NY judge issues gag order on Trump in hush money trial

[Chomper Higgot]

1 hour ago, Yellowtail said:

Exactly. Not reporting the payment as a campaign expense is the issue, correct? 

 

And it's easily argued that the payment had little to do with the election, correct? 

You’re in for a difficult 6~8 weeks.

[Danderman123]

3 hours ago, Yellowtail said:

Cohen was convicted of tax evasion, because between 2012 and 2016 he hid over $4 million in personal income to avoid paying over $1.3 million in income tax.

 

He also pled to complain finance violations, but that was a small part of the case against him. 

https://www.justice.gov/usao-sdny/pr/michael-cohen-pleads-guilty-manhattan-federal-court-eight-counts-including-criminal-tax#:~:text=COHEN%2C 51%2C of NEW YORK,making an excessive campaign contribution.

 

You say that the illegal stuff with Stormy Daniels was a "small part" because you think that somehow clears Trump. The max charge for the Stormy Daniels scheme was 5 years.

 

That's probably the hook that DA Bragg is going to exploit.

 

To be clear, Cohen pled guilty to participating in the Stormy Daniels scheme that is part of the case going to trial tomorrow . Do you disagree?

Edited April 14 by Danderman123

[Danderman123]

3 hours ago, Yellowtail said:

Are you claiming the dossier was not in the news prior to the election? That's hilarious. 

 

Timeline: How the Steele dossier was compiled - Washington Post

I am not aware of the content of the dossier being publicly released prior to 2017.

[candide]

5 minutes ago, Danderman123 said:

I am not aware of the content of the dossier being publicly released prior to 2017.

He was partly right. There was a MotherJones article mentioning the existence of the reports (among other information) and a few indications of the content.

However, there wasn't much about it in the media before January 2017.

[Danderman123]

5 hours ago, Yellowtail said:

So, basically the same as Clinton and the Steele dossier she was fined for then, except that she got a pass, and her campaign just paid a fine for election finance violations. 

The Steele dossier payments were legitimate campaign expenses.

 

The Stormy Daniels payments were neither legitimate campaign expenses nor legitimate business expenses.

 

I can see how this is confusing for you.

[Danderman123]

5 hours ago, Yellowtail said:

Are you claiming the dossier was not in the news prior to the election? That's hilarious. 

 

Timeline: How the Steele dossier was compiled - Washington Post

Your link goes to a paywall.

 

I have yet to see any public mention of the Steele dossier content during the 2016 election.

 

Of course, there was no mention of Stormy Daniels during the 2016 campaign, for different reasons.

[Yellowtail]

19 hours ago, Danderman123 said:

Your link goes to a paywall.

 

I have yet to see any public mention of the Steele dossier content during the 2016 election.

 

Of course, there was no mention of Stormy Daniels during the 2016 campaign, for different reasons.

Is it you position that they were only used for the 2020 election (and worse) to undermine Trump's presidency? 

[Yellowtail]

Hmmmm

 

O’Keefe video shows CNN’s Van Jones calling Russia story a ‘nothingburger’ | The Hill

[Danderman123]

19 minutes ago, Yellowtail said:

Is it you position that they were only used for the 2020 election (and worse) to undermine Trump's presidency? 

The Steele dossier was old news by the 2020 election.

 

The real question is why it wasn't used in the 2016 election.

 

 

[Danderman123]

16 minutes ago, Yellowtail said:

Hmmmm

 

O’Keefe video shows CNN’s Van Jones calling Russia story a ‘nothingburger’ | The Hill

Does this mean you will stand by other Van Jones comments about Trump?

 

Seriously, the Russia *was* a nothingburger if the goal was to indict Trump (DOJ policy precluded charges against Trump), but was serious in terms of laying out Russia interference in the 2016 campaign. And indicting some Trump minions.

[GroveHillWanderer]

23 hours ago, Yellowtail said:

Exactly. Not reporting the payment as a campaign expense is the issue, correct? 

 

And it's easily argued that the payment had little to do with the election, correct? 

It's easily argued, but that argument is rather undermined by the evidence from Pecker, Cohen McDougal, Daniels and even  Giuliani, that it was campaign-related.

 

Pecker in particular, who held meetings with Trump about both the Karen McDougal and Stormy Daniels payments, made it clear in his statements as part of a non-prosecution agreement (and will presumably do the same in court) that the whole idea behind the "catch and kill" scheme was to prevent embarrassing revelations from coming out during the presidential campaign.

