jerrymahoney

Yes. They should not have listed the entries as legal expenses. They should have entered them as extortion payments: According to New York Penal Law §155.05(2)(e), extortion occurs when a person compels or threatens another to deliver money or property under the threat of physical violence, property damage, or public humiliation. https://jeffreylichtman.com/new-york-city-white-collar-criminal-defense-lawyer/coercion-and-extortion

I am surprised that as best I can tell we have yet to hear the term "Bimbo eruption": As deputy chair of the 1992 Clinton presidential campaign, (Betsy) Wright established the rapid response system that was responsible for defending Clinton's record in Arkansas and promptly answering all personal attacks on the candidate. During the 1992 campaign, Wright coined the term "bimbo eruptions" to describe rumors alleging extramarital affairs by Clinton. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Betsey_Wright

Because the felony charge only requires 'intent' and the grand jury was not required to prove there was intent or even say what was the "another crime" in the indictment. And again, as noted, in only 2 cases out of 389 * in the last 10 years the NY County DA did not list the other charges along with the 'intent to commit another crime' indictment. * https://aseannow.com/topic/1326029-trumps-hush-money-trial-has-wrapped-up-for-the-week-heres-what-happened-on-friday/?do=findComment&comment=18874996

It is only a felony when the intent to commit another crime is proven. Otherwise it is a misdemeanor: Under New York law, falsifying business records in the second degree is a class A misdemeanor, while falsifying business records in the first degree is a class E felony. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falsifying_business_records

Because CBS or ABC news or some other reliable news service do not pay for stories.

From US Embassy Bangkok: Please note: There are NO “expediting services” overseas. https://th.usembassy.gov/u-s-citizen-services/passports/ My mail in took about 3 weeks with no proof other than old passport: https://aseannow.com/topic/1318907-renewing-us-passports-possible-to-guesstimate-new-issued-on-date/?do=findComment&comment=18667914

BBC: Trump hush-money trial: His mood and the unveiling of DA's case https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-68910074 but it seems with editing i.e. the BBC report does not contain the word "trajectory". Also From AN: While the defense navigates the fine line between zealous advocacy and frivolous arguments, the court's impatience suggests challenges ahead. From BBC: "There is a fine line between zealous advocacy and frivolous arguments. The court appears to be losing patience with some of the arguments,'' she said.

My point if any is this is stuff that could come out if Stormy D. were called as a witness. Also Updated Mar 22, 2024 at 6:58 AM EDT That could include over $600,000 that Daniels owes Trump for her failed defamation suit. The total surpassed $600,000 after the adult film actress was ordered to pay Trump an additional $121,972 in legal fees last year. https://www.newsweek.com/letitia-james-could-use-stormy-daniels-help-pay-donald-trumps-judgment-1882024

Right. She waited until Trump was a credible candidate to hire (or re-hire) Keith Davidson to shop her story. Trump did not seek out Daniels; Daniels through Davidson started shopping venues who would go the NDA/Catch&kill which for years has been Davidson's métier.

Yes. She had tried once before in 2011.

My favorite as it provides a chance to chat with young Thai girls is to explain at a food shop when they ask "Take away ?" I say that is how Brits say it. I am an American, we say Take Out.

Here's my going out on a limb but not predictions like the 2 above: Michael Cohen negotiates for silence 2016: Actress Karen McDougal's attorney Keith Davidson approaches the National Enquirer about selling her story of an affair she had with Trump in 2006 and 2007, according to documents later filed by the Federal Election Commission. <SNIP> Davidson, who now also represents Daniels, tells the Enquirer she's willing to share details about her alleged affair on the record. The Enquirer notifies Cohen, who agrees to pay Daniels $130,000 in exchange for the rights to her story and a nondisclosure agreement. https://www.axios.com/2023/03/18/trump-stormy-daniels-hush-money-trial-timeline So if Ms. Daniels were ever a witness for prosecution, my question on cross-exam would be: Why didn't you try to sell your story in 2015?

