute in the case — the New York crime of “conspiracy to promote or prevent election,” codified in §17-152 of the state’s election law. As I’ve explained, this is preposterous. That conspiracy crime is not charged or even mentioned in the indictment. It is not specified in the felony business-records-falsification statute, as the New York constitution requires if it is going to be enforced as part of that statute.

Moreover, if it really applied, as Bragg and Steinglass now claim it does, one would naturally ask, “Why didn’t prosecutors just charge it in the indictment?” There are two answers.

First, because a §17-152 conspiracy is a misdemeanor — i.e., just like the misdemeanor business-records-falsification statute (§175.05) that Bragg also didn’t charge, §17-152 has a two-year statute of limitations. Ergo, as to the conduct in this case, the time to charge that conspiracy lapsed in 2019. And yes, Bragg is now trying to qualify for the six-year felony statute of limitations — so he could charge 34 felonies with a potential of 136 years’ imprisonment — by stitching together two misdemeanors as to which the statute of limitations lapsed four years before Bragg finally indicted the case.

Second, to establish a §17-152 conspiracy, it is not enough for prosecutors to prove that a defendant conspired to promote a candidate’s election; they also have to establish an intent to promote it “by unlawful means.” Even if such a conspiracy charge hadn’t been time-barred, Bragg would not have wanted to spell the supposedly “unlawful means” out in an indictment because the illegality he wants to prove is a supposed violation of federal campaign-finance law. Bragg, as a state DA, has no jurisdiction to prosecute federal campaign-finance law.

Nondisclosure agreements are legal. They do not run afoul of campaign law because they are technically not campaign expenditures — which is why the Justice Department and FEC, which have exclusive prosecutorial authority over federal campaign law, decided not to prosecute Trump.

Why is this so important? Because if, as an objective legal matter, a disbursement of money is not a campaign expenditure, then it does not matter what the people involved in the disbursement were subjectively thinking. They could have guilty consciences. They could be sneaky, stealthy, and dishonest. But if the payment of “hush money” is not a campaign expenditure, then there is no crime, period.

Nor, in any event, is conspiracy to violate federal campaign-finance law the crime Bragg charged. But it’s often hard to know what Bragg charged, especially by reading news coverage, because the business-records statute he invoked does not state the crime he indicted (concealment of a federal campaign violation), and the indictment he filed does not charge the “offense” he is presenting to the jury (conspiracy to suppress politically damaging information).

---

[taiwan_girl]

The "problem" for me is that anytime President Trump is accused or charged or claimed that he did something wrong, there is always some conspiracy theory that says that it cannot be true.

Charged with a crime? cannot be true. There is this giant conspiracy involving the entire legal system of the US from the local, state and federal level which is causing this.

Claims that he did this or that wrong? Impossible, the XX part of society are nothing but Trump haters. How is it that the XX, YY, ZZ, AA, BB, CC, etc parts of society are all out to get President Trump?

For someone who won 80% of the popular vote in the last election (insert sarcasm here), it is weird that the minority of 20% who didnt vote for him are able to pull of these conspiracy's, and still happen to control all the important aspects of government and public life. At some point, where there is smoke, there is fire.

(On a side topic, what ever happened to the investigation of President Biden by the Republic controlled Congress that was claimed to have evidence without a doubt as to his guilt?)

[Jolly]

@taiwan_girl said in The Trump "Hush Money" Trial starts today:

The "problem" for me is that anytime President Trump is accused or charged or claimed that he did something wrong, there is always some conspiracy theory that says that it cannot be true.

Charged with a crime? cannot be true. There is this giant conspiracy involving the entire legal system of the US from the local, state and federal level which is causing this.

Claims that he did this or that wrong? Impossible, the XX part of society are nothing but Trump haters. How is it that the XX, YY, ZZ, AA, BB, CC, etc parts of society are all out to get President Trump?

For someone who won 80% of the popular vote in the last election (insert sarcasm here), it is weird that the minority of 20% who didnt vote for him are able to pull of these conspiracy's, and still happen to control all the important aspects of government and public life. At some point, where there is smoke, there is fire.

(On a side topic, what ever happened to the investigation of President Biden by the Republic controlled Congress that was claimed to have evidence without a doubt as to his guilt?)

Senate won't take up the charges.

Secondly, if you can't see where this is purely lawfare, a pure political prosecution, you're either stupid or biased.

I don't think you're stupid.

[taiwan_girl]

@Jolly said in The Trump "Hush Money" Trial starts today:

@taiwan_girl said in The Trump "Hush Money" Trial starts today:

The "problem" for me is that anytime President Trump is accused or charged or claimed that he did something wrong, there is always some conspiracy theory that says that it cannot be true.

Charged with a crime? cannot be true. There is this giant conspiracy involving the entire legal system of the US from the local, state and federal level which is causing this.

Claims that he did this or that wrong? Impossible, the XX part of society are nothing but Trump haters. How is it that the XX, YY, ZZ, AA, BB, CC, etc parts of society are all out to get President Trump?

For someone who won 80% of the popular vote in the last election (insert sarcasm here), it is weird that the minority of 20% who didnt vote for him are able to pull of these conspiracy's, and still happen to control all the important aspects of government and public life. At some point, where there is smoke, there is fire.

(On a side topic, what ever happened to the investigation of President Biden by the Republic controlled Congress that was claimed to have evidence without a doubt as to his guilt?)

Senate won't take up the charges.

But if it is that bad and there was all this evdience, they were talking about impeachment. From my understand, you dont need the senate to do that.