 

Meanwhile Giuliani, following his habit of "saying the quiet part out loud" actually stated in several interviews that Trump knew about the payments, approved them and that they were campaign-related expenses.

 

So yeah, apart from a multitude of witnesses who will say the opposite it's easy to argue the payments had nothing to do with the campaign.

[Danderman123]

6 minutes ago, GroveHillWanderer said:

It's easily argued, but that argument is rather undermined by the evidence from Pecker, Cohen McDougal, Daniels and even  Giuliani, that it was campaign-related.

 

Pecker in particular, who held meetings with Trump about both the Karen McDougal and Stormy Daniels payments, made it clear in his statements as part of a non-prosecution agreement (and will presumably do the same in court) that the whole idea behind the "catch and kill" scheme was to prevent embarrassing revelations from coming out during the presidential campaign.

 

Meanwhile Giuliani, following his habit of "saying the quiet part out loud" actually stated in several interviews that Trump knew about the payments, approved them and that they were campaign-related expenses.

 

So yeah, apart from a multitude of witnesses who will say the opposite it's easy to argue the payments had nothing to do with the campaign.

I don't think there will be a problem proving the facts of the case - the problem will be proving the elements of the felony charge, I've that the fraudulent business records were intended to cover up a crime. Tying Trump to the underlying crime is the task of the Prosecution and it won't be easy.

[Chomper Higgot]

1 minute ago, Danderman123 said:

I don't think there will be a problem proving the facts of the case - the problem will be proving the elements of the felony charge, I've that the fraudulent business records were intended to cover up a crime. Tying Trump to the underlying crime is the task of the Prosecution and it won't be easy.

Up steps Michael Cohen, witness and narrator.

 

Moreover, Cohen is articulate and structures his words extremely well.

 

 

 

[Chomper Higgot]

What we must all keep in mind is we non of us have any idea of the scope and extent of the evidence and testimony that will be presented.

 

It’s readily assume there are going to be a few bombshells.

[Yellowtail]

1 minute ago, Chomper Higgot said:

Up steps Michael Cohen, witness and narrator.

 

Moreover, Cohen is articulate and structures his words extremely well.

 

 

 

And is a convicted felon that negotiated to testify against Trump. 

 

But I don't doubt the left will convict Trump. 

[Yellowtail]

1 minute ago, Chomper Higgot said:

What we must all keep in mind is we non of us have any idea of the scope and extent of the evidence and testimony that will be presented.

 

It’s readily assume there are going to be a few bombshells.

But we know that is basically at most a campaign finance violation spun into a big deal. 

 

 

[Yellowtail]

9 minutes ago, Danderman123 said:

I don't think there will be a problem proving the facts of the case - the problem will be proving the elements of the felony charge, I've that the fraudulent business records were intended to cover up a crime. Tying Trump to the underlying crime is the task of the Prosecution and it won't be easy.

Thats because "facts" of the case belie the charges. 

[Yellowtail]

21 minutes ago, GroveHillWanderer said:

It's easily argued, but that argument is rather undermined by the evidence from Pecker, Cohen McDougal, Daniels and even  Giuliani, that it was campaign-related.

 

Pecker in particular, who held meetings with Trump about both the Karen McDougal and Stormy Daniels payments, made it clear in his statements as part of a non-prosecution agreement (and will presumably do the same in court) that the whole idea behind the "catch and kill" scheme was to prevent embarrassing revelations from coming out during the presidential campaign.

 

Meanwhile Giuliani, following his habit of "saying the quiet part out loud" actually stated in several interviews that Trump knew about the payments, approved them and that they were campaign-related expenses.

 

So yeah, apart from a multitude of witnesses who will say the opposite it's easy to argue the payments had nothing to do with the campaign.

As I understand it, the state has to prove that the payments were made only because of the election, not simply that the election was considered in the decision to make the payment. 

 

If Trump made the payment because of the election and because it would embarrass he and his family, the state's case is out the window. I do not doubt that the NDA came about because of the election, but the elections was likely not the only reason Trump had for wanting to keep it quiet.

 

But again, the alleged "crime" is charging the payment for entering into an NDA to a business account rather than the campaign. Woo-hoo, get Trump! 

 

All that said, I assume the left convicts Trump.  

