Why the hush money case against Donald Trump is on shaky ground

[placeholder]

1 hour ago, jerrymahoney said:

Thank you Mr. Interrogator.

You're welcome, Mr. Trump Supporter.

[jerrymahoney]

1 minute ago, placeholder said:

You're welcome, Mr. Trump Supporter.

There are plenty enough on here who support the Prosecution. There are also plenty enough left-leaning legal scholars and former Prosecutors who are not happy with the mechanics of the Bragg case.

[Danderman123]

6 hours ago, Jingthing said:

I do actually but you haven't even read about the case so talking to you is a waste of time.

If it makes you feel any better I predict the jury will hang. 

Any jury may be hung by a single juror. It doesn't even have to be a Trump supporter, it could just be someone who doesn't like the government.

 

 

[Danderman123]

6 hours ago, Yellowtail said:

So? Influencing or attempting to influence an election is not illegal. 

 

How many stories were crushed in Clinton's "nuts or sluts" campaign? 

Illegal campaign contributions to silence someone, as an example.

[Jingthing]

7 minutes ago, Danderman123 said:

Any jury may be hung by a single juror. It doesn't even have to be a Trump supporter, it could just be someone who doesn't like the government.

 

 

Indeed. It only takes one. It doesn't have to be anything about bias but at looking at the facts of the case as instructed and deciding not to cave to the majority. I know as I hung a jury myself based on the facts of the case. Some other jurors were abusive to me about it and accused me of reasons for hanging that weren't true at all (that I related to the defendant when actually the total opposite was true). I am not a big fan of the jury system actually but I guess it's like democracy, flawed but better than the alternatives.

Edited May 3 by Jingthing

[placeholder]

16 minutes ago, jerrymahoney said:

There are plenty enough on here who support the Prosecution. There are also plenty enough left-leaning legal scholars and former Prosecutors who are not happy with the mechanics of the Bragg case.

Not a matter of who supports or the validity of the case. It's your one-sidedness on particulars that's the issue.

[jerrymahoney]

4 minutes ago, placeholder said:

Not a matter of who supports or the validity of the case. It's your one-sidedness on particulars that's the issue.

The other said is already well represented.

[Danderman123]

25 minutes ago, jerrymahoney said:

There are plenty enough on here who support the Prosecution. There are also plenty enough left-leaning legal scholars and former Prosecutors who are not happy with the mechanics of the Bragg case.

There are really 2 questions for the jury to decide here:

 

Was the $130,000 payment to Stormy Daniels an illegal campaign contribution (ie, over the $2500 limit)?

 

And

 

Did Trump try to launder the illegal campaign payments as business expenses?

 

That's it.

 

Concerning the former issue, Michael Cohen pled guilty.

[jerrymahoney]

Thank you again for your opinion.

[Walker88]

The prosecution is playing this very well. trumpers will come up with some harebrained excuse of why it's meaningless, or their messiah is more infallible than the original Pope (trump makes the Borgia Pope seem infallible), but here's what the prosecution did today:

 

With the Hicks testimony they tried to prove intent, but solidified it with actual trump Tweets from the time between the Access Hollywood tape and the election. Hicks had messaged "Deny Deny Deny" about the various allegations. In her conversation with trump, she said trump told her he was worried about how the tape would hurt his chances with women in the election. Then the news about Stormy came out, and trump Tweeted about "Can you believe I lost a large number of women voters because of made-up events that never happened".  On Oct 17, 2016 trump also Tweeted about the "fake stories are having impact [on voters]".

 

Thus, even if Hicks testified that one concern was how it would impact trump's 3rd wife, she also testified that trump was concerned about how it would hurt his support at the polls among women. His Tweets back up that concern.

 

This then ties back to why trump is charged with a felony, rather than a mere misdemeanor, as in NY State Law it is illegal to use fraudulent means in order to influence an election (in the indictment, if one needs the statute). Prosecution need not prove that worrying about the negative news impacting the election is the only concern, but rather that it simply was a concern.

 

While trump is still claiming he never had an affair with either Stormy or McDougal, their testimony is still to come, and if the jury believes both witnesses (plus trump's bodyguard who regularly delivered McDougal to trump's various hotel rooms), then trump has zero credibility. The jury will believe trump is a liar. The testimonies and trump's own Tweets hang him, as it would meet the requirements (intent to influence an election through fraudulent means) of NY State to reach the level of felony.

