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

[Yellowtail]

7 hours ago, Chomper Higgot said:

 

2 hours ago, TorquayFan said:

Danderman re. yours - "The question is whether the judge will allow a verdict of a misdemeanor rather than a felony."

 

My understanding is that IF the misdemeanours were part of a 'hush up' because of the election then they become felonies.

 

The evidence that Trump and the GOP wanted to keep the Stormy story from the electorate is overwhelming.

 

Cohen is testifying next week and that should provide damning confirmation.

 

As you say, only an errant Juror can save Trump from conviction . . . . .

 

AIMHO

 

Who was prosecuted over Axlerod's "nuts or sluts" strategy he ran for Clinton? Oh that's right, he's on the left. 

[Yellowtail]

1 hour ago, Danderman123 said:

I was referring to the labeling of Cohen's payment as "legal services" rather than reimbursement for Stormy Daniels as the business fraud.

 

In a layman's sense.

 

 

Is having your attorney arrange an NDA with someone not legal expense? 

[Danderman123]

1 hour ago, Hanaguma said:

The threat of her blabbing? When you are being more or less blackmailed (legally) it is best to get it taken care of. Plus, do you think she would have agreed to an NDA and also agreed to not get paid immediately?  That defies logic.

Why didn't Stormy Daniels want to wait until after the election to be paid?

[jerrymahoney]

4 minutes ago, Danderman123 said:

Yes, the accountants provided key testimony. The remaining testimony is not that significant.

'Key testimony'. Is that a legal term or a layman's term?

[Hanaguma]

2 minutes ago, Danderman123 said:

Why didn't Stormy Daniels want to wait until after the election to be paid?

Why dont you ask her?  Is it even relevant?

[TorquayFan]

Hanaguma re. yours, "It is also plausible that Trump wanted to keep the strumpet away from his family, his business, and his reputation.  The payment could have been for any of these very realistic situations as well, and just happened to occur during the election cycle.."

 

IMO that suggestion doesn't stand up to examination. Evidence was given that Trump tried to delay payment until AFTER the election, because then he could NOT pay Stormy at all - she realised this and insisted that payment should be made before the election. Somewhat illustrating that the purpose of the 'hush' was not keeping it from Melania, but keeping it from the Electorate . . . . .

 

[Chomper Higgot]

7 minutes ago, Yellowtail said:

 

Who was prosecuted over Axlerod's "nuts or sluts" strategy he ran for Clinton? Oh that's right, he's on the left. 

But but but whatabout…

[Danderman123]

6 minutes ago, Yellowtail said:

Is having your attorney arrange an NDA with someone not legal expense? 

I am sorry you don't understand that Cohen wasn't paid for his legal services.

 

You probably knew this last week but forgot.

 

[Danderman123]

3 minutes ago, Hanaguma said:

Why dont you ask her?  Is it even relevant?

There is plenty of testimony stating that Stormy Daniels payment was connected to the election.

[Yellowtail]

1 minute ago, Danderman123 said:

Why didn't Stormy Daniels want to wait until after the election to be paid?

Does anyone want to wait to be paid? Clearly, she had more leverage before the election than after. 

 

I do not think anyone is arguing Trump did not care about the election, it is you and some of the other leftists that are arguing that he does not care about his wife and children. Leftists think everyone is like them, that's why they don't care about Biden lying about the deaths of his wife and children to gain sympathy, or Hunter's laptop of his daughter's diary or the women that have accusing him of molesting them. 

 

Get Trump! 

[Yellowtail]

11 minutes ago, Danderman123 said:

Hey Trump fans:

 

Why isn't Trump calling Weisellberg as a witness?

Maybe they do not think he will help them. Everyone that tries to help Trumps ends up being prosecuted. 

[Danderman123]

7 minutes ago, jerrymahoney said:

'Key testimony'. Is that a legal term or a layman's term?

Layman's term. You see, we all laymen in this topic, so that using common terminology is appropriate.

 

And there's really no point defending Trump here, the jury will decide.

 

I comment on the proceedings, and my prediction is conviction absent a holdout juror. The Trump fans make claims that contradict the witness testimony, I suspect some of them don't even know what the witnesses are saying.

[TorquayFan]

Yellowtail - "Is having your attorney arrange an NDA with someone not legal expense?" 

 

Paying your Attorney for his work IS a legal expense but money paid to the other Party in the NDA, in this case, Stormy, is NOT !

[Yellowtail]

3 minutes ago, Danderman123 said:

There is plenty of testimony stating that Stormy Daniels payment was connected to the election.

Is anyone arguing that there is no connection to the election? 

 

 

[Hanaguma]

5 minutes ago, TorquayFan said:

Hanaguma re. yours, "It is also plausible that Trump wanted to keep the strumpet away from his family, his business, and his reputation.  The payment could have been for any of these very realistic situations as well, and just happened to occur during the election cycle.."

 

IMO that suggestion doesn't stand up to examination. Evidence was given that Trump tried to delay payment until AFTER the election, because then he could NOT pay Stormy at all - she realised this and insisted that payment should be made before the election. Somewhat illustrating that the purpose of the 'hush' was not keeping it from Melania, but keeping it from the Electorate . . . . .

 

That's possible, and I wouldn't blame him for trying if he did.  But digging into the why of the payment is quite tricky. TBH I am not following it terribly closely, but I can see a rich businessman paying to shut a woman up for a variety of reasons. 

[Yellowtail]

5 minutes ago, Danderman123 said:

I am sorry you don't understand that Cohen wasn't paid for his legal services.

Right, he was paid for legal expenses, the expense being what Cohen paid to Stormy. 

5 minutes ago, Danderman123 said:

You probably knew this last week but forgot.

I know remember he paid her out of his "pocket", that's why the reimbursement had to be grossed-up. 

[Yellowtail]

4 minutes ago, TorquayFan said:

Yellowtail - "Is having your attorney arrange an NDA with someone not legal expense?" 

 

Paying your Attorney for his work IS a legal expense but money paid to the other Party in the NDA, in this case, Stormy, is NOT !

But reimbursing your attorney for exposes they incur on your behalf, is a legal expense. 

 

 

[Walker88]

One might think stating the obvious is not necessary, but there are trumpers here, and they are not exactly intellectually gifted.

 

Even if Stormy lied and never had the encounter she has described in lurid detail, that is immaterial. The payoff and the fraudulent accounting are the issue, and Hope Hicks' testimony that trump told her he feared it would hurt his election chances fits AG Braggs indictment.

 

Hillary undoubtedly suffered from the lie about so-called Uranium One, but she didn't play catch and kill. She also suffered from lies about her health, but didn't catch and kill. The fact she is still alive in 2024 says her health was good enough to get through a term as President.

 

trump even authorized (per Cohen) the doorman payoff in a building someone claims trump had a paramour for whom he funded an abortion. That tale does not appear to be true, yet the doorman was still paid off to keep quiet.

 

The point of putting Stormy on the stand---and originally McDougal---was to hit trump's credibility as well as get her side of the story about how the hush money issue was raised. On Monday, Michael Cohen will provide the narrative for what the documents and taped phone calls already laