NY judge issues gag order on Trump in hush money trial

[Yellowtail]

7 minutes ago, Danderman123 said:

Same for Hunter Biden?

Exactly the same. If he is convicted, and if it went to the US Supreme Court and was upheld, I would accept it.

 

In any event, justice department has slow walked it such that the statute on most of the charges against him have run out. I think all they have now is tax evasion and the gun charge. 

 

 

[Danderman123]

Just now, Yellowtail said:

 

 

In any event, justice department has slow walked it such that the statute on most of the charges against him have run out. I think all they have now is tax evasion and the gun charge. 

 

 

Was there more?

[GroveHillWanderer]

50 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.

Not sure where you're getting that from. The statute that Trump is being charged under (§ 175.10 Falsifying business records in the first degree) was quoted in @jerrymahoney's post above and as stated therein, the prosecution only has to show that the defendant's "intent to defraud includes an intent to commit another crime or to aid or conceal the commission thereof."

 

Nothing there about it being the only intent, just that it has to include the intent.

Edited April 15 by GroveHillWanderer

[Danderman123]

7 minutes ago, Yellowtail said:

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

I've been on a jury. 

 

Everyone has biases, the trick is to not let them impact your decision.

[Yellowtail]

12 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

I will accept whatever verdict the Jury hand down.

 

Hold me to it.

And if it is turned over on appeal?  

12 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

 

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

 

Hold me to it.

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

 

Hold me to it. 

[Danderman123]

48 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! 

 

 

Wow. Your understanding of the charges is way out there.

 

The payments were made just before the 2016 election, but you don't think they were made to support Trump's campaign?

[Yellowtail]

2 minutes ago, GroveHillWanderer said:

Not sure where your getting that from. The statute that Trump is being charged under (§ 175.10 Falsifying business records in the first degree) was quoted in @jerrymahoney's post above and as stated therein, the prosecution only has to show that the defendant's "intent to defraud includes an intent to commit another crime or to aid or conceal the commission thereof."

 

Nothing there about it being the only intent, just that it has to include the intent.

 

And what is the other crime? 

[Yellowtail]

4 minutes ago, Danderman123 said:

I've been on a jury. 

 

Everyone has biases, the trick is to not let them impact your decision.

And of course, when it comes to getting Trump, you would not allow your seething hatred to impact your decision. 

[Chomper Higgot]

7 minutes ago, Yellowtail said:

And if it is turned over on appeal?  

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

 

Hold me to it. 

So a guilty verdict that doesn’t get as far as appeal at the Supreme Court isn’t a guilty verdict?

 

 

 

 

Edited April 15 by Chomper Higgot

[Yellowtail]

3 minutes ago, Danderman123 said:

Wow. Your understanding of the charges is way out there.

 

The payments were made just before the 2016 election, but you don't think they were made to support Trump's campaign?

Do you think the Stormy story would not have been embarrassing for Trump and his family even without the election? Would it not also harm his "brand" even without the election? 

 

And revisionist history notwithstanding, prior to the election, Trump was popular with the left and right, likely more so with the left. 

[scottiejohn]

17 minutes ago, Yellowtail said:

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

Thank God!

[Yellowtail]

2 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

So a guilty verdict that doesn’t get as far as appeal at the Supreme Court isn’t a guilty verdict?

 

 

 

 

If Trump is found guilty and it is turned over on appeal, are you going to accept it and admit it was all BS? 

[Chomper Higgot]

Just now, Yellowtail said:

If Trump is found guilty and it is turned over on appeal, are you going to accept it and admit it was all BS? 

If Trump is found guilt and it is turned over at appeal I will accept the appeal verdict.

 

Hold me to it.

…..

 

Now your turn.

 

If Trump is convicted by the jury then his appeal is rejected by the Supreme Court or he fails to appeal, will you accept the Jury verdict?

[Yellowtail]

2 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

If Trump is found guilt and it is turned over at appeal I will accept the appeal verdict.

 

Hold me to it.

…..

 

Now your turn.

 

If Trump is convicted by the jury then his appeal is rejected by the Supreme Court or he fails to appeal, will you accept the Jury verdict?

If he refuses to appeal, I will accept it.

 

If he is convicted and it goes to the US Supreme Court as it stands now, and they refuse to hear it, I will accept it. 