I got up this morning and posted a CNN article about the only 2 identified Trump witnesses. Thank you..

yes. New York Judge Juan Merchan provided the names of over 40 potential witnesses in the trial, where Trump faces 34 felony charges for allegedly falsifying business records over hush money payments to Daniels ahead of the 2016 election. Those potential witnesses also included members of Trump’s family, including his adult children Donald Trump Jr., Ivanka Trump and Eric Trump, as well as his wife Melania Trump and Jared Kushner, Ivanka Trump’s husband. https://www.forbes.com/sites/brianbushard/2024/04/15/trump-witnesses-could-include-giuliani-steve-bannon-stormy-daniels-and-these-others-in-hush-money-trial/?sh=40d905142cff

The why is your opinion likely or not. NY times headline: Why was Trump indicted by the Manhattan D.A. over hush money, but not by the Justice Department? Some of the reasons appear to concern how federal prosecutors viewed Donald J. Trump’s longtime fixer, Michael D. Cohen. March 31, 2023 The prosecutors and the Justice Department have never said publicly why Mr. Trump was not charged, but some of the reasons appear to concern how the prosecutors viewed Mr. Cohen, who is expected to be involved in the case brought by the district attorney, Alvin L. Bragg. https://www.nytimes.com/2023/03/31/nyregion/justice-dept-trump-indictment-charges.html

I don't know about friends but all of Trump's adult family members excepting Tiffany have been listed by Judge Merchan as potential witnesses and are excluded from court prior to any testimony.

OK you did say criminal. As to what and why are Judge Merchan's restrictions on Brad Smith beyond what is said in the CNN article, I don't know. This is the non-prosecution agreement from DOJ to AMI/Pecker in the McDougal matter. https://www.justice.gov/usao-sdny/press-release/file/1119501/dl

The FEC administers federal campaign finance laws. It enforces limitations and prohibitions on contributions and expenditures, administers the reporting system for campaign finance disclosure, investigates and prosecutes violations (investigations are typically initiated by complaints from other candidates, parties, watchdog groups, and the public), audits a limited number of campaigns and organizations for compliance, and administers the presidential public funding programs for presidential candidates. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Election_Commission

I don't know who is the Palmer report but this is likely the NY Times article by Ms. Maggie Haberman in reference: Mr. Trump, obsessed with being seen as strong and being seen generally, prepared for them to rush in front of him by adjusting his suit jacket and contorting his face into a jut-jawed scowl. But, by day’s end on Friday, Mr. Trump appeared haggard and rumpled, his gait off-center, his eyes blank. https://www.nytimes.com/2024/04/21/us/politics/trump-trial-analysis.html At least in that article it makes no mention of "Trump’s aides and handlers are tacitly confessing ..."

Published 10:11 AM EDT, Sun April 14, 2024 Trump’s lawyers said they plan to call at least two witnesses in their case: Bradley Smith, a former commissioner of the Federal Election Commission, and Alan Garten, the top legal officer of the Trump Organization. Merchan has limited the scope of Smith’s testimony to describing the role and function of the FEC and defining certain terms, such as campaign contributions, but has blocked him from testifying about whether the law was violated in this case. https://edition.cnn.com/2024/04/14/politics/prosecutors-trump-trial-new-york/index.html

From the linked Salon article above: The reasoning is not mentioned in Shugerman’s Times essay yet it is a necessary element of proving selective prosecution in New York. Merchan also found that prosecutors had demonstrated that they had brought many other actions charging defendants with “falsifying business records with the intent to commit or conceal the commission of another crime.” ******************* The data, provided by the Office of Court Administration, shows 9,794 cases involving state penal law 175.10, or falsifying business records in the first degree, have been arraigned in both local and superior New York state courts since 2015. In that time period, the five District Attorney’s Offices comprising New York City have charged 2,251 dockets to date involving Public Law 175.10. .... the Manhattan DA’s Office has used it 389 times since 2015. https://www.law.com/newyorklawjournal/2023/04/06/new-york-state-has-issued-nearly-9800-felony-charges-of-falsifying-business-records-since-2015/ ********************** Though the crime of falsifying business records is nominally a misdemeanor, the Manhattan district attorney’s office almost always charges it as a felony. Still, the Trump case stands apart. The Times could identify only two other felony cases in Manhattan over the past decade in which defendants were indicted on charges of falsifying business records but no other crime. https://www.nytimes.com/2024/04/09/magazine/alvin-bragg-donald-trump-trial.html

Noted. Maybe Shugerman will respond.

This case is still an embarrassment, in terms of prosecutorial ethics and apparent selectivity. Nevertheless, each side should have its day in court. If convicted, Mr. Trump can fight many other days — and perhaps win — in appellate courts. But if Monday’s opening is a preview of exaggerated allegations, imprecise legal theories and persistently unaddressed problems, the prosecutors might not win a conviction at all. https://www.nytimes.com/2024/04/23/opinion/bragg-trump-trial.html (The JD, PhD writer of the above opinion was involved as Amici Curiae in the emoluments case against Trump with Washington DC and Maryland suing Trump primarily over his ownership of the Trump International Hotel, DC, across the street from the White House while Trump was still President)

Yes -- and maybe this will be helpful explaining it to the jury.

I believe they say in Australia: Play the ball, not the man