 

There is an interesting interview on "Deadline: White House" with Sarah Matthews, the deputy Press Secretary in the last 7 months of trump's term, where she states, "Yes, it's just obvious, though, that donald trump is a pathological liar". She speaks of the various lies trump told her, such as when initially "anonymous sources" said trump referred to fallen US soldiers as "suckers and losers", but she later learned one source was Chief of Staff Gen Kelly (who lost a son in Iraq), and that Kelly "has gone on record saying trump said that to him". While not germane to trump's current hush money trial, it paints a picture---as if any rational person needs one---that trump is pure sleazeball scum.

 

 

https://www.msnbc.com/deadline-white-house

 

Edited May 4 by Walker88

[Yellowtail]

1 minute ago, Walker88 said:

You just proved it is YOU who do not know the charges, nor the NY Statute.

 

Go read the indictment. I could explain it to you, but you would just troll in your response.

Right

1 minute ago, Walker88 said:

 

Go read the indictment. Maybe....just maybe, you'll begin to understand what the NY Statute is and why DA Bragg invoked it.

He invoked it to get Trump

1 minute ago, Walker88 said:

Hint: it is NOT that the hush money payoff was a campaign donation. The difference might be far too subtle for a trumper to understand, considering trumpers are people who think a 4 word slogan is a policy tome.

Got it

[jerrymahoney]

1 hour ago, Walker88 said:

This then ties back to why trump is charged with a felony, rather than a mere misdemeanor, as in NY State Law it is illegal to use fraudulent means in order to influence an election (in the indictment, if one needs the statute).

I think you are maybe confounding the Indictment with the "statement of facts".

 

Read the full Trump indictment and statement of facts

 

https://www.politico.com/news/2023/04/04/read-the-trump-indictment-document-00087925

 

 

[Danderman123]

57 minutes ago, Yellowtail said:

 

 

And the state is calling the payment a campaign donation, when the Federal Election Commission decided it was not. 

 

 

Lie.

 

https://www.fec.gov/files/legal/murs/7313/7313_28.pdf

 

           Given these facts, the Commission’s Office of the General Counsel (“OGC”) recommended finding reason to believe that Cohen and the Trump Organization made, and Trump and Donald J. Trump for President, Inc. (the “Committee”) accepted and failed to report, illegal contributions. The Act prohibits making, or knowingly accepting, a campaign contribution in excess of the contribution limits set forth under the Act. In 2016, the inflation-adjusted contribution limit for an individual was $2,700 per election. The Act defines a “contribution” as, in relevant part, anything of value made “for the purpose of influencing any election for Federal office[.]” Under oath, Cohen admitted to making the payment for just that purpose. It appears clear that he made an illegal contribution. However, because he was criminally prosecuted for the same conduct at issue in these matters, we did not support authorizing an investigation into the allegations against Cohen. 

[Danderman123]

1 hour ago, Yellowtail said:

 

 

The judge will convict him. 

 

 

 

It's a jury trial.

[Yellowtail]

13 minutes ago, Danderman123 said:

It's a jury trial.

I know, but the judge instructs them. 

[Danderman123]

Any witnesses so far have disproved Michael Cohen's account of Trump's criming?

[Yellowtail]

1 minute ago, Danderman123 said:

Any witnesses so far have disproved Michael Cohen's account of Trump's criming?

Criming? 

 

You mean the alleged bookkeeping misdemeanors or the alleged campaign finance violation?

 

He'll be convicted, get stocked up on tissue and lotion. 

[Danderman123]

5 minutes ago, Yellowtail said:

Criming? 

 

You mean the alleged bookkeeping misdemeanors or the alleged campaign finance violation?

 

He'll be convicted, get stocked up on tissue and lotion. 

Both.

 

It seems that you think that Trump is above the law.

[Danderman123]

59 minutes ago, Yellowtail said:

Criming? 

 

You mean the alleged bookkeeping misdemeanors or the alleged campaign finance violation?

 

He'll be convicted, get stocked up on tissue and lotion. 

So Trump claims the gag order prevents him from testifying.

 

Do you agree with Trump?

[thaibeachlovers]

6 hours ago, jerrymahoney said:

The other said is already well represented.

For that poster to complain about one sidedness is truly laughable.

[Walker88]

4 hours ago, Yellowtail said:

Right

He invoked it to get Trump

Got it

And a DA invoked the law against Jeffrey Dahmer, because he ate people. You might say the DA was 'out to get Dahmer'. for good reason, I might add.