 

[Danderman123]

29 minutes ago, Yellowtail said:

And of course, when it comes to getting Trump, you would not allow your seething hatred to impact your decision. 

As you may have noticed, my opinion is that Trump has a good chance of being acquitted of a felony, if his lawyers make the case that Trump did not commit an underlying crime.

 

Do you disagree?

[Danderman123]

13 minutes ago, Yellowtail said:

If he refuses to appeal, I will accept it.

 

If he is convicted and it goes to the US Supreme Court as it stands now, and they refuse to hear it, I will accept it. 

 

I am not sure if conviction in a county or state court can be appealed to the Supreme Court if the appeal is about state law.

 

 

[Danderman123]

23 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

 

 

If Trump is convicted by the jury then his appeal is rejected by the Supreme Court or he fails to appeal, will you accept the Jury verdict?

Trump will be dead of old age by the time that happens.

[Danderman123]

36 minutes ago, Yellowtail said:

 

And what is the other crime? 

One of the crimes for which Michael Cohen was convicted.

 

This was discussed just yesterday, please try to keep up.

[scottiejohn]

7 minutes ago, Danderman123 said:

Trump will be dead of old age by the time that happens.

That of course will be determined by the date that someone kills him!

 

PS; DISCLAIMER I am not of course (55555) recommending such an action!

[jerrymahoney]

13 minutes ago, Danderman123 said:

I am not sure if conviction in a county or state court can be appealed to the Supreme Court if the appeal is about state law.

In Martin v. Hunter's Lessee, 14 U.S. 304 (1816), and Cohens v. Virginia, 19 U.S. 264 (1821), the Supreme Court held that the Supremacy Clause and the judicial power granted in Article III give the Supreme Court the ultimate power to review state court decisions involving issues arising under the Constitution and laws of the United States. Therefore, the Supreme Court has the final say in matters involving federal law, including constitutional interpretation, and can overrule decisions by state courts.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supremacy_Clause

 

[GroveHillWanderer]

41 minutes ago, Yellowtail said:

 

And what is the other crime? 

Violation of election campaign finance laws - the same crime that Michael Cohen was already found guilty of in relation to exactly the same payments.

 

And as various legal analysts have pointed out, if the person making the payments is guilty of a crime, then the person who directed him to make those payments is equally guilty (if not more so).

 

Don't forget, the prosecution has a) audio recordings of Trump instructing Cohen to make the payments (because Cohen recorded some of their conversations for his own protection) and b) statements from Rudy Giuliani that Trump both approved the payments and that they were campaign-related.

[Yellowtail]

5 minutes ago, Danderman123 said:

One of the crimes for which Michael Cohen was convicted.

 

This was discussed just yesterday, please try to keep up.

 

"COHEN, 51, of NEW YORK, NEW YORK, pleaded guilty to five counts of willful tax evasion; one count of making false statements to a bank; one count of causing an unlawful campaign contribution; and one count of making an excessive campaign contribution."

 

1. Willful tax evasion. Nothing to do with Trump. 

2. Making false statements to a bank. Nothing to do with Trump.

3. Causing an unlawful campaign contribution. Trump campaign. 

4. One count of making an excessive campaign contribution. Trump campaign.

 

So, we're back to campaign finance violations, and if it can be shown that the payment was made in whole or in part for any reason other than the campaign, to avoid public embarrassment for example, there is no crime. 

 

The statue has run out on the bookkeeping charges, if they can't tie it to the campaign, they have nothing. 

 

[scottiejohn]

38 minutes ago, Yellowtail said:

f he is convicted and it goes to the US Supreme Court as it stands now

Why the caveat about time?

The Supreme Court is supposed to be "Supreme" at all times!

[GroveHillWanderer]

3 minutes ago, Yellowtail said:

So, we're back to campaign finance violations, and if it can be shown that the payment was made in whole or in part for any reason other than the campaign, to avoid public embarrassment for example, there is no crime. 

It's already being pointed out to you by myself and at least a couple of others that that is not true. 

 

The applicable statute has been quoted and it does not say that the intent related to the underlying crime must be the sole intent, only that the intent must be included.

 

So even if there were several motivations as you posit then so long as one of them was in support of the underlying crime, that is sufficient to fulfill the requirements of the statute.

