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

[Danderman123]

1 hour ago, Yellowtail said:

Is there confusion about that? I thought everyone agrees it was to keep her quiet. 

@Hanagumais trying to generate doubt by introducing the idea that this is all Stormy Daniels fault.

[jerrymahoney]

3 hours ago, placeholder said:

This isn't about who approached who. It's about what the purpose of the payment to Stormy Daniels was.

Keith Davidson, Stormy Daniel's attorney who testified about who approached who, was a Prosecution witness.

[candide]

8 hours ago, Danderman123 said:

Link, please, to Obama and Clinton personally engaging in a coverup of campaign finance violations.

Of course, he has no evidence they were personally engaged in a cover-up of campaign finance violations. That's why he has to resort to false equivalencies. 😅

[Danderman123]

3 hours ago, jerrymahoney said:

Keith Davidson, Stormy Daniel's attorney who testified about who approached who, was a Prosecution witness.

There are really only 2 questions:

 

Did Trump approve payments to Stormy Daniels during the election?

 

And

 

Did Trump try to cover up the payments via false bookkeeping entries?

 

Everything else is just supporting evidence 

[Yellowtail]

4 hours ago, Danderman123 said:

There are really only 2 questions:

 

Did Trump approve payments to Stormy Daniels during the election?

 

And

 

Did Trump try to cover up the payments via false bookkeeping entries?

 

Everything else is just supporting evidence 

Actually there is only one question; Can we get Trump? 

[jerrymahoney]

10 hours ago, Danderman123 said:

There are really only 2 questions:

 

Did Trump approve payments to Stormy Daniels during the election?

 

And

 

Did Trump try to cover up the payments via false bookkeeping entries?

 

Everything else is just supporting evidence 

There are 34 counts in the Trump indictment each listing "another crime". The "another crime" could be the same crime for all of the 34 counts or each could be for a different crime.

 

DA Bragg has yet to say.

 

[thaibeachlovers]

21 hours ago, Danderman123 said:

Making definitive statements with no evidence seems to be your favorite trolling technique.

 

 

Prove that I do that or you are making it up, again.

[thaibeachlovers]

21 hours ago, Danderman123 said:

There is testimony that Trump committed campaign finance violations. We haven't gotten to the coverup yet.

Testimony isn't necessarily proof. It could be lies.

[thaibeachlovers]

21 hours ago, Danderman123 said:

Not my job. Alvin Bragg is doing it for me.

 

You really think Trump didn't support his campaign by paying off Stormy Daniels? Please, please, please tell me you don't think Trump arranged to have her paid off before the election.

 

Or that the payment had nothing to do with the election.

 

Please.

It's up to you to prove that anything you say is a fact is true. He isn't on here.

 

I don't know what happened as I wasn't in the room and neither were you, so you don't know either.

[thaibeachlovers]

21 hours ago, Danderman123 said:

You sound very confused.

 

First you say that Obama and Clinton personally covered up campaign finance violations, now you say you don't know and have no evidence.

Prove I said that they DID cover up campaign finance violations or you are, AGAIN, making it up.

[Danderman123]

27 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

Prove I said that they DID cover up campaign finance violations or you are, AGAIN, making it up.

Oops, it was your fellow Trumper who made that claim:

 

21 hours ago, Yellowtail said:

Not disclosing them is by definition a coverup. 

 

[thaibeachlovers]

14 minutes ago, Danderman123 said:

Oops, it was your fellow Trumper who made that claim:

 

 

Thank you for admitting you got confused. Taking some time to check your posts before pressing submit is always a good idea.

[Danderman123]

53 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

Testimony isn't necessarily proof. It could be lies.

And when and if Trump is convicted, are you going to still say that Trump is innocent?

[thaibeachlovers]

3 minutes ago, Danderman123 said:

And when and if Trump is convicted, are you going to still say that Trump is innocent?

Not having been in the room I don't know if he is guilty or not. I know that many people are wrongfully convicted of crimes they did not commit. Some of them in NZ- one man was convicted by a jury twice, even though he was innocent..