 

Invoking the law is what DA's do, even against people who insist they should be above the law. DA Bragg invoked the law. He did his job.

 

I guess trumpers think their messiah is so special that DAs and Special Counsels should just always let trump get away with business and insurance fraud, charity fraud, sexual assault, stealing classified documents, playing 'John Gotti' against the GA SecState, fomenting an insurrection and sedition, and trying to put together a scheme where fake electors award him a victory despite a landslide loss.

 

Dozing donny might delay accountability until after the election on some things, but right now he is facing the trial most likely to give him the biggest hit to his fragile ego....being described as a tiny mushrioom-packing sexual partner. Remember how quickly and in such a silly way he responded to Marco Rubio in the debate in 2016 when Marco noted trump's 'tiny hands'?

 

trump would proudly wear serial philanderer, vote fraudster, bank and insurance fraudster, document thief, even insurrectionist....but have a WOMAN, under oath, on the witness stand describe his junk as enoki mushroom-like, and I wouldn't be surprised if shorty does an imitation of the famous scene in the movie Scanners.

[thaibeachlovers]

1 hour ago, Danderman123 said:

Any witnesses so far have disproved Michael Cohen's account of Trump's criming?

criming? Do tell us what that means. Perhaps you mispelled crying, as in "crying from laughing too much when he gets acquitted"

[Walker88]

1 hour ago, Yellowtail said:

Criming? 

 

You mean the alleged bookkeeping misdemeanors or the alleged campaign finance violation?

 

He'll be convicted, get stocked up on tissue and lotion. 

No, the alleged felonies of engaging in acts in an attempt to alter or influence an election.

 

Again, the Statute is noted in the indictment, if you dared to read it.

 

Hope Hicks nailed trump Friday, as she testified:

 

1) He was concerned how the Stormy news might impact voters

 

2) He was aware of the payoff to Stormy, but hadn't yet accounted for it nor repaid Michael Cohen.

 

That shows his intent, and prior knowledge of the payoff BEFORE accounting for it is a clear violation of the NY Statute under which he is charged with a felony.

 

If the entire jury believes Hope Hicks' testimony, trump will be a convicted felon.

[Yellowtail]

2 hours ago, Danderman123 said:

Both.

 

It seems that you think that Trump is above the law.

Both tissue and lotion, yes. You'll need them. 

[Yellowtail]

1 hour ago, Danderman123 said:

So Trump claims the gag order prevents him from testifying.

Have you read it?

1 hour ago, Danderman123 said:

Do you agree with Trump?

About what? 

[Yellowtail]

45 minutes ago, Walker88 said:

No, the alleged felonies of engaging in acts in an attempt to alter or influence an election.

 

Again, the Statute is noted in the indictment, if you dared to read it.

 

Hope Hicks nailed trump Friday, as she testified:

 

1) He was concerned how the Stormy news might impact voters

 

2) He was aware of the payoff to Stormy, but hadn't yet accounted for it nor repaid Michael Cohen.

 

That shows his intent, and prior knowledge of the payoff BEFORE accounting for it is a clear violation of the NY Statute under which he is charged with a felony.

 

If the entire jury believes Hope Hicks' testimony, trump will be a convicted felon.

Paying people to keep quiet is not illegal

Influencing and or attempting to influence an election in not illegal. 

 

But yes, he'll be convicted, because the judge hates trump the way you do, and because he wants to please his daughter, who makes a living hating Trump. 

[Jingthing]

1 minute ago, Yellowtail said:

Paying people to keep quiet is not illegal

Influencing and or attempting to influence an election in not illegal. 

 

But yes, he'll be convicted, because the judge hates trump the way you do, and because he wants to please his daughter, who makes a living hating Trump. 

That isn't the charge and you know it.

[Yellowtail]

19 minutes ago, Jingthing said:

That isn't the charge and you know it.

But both statements are true, yes?

 

 

[Danderman123]

1 hour ago, Yellowtail said:

Have you read it?

About what? 

Deflection.

 

Trump says the gag order prevents him from testifying. Do you believe him?

[Danderman123]

1 hour ago, Yellowtail said:

But both statements are true, yes?

 

 

What's the point of trolling here about the charges?

 

The Prosecution is laying out the case now. They will speak slowly so you can understand all of Trump's alleged criminal behavior.

Edited May 4 by Danderman123