 

 

[Chomper Higgot]

28 minutes ago, Yellowtail said:

And is a convicted felon that negotiated to testify against Trump. 

 

But I don't doubt the left will convict Trump. 

If Trump is convicted it will be by the Jury, not some bogeyman ‘left’.

 

Which brings me to the following question:

 

Will you accept the jury verdict whatever that verdict is?

[rudi49jr]

22 minutes ago, Yellowtail said:

And is a convicted felon that negotiated to testify against Trump. 

 

But I don't doubt the left will convict Trump. 

You’re probably right in that (most of) ‘the left’ has probably already convicted Trump. As far as I’m concerned that man belongs in jail.

But I think you’re confused: when he does get convicted in court, it won’t be the left convicting him, it will be the US judicial system convicting him. Slight difference.

[Chomper Higgot]

15 minutes ago, Yellowtail said:

As I understand it, the state has to prove that the payments were made only because of the election, not simply that the election was considered in the decision to make the payment. 

 

If Trump made the payment because of the election and because it would embarrass he and his family, the state's case is out the window. I do not doubt that the NDA came about because of the election, but the elections was likely not the only reason Trump had for wanting to keep it quiet.

 

But again, the alleged "crime" is charging the payment for entering into an NDA to a business account rather than the campaign. Woo-hoo, get Trump! 

 

All that said, I assume the left convicts Trump.  

 

 

Where on earth did you drag that nonsense from?

 

There 34 Indictments!

[Yellowtail]

2 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

Where on earth did you drag that nonsense from?

 

There 34 Indictments!

For 34 counts of falsifying business records to cover up the payment. Hilarious. 

[Yellowtail]

5 minutes ago, rudi49jr said:

You’re probably right in that (most of) ‘the left’ has probably already convicted Trump. As far as I’m concerned that man belongs in jail.

Why does he belong in jail if he has not been convicted of anything? 

5 minutes ago, rudi49jr said:

But I think you’re confused: when he does get convicted in court, it won’t be the left convicting him, it will be the US judicial system convicting him. Slight difference.

No, it's largely the press prosecuting him. You already think he's guilty, and were you a juror, you'd swear you could be unbiased and just sit through the trial waiting to vote to convict. 

[Yellowtail]

14 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

If Trump is convicted it will be by the Jury, not some bogeyman ‘left’.

 

Which brings me to the following question:

 

Will you accept the jury verdict whatever that verdict is?

Will you accept it is and admit it was all BS if he is not convicted? 

 

I think the charges are made up. If he is convicted, and it went to the US Supreme Court and was upheld, I would accept it.

 

Edited April 15 by Yellowtail

[scottiejohn]

1 minute ago, Yellowtail said:

were you a juror, you'd swear you could be unbiased and just sit through the trial waiting to vote to

"were you a juror, you'd swear you could be unbiased and just sit through the trial waiting to vote to" find him not guilty!

Your so called argument works both ways!

[Chomper Higgot]

13 minutes ago, Yellowtail said:

For 34 counts of falsifying business records to cover up the payment. Hilarious. 

All with intent to commit another crime, which raises the misdemeanor to a felony:

 

https://manhattanda.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/04/Donald-J.-Trump-Indictment.pdf

 

 

Edited April 15 by Chomper Higgot

[Danderman123]

46 minutes ago, Yellowtail said:

But we know that is basically at most a campaign finance violation spun into a big deal. 

Nope. It's business fraud.

[Chomper Higgot]

3 minutes ago, Yellowtail said:

Will you accept it is and admit it was all BS if he is not convicted? 

 

I think the charges are made up. If he is convicted, and it went to the US Supreme Court and was upheld, I would accept it.

 

I will accept whatever verdict the Jury hand down.

 

Hold me to it.

 

I have zero expectation that you will accept any guilt verdict against Trump under any conditions.

 

Hold me to it.

[Danderman123]

4 minutes ago, Yellowtail said:

Will you accept it is and admit it was all BS if he is not convicted? 

 

I think the charges are made up. If he is convicted, and it went to the US Supreme Court and was upheld, I would accept it.

 

Same for Hunter Biden?

[Yellowtail]

6 minutes ago, scottiejohn said:

"were you a juror, you'd swear you could be unbiased and just sit through the trial waiting to vote to" find him not guilty!

Your so called argument works both ways!

I am biased and would not swear I was not. I would not get on a jury anyway.