If Trump is convicted I'll just say that they finally got him, guilty or not. He can still win the election though.

 

If he is not convicted will you agree that he is innocent?

[Yellowtail]

14 minutes ago, Danderman123 said:

And when and if Trump is convicted, are you going to still say that Trump is innocent?

We don't even know what the "crime" is yet.

 

 

[Danderman123]

1 hour ago, Yellowtail said:

We don't even know what the "crime" is yet.

 

 

Cohen's payment to Stormy Daniels was a campaign finance violation.

 

Trump reimbursement to Cohen and calling it legal fees was an attempt to cover up the campaign finance violation.

[Danderman123]

1 hour ago, thaibeachlovers said:

Not having been in the room I don't know if he is guilty or not. I know that many people are wrongfully convicted of crimes they did not commit. Some of them in NZ- one man was convicted by a jury twice, even though he was innocent..

If Trump is convicted I'll just say that they finally got him, guilty or not. He can still win the election though.

 

If he is not convicted will you agree that he is innocent?

Not if it's a hung jury.

 

If the jury votes to acquit, yeah, he's innocent.

[jerrymahoney]

16 minutes ago, Danderman123 said:

Trump reimbursement to Cohen and calling it legal fees was an attempt to cover up the campaign finance violation.

 

Using the personal funds of the candidate
When candidates use their personal funds for campaign purposes, they are making contributions to their campaigns. Candidate contributions to their own campaigns are not subject to any limits. They must, however, be reported.

 

https://www.fec.gov/help-candidates-and-committees/candidate-taking-receipts/using-personal-funds-candidate/

 

There has been some suggestion that the hush money payments might somehow violate federal election laws, although I have never understood how using one’s own money to pay for the non-disclosure of embarrassing allegations would violate the election laws, which are primarily concerned with the solicitation and use of campaign contributions by third parties.

 

 Even if the government wanted to charge Trump now for violating the election law in 2016, those charges would likely be barred by the applicable statute of limitations.

 

https://news.syr.edu/blog/2024/04/16/pitch-legal-analysis-of-hush-money-trial-facing-former-president-donald-trump/

Edited May 6 by jerrymahoney

[Danderman123]

26 minutes ago, jerrymahoney said:

 

Using the personal funds of the candidate
When candidates use their personal funds for campaign purposes, they are making contributions to their campaigns. Candidate contributions to their own campaigns are not subject to any limits. They must, however, be reported.

 

https://www.fec.gov/help-candidates-and-committees/candidate-taking-receipts/using-personal-funds-candidate/

 

There has been some suggestion that the hush money payments might somehow violate federal election laws, although I have never understood how using one’s own money to pay for the non-disclosure of embarrassing allegations would violate the election laws, which are primarily concerned with the solicitation and use of campaign contributions by third parties.

 

 Even if the government wanted to charge Trump now for violating the election law in 2016, those charges would likely be barred by the applicable statute of limitations.

 

https://news.syr.edu/blog/2024/04/16/pitch-legal-analysis-of-hush-money-trial-facing-former-president-donald-trump/

Michael Cohen already pled guilty to that crime.

[jerrymahoney]

11 minutes ago, Danderman123 said:

Michael Cohen already pled guilty to that crime.

The indictment names Donald J. Trump.

[Yellowtail]

6 hours ago, Danderman123 said:

Cohen's payment to Stormy Daniels was a campaign finance violation.

Yet the FEC looked at it and refused to prosecute.

 

Cohen pleaded guilty to get a reduced sentence. 

6 hours ago, Danderman123 said:

Trump reimbursement to Cohen and calling it legal fees was an attempt to cover up the campaign finance violation.

Called them legal expenses, not legal fees. 

 

But yes, this is what I said a month ago. 

 

[jerrymahoney]

Why Does Trump Face Felony Charges? Prosecutors Say He Was Hiding Other Crimes.

Donald J. Trump faces 34 felony counts in his Manhattan trial, but none involve the other misconduct that prosecutors say he engaged in.

 

By The New York Times

    May 6, 2024, 1:41 p.m. ET

 

https://www.nytimes.com/2024/05/06/nyregion/trump-charges-felonies.html

 

What crimes do prosecutors believe Trump was trying to conceal?

Prosecutors have suggested three possible crimes since filing the charges against Mr. Trump last year: a federal campaign finance violation, tax fraud and a state election-law crime. But since the start of the trial, they have largely focused on the state election-law crime: conspiracy to promote or prevent election. 

******************

 

REDUX

 

* § 17–152. Conspiracy to promote or prevent election
Any two or more persons who conspire to promote or
prevent the election of any person to a public office by unlaw-
ful means and which conspiracy is acted upon by one or more
of the parties thereto, shall be guilty of a misdemeanor.
(L.1976, c. 233 , § 1.) *

 

As posted above the statute refers to "unlawful means" but it does not say what constitutes 'unlawful means'.

 

I decided to try to find out in all the other previous prosecutions of the statute, since that statute dates from 1976, what constituted "unlawful" means. But I could not. As best as can be determined, even by lawyers with years' experience prosecuting election violations in NY State, that statute has NEVER been prosecuted so there is no trail of what constitutes "unlawful means".

 

So even though Judge Merchan in a ruling has said that the statute is applicable as a possible (an)other crime, they first have to justify without precedent what constitutes "unlawful means".

 

In other words they would be using a 2 part if-then statute to justify a two part if-then statute. Or as one NY State election lawyer put it:

 

Crimes, within crimes, within crimes.

 

* https://elections.ny.gov/system/files/documents/2024/04/508_ny-election-law-2024-edition_0.pdf

 

STATE OF NEW YORK
2024 ELECTION LAW

[Yellowtail]

2 hours ago, jerrymahoney said:

Why Does Trump Face Felony Charges? Prosecutors Say He Was Hiding Other Crimes.

Donald J. Trump faces 34 felony counts in his Manhattan trial, but none involve the other misconduct that prosecutors say he engaged in.

 

By The New York Times

    May 6, 2024, 1:41 p.m. ET

 

https://www.nytimes.com/2024/05/06/nyregion/trump-charges-felonies.html

 

What crimes do prosecutors believe Trump was trying to conceal?

Prosecutors have suggested three possible crimes since filing the charges against Mr. Trump last year: a federal campaign finance violation, tax fraud and a state election-law crime. But since the start of the trial, they have largely focused on the state election-law crime: conspiracy to promote or prevent election. 

******************

 

REDUX

 

* § 17–152. Conspiracy to promote or prevent election
Any two or more persons who conspire to promote or
prevent the election of any person to a public office by unlaw-
ful means and which conspiracy is acted upon by one or more
of the parties thereto, shall be guilty of a misdemeanor.
(L.1976, c. 233 , § 1.) *

 

As posted above the statute refers to "unlawful means" but it does not say what constitutes 'unlawful means'.

 

I decided to try to find out in all the other previous prosecutions of the statute, since that statute dates from 1976, what constituted "unlawful" means. But I could not. As best as can be determined, even by lawyers with years' experience prosecuting election violations in NY State, that statute has NEVER been prosecuted so there is no trail of what constitutes "unlawful means".

 

So even though Judge Merchan in a ruling has said that the statute is applicable as a possible (an)other crime, they first have to justify without precedent what constitutes "unlawful means".

 

In other words they would be using a 2 part if-then statute to justify a two part if-then statute. Or as one NY State election lawyer put it:

 

Crimes, within crimes, within crimes.

 

* https://elections.ny.gov/system/files/documents/2024/04/508_ny-election-law-2024-edition_0.pdf

 

STATE OF NEW YORK
2024 ELECTION LAW

So they are making it up as they go along. 

[thaibeachlovers]

22 hours ago, Danderman123 said:

Cohen's payment to Stormy Daniels was a campaign finance violation.

 

Trump reimbursement to Cohen and calling it legal fees was an attempt to cover up the campaign finance violation.

