jerrymahoney

As best as I read the hearing they are looking for some 'some immunity' but not 'total immunity' decision.

Wow! There oughta be a lot of 'corrections' from the vox populi on this one.

Headline NY Times 16 April 2024 Melania Trump Avoids the Courtroom, but Is Said to Share Her Husband’s Anger Melania Trump has long referred to the hush-money case involving Stormy Daniels as her husband’s problem, not hers. But she has privately called the trial a “disgrace” that could threaten his campaign.

Headline NY Times 25 April EDT: U.S. Supreme Court Majority Seems Ready to Limit Election Case Against Trump Such a ruling in the case, on whether Donald Trump is immune from prosecution, could delay any trial until after the November election.

I maybe see the opposite: ttps://www.reuters.com/world/us/trump-has-slight-edge-over-biden-us-swing-state-election-polls-2024-04-23/ (posted earlier) And I think that there may be enough voters in those swing states that see what's going on in NYC as a total humiliation of their preferred candidate and will cause them to be more likely to vote in November. And in a Washington Post article entitled Nervous about November?, James Carville responded: “You have to be an idiot not to be nervous,” said James Carville, the veteran Democratic strategist. “It’s uncomfortably close, and the alternative would be to end the Constitution.”

You posted the indictment. And the indictment very specifically details what it does NOT say 34 times.

You didn't correct anything. Sure you posted the indictment which references "intent to commit another crime" but the indictment does not say what is "another crime" he doesn't really have to say what is "another crime". Or as former Federal Prosecutor put it as above: ultimately that’s not what Trump is charged with.” But according to the NY Times the Manhattan DA almost always does charge "another crime".

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

(Renato Mariotti, a former federal prosecutor on financial fraud cases) said it still could be difficult to get jurors to agree that Trump should be convicted. “I do believe that Bragg is going to be leaning very heavily on these other crimes, particularly the campaign finance crimes, and characterizing it as an attempt to interfere in the 2016 election,” he said. “Although there is evidence of another crime, and that’s something that’s going to have to be proven out, ultimately that’s not what Trump is charged with.” https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/2024/04/08/falsifying-business-records-charges-trump-hush-money-case/

I did not write that. That was a quote from Paul Butler at Georgetown Law. Maybe you would care to straighten him out. pdb42 **** georgetown.edu

Also from the linked Source: “When (Manhattan District Attorney) Alvin Bragg calls it an election interference case, that’s more of a public relations strategy,” said Paul Butler, a professor at Georgetown Law and former federal prosecutor. Declaring the case a hush money trial made it seem less important than the others and “so they’ve styled it ... as a case about election interference. But again, what he’s charged with is falsifying business records.”

If you hadn't made the statement "There is no way Stormy or McDougal should know what trump's junk looks like", I wouldn't have bothered to respond.

OK

Sure there is -- some girl who actual did have sex with Trump told them.

Daughter-In-Law, wife of Eric Trump. From your link: On Tuesday, the former president outlined his support for Lara Trump, who is married to his son Eric and was a senior adviser to the Trump campaign in 2020.

And the Daily Wire was just a rehash of the NYTimes article which is paywall.

That the statute can proven as the "other crime" is your opinion The 34 Counts against Trump are all the same statute which includes: The defendant, in the County of New York and elsewhere, on or about February 14, 2017, with intent to defraud and intent to commit another crime and aid and conceal the commission thereof, ... https://manhattanda.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/04/Donald-J.-Trump-Indictment.pdf

Thanks. Your opinion.

Don't see the word 'fraud' in there. But as you once wrote of the NY State Appeals Court on the Engoron case, maybe he's just offering an opinion to justify his existence.

Come forth? they didn't volunteer.

Law Professor Scorches Alvin Bragg In NYT Op-Ed, Calls Trial ‘Historic Mistake,’ ‘Legal Embarrassment’ Apr 24, 2024 DailyWire.com “Their vague allegation about ‘a criminal scheme to corrupt the 2016 presidential election’ has me more concerned than ever about their unprecedented use of state law and their persistent avoidance of specifying an election crime or a valid theory of fraud,” Shugerman wrote, noting that the prosecutors appeared to be attempting to use state laws to shoehorn in a case that belonged in federal jurisdiction. “None of the relevant state or federal statutes refer to filing violations as fraud. Calling it ‘election fraud’ is a legal and strategic mistake, exaggerating the case and setting up the jury with high expectations that the prosecutors cannot meet,” Shugerman continued. https://www.dailywire.com/news/law-professor-scorches-alvin-bragg-in-nyt-op-ed-calls-trial-historic-mistake-legal-embarrassment

And with all you reasonably say, this was the 21 April headline in the NY Times: Will a Mountain of Evidence Be Enough to Convict Trump? Monday will see opening statements in the People of the State of New York v. Donald J. Trump. The state’s case seems strong, but a conviction is far from assured.

This is what scares me: https://www.reuters.com/world/us/trump-has-slight-edge-over-biden-us-swing-state-election-polls-2024-04-23/ And I think that there may be enough voters in those swing states that see what's going on in NYC as a total humiliation of their preferred candidate and will cause them to be sure to vote in November.

Sure. After receiving a subpoena.

It's called a subpoena: He’s the first person ever to testify at a criminal trial of a former U.S. president, and David Pecker is doing so under subpoena, with his lawyer in the courtroom. https://apnews.com/live/trump-trial-updates-opening-statements Or maybe as in Jimmy Durante's famous line: “Everybody wants to get into the act!”