 

[Yellowtail]

5 minutes ago, GroveHillWanderer said:

Violation of election campaign finance laws - the same crime that Michael Cohen was already found guilty of in relation to exactly the same payments.

 

And as various legal analysts have pointed out, if the person making the payments is guilty of a crime, then the person who directed him to make those payments is equally guilty (if not more so).

 

Don't forget, the prosecution has a) audio recordings of Trump instructing Cohen to make the payments (because Cohen recorded some of their conversations for his own protection) and b) statements from Rudy Giuliani that Trump both approved the payments and that they were campaign-related.

"COHEN, 51, of NEW YORK, NEW YORK, pleaded guilty to five counts of willful tax evasion; one count of making false statements to a bank; one count of causing an unlawful campaign contribution; and one count of making an excessive campaign contribution."

 

Cohen failed to claim $5M in revenue and failed to pay over $1M in taxes. His charges carried total maximum sentence of 65 years, yet he's out in three years. Now he's a convicted felon testifying against Trump, he a darling to the left and he's getting well paid making the rounds on the news/talk shows. 

 

 

[GroveHillWanderer]

2 minutes ago, Yellowtail said:

"COHEN, 51, of NEW YORK, NEW YORK, pleaded guilty to five counts of willful tax evasion; one count of making false statements to a bank; one count of causing an unlawful campaign contribution; and one count of making an excessive campaign contribution."

 

Cohen failed to claim $5M in revenue and failed to pay over $1M in taxes. His charges carried total maximum sentence of 65 years, yet he's out in three years. Now he's a convicted felon testifying against Trump, he a darling to the left and he's getting well paid making the rounds on the news/talk shows. 

Yes, we all know that Cohen was guilty of multiple counts. The point you seem to keep missing is that if he was guilty of campaign finance violations for making the payments, then so is the person who instructed him to make the payments. (Hint: it was Trump).

[Yellowtail]

1 minute ago, GroveHillWanderer said:

It's already being pointed out to you by myself and at least a couple of others that that is not true. 

 

The applicable statute has been quoted and it does not say that the intent related to the underlying crime must be the sole intent, only that the intent must be included.

 

So even if there were several motivations as you posit then so long as one of them was in support of the underlying crime, that is sufficient to fulfill the requirements of the statute.

 

But for to be charged as a campaign expense, it has to be used 100% for the campaign.

 

For example, you could not charge off a new car as a campaign expense and have your wife driving it to pick up the kids everyday while you are out of state. 

 

Or like in the case of Fani, to reimburse your lover in cash for trips he paid for. 

[Yellowtail]

1 minute ago, GroveHillWanderer said:

Yes, we all know that Cohen was guilty of multiple counts. The point you seem to keep missing is that if he was guilty of campaign finance violations for making the payments, then so is the person who instructed him to make the payments. (Hint: it was Trump).

To be clear, it's possible he did not, but I do not doubt Trump banged Stormy, or that he was involved in having her paid off, or that Stormy was shaking him down when she did because of the election, but Trump had other reasons to pay as well. 

 

The Election Finance Commission looked at it and said there was nothing, the Justice Department looked at it and said there was nothing, and then Alvin Bragg campaigns promising to get Trump, and now Trump's running for reelection so here we are. 

 

To be clear, had Trump charged it off as a campaign donation, all of the current charges would be moot, but I they would be charging him with campaign finance violations for charging a personal expense to the campaign. 

[Danderman123]

44 minutes ago, jerrymahoney said:

In Martin v. Hunter's Lessee, 14 U.S. 304 (1816), and Cohens v. Virginia, 19 U.S. 264 (1821), the Supreme Court held that the Supremacy Clause and the judicial power granted in Article III give the Supreme Court the ultimate power to review state court decisions involving issues arising under the Constitution and laws of the United States. Therefore, the Supreme Court has the final say in matters involving federal law, including constitutional interpretation, and can overrule decisions by state courts.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supremacy_Clause

 

Yeah, yeah, yeah.

 

But Trump's appeal is going to be about application of state law, not about a conflict between state and federal statutes.

[Danderman123]

11 minutes ago, Yellowtail said:

the Justice Department looked at it and said there was nothing,

DOJ put Michael Cohen in prison for that nothing.