In your opinion. It's not a cover up till he is convicted and the appeal fails.

[thaibeachlovers]

22 hours ago, Danderman123 said:

Michael Cohen already pled guilty to that crime.

His guilt doesn't mean that Trump is also guilty, else Trump would already have been convicted.

[thaibeachlovers]

3 hours ago, jerrymahoney said:

Why Does Trump Face Felony Charges? Prosecutors Say He Was Hiding Other Crimes.

Donald J. Trump faces 34 felony counts in his Manhattan trial, but none involve the other misconduct that prosecutors say he engaged in.

 

By The New York Times

    May 6, 2024, 1:41 p.m. ET

 

https://www.nytimes.com/2024/05/06/nyregion/trump-charges-felonies.html

 

What crimes do prosecutors believe Trump was trying to conceal?

Prosecutors have suggested three possible crimes since filing the charges against Mr. Trump last year: a federal campaign finance violation, tax fraud and a state election-law crime. But since the start of the trial, they have largely focused on the state election-law crime: conspiracy to promote or prevent election. 

******************

 

REDUX

 

* § 17–152. Conspiracy to promote or prevent election
Any two or more persons who conspire to promote or
prevent the election of any person to a public office by unlaw-
ful means and which conspiracy is acted upon by one or more
of the parties thereto, shall be guilty of a misdemeanor.
(L.1976, c. 233 , § 1.) *

 

As posted above the statute refers to "unlawful means" but it does not say what constitutes 'unlawful means'.

 

I decided to try to find out in all the other previous prosecutions of the statute, since that statute dates from 1976, what constituted "unlawful" means. But I could not. As best as can be determined, even by lawyers with years' experience prosecuting election violations in NY State, that statute has NEVER been prosecuted so there is no trail of what constitutes "unlawful means".

 

So even though Judge Merchan in a ruling has said that the statute is applicable as a possible (an)other crime, they first have to justify without precedent what constitutes "unlawful means".

 

In other words they would be using a 2 part if-then statute to justify a two part if-then statute. Or as one NY State election lawyer put it:

 

Crimes, within crimes, within crimes.

 

* https://elections.ny.gov/system/files/documents/2024/04/508_ny-election-law-2024-edition_0.pdf

 

STATE OF NEW YORK
2024 ELECTION LAW

Seems that in their haste to have Trump in court during the election campaign, the prosecutors neglected to have a serious charge to apply, and are throwing as many accusations at him as possible in the hope that one may stick.

If they fail to convict, they are just giving Trump more popularity, but if they do convict it will be seen as a politically inspired conviction so he will become more popular. One wonders in what reality those prosecutors live that they got it so wrong.

In any event, even a conviction does not remove him from the ballot.

[Danderman123]

14 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

His guilt doesn't mean that Trump is also guilty, else Trump would already have been convicted.

Today's testimony was about how Cohen was reimbursed for his $130,000 payment to Stormy Daniels. Among the exhibits were the notes from Trump's accountants illustrating how they had to effectively double the amount so that Cohen would get his $130,000 back - because of the taxes he would have to pay for his "legal services".

 

If they had decided to call it  payment of a campaign loan, they could have just paid him $130,000.

 

This is clearly business fraud.

[Danderman123]

10 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

Seems that in their haste to have Trump in court during the election campaign, the prosecutors neglected to have a serious charge to apply, and are throwing as many accusations at him as possible in the hope that one may stick.

If they fail to convict, they are just giving Trump more popularity, but if they do convict it will be seen as a politically inspired conviction so he will become more popular. One wonders in what reality those prosecutors live that they got it so wrong.

In any event, even a conviction does not remove him from the ballot.

Great.

 

Let's hope that more prosecutors make the same "mistake".

[Danderman123]

19 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

His guilt doesn't mean that Trump is also guilty, else Trump would already have been convicted.

Trump committed business fraud to cover up Cohen's crime.

[Danderman123]

22 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

In your opinion. It's not a cover up till he is convicted and the appeal fails.

And the jail cell door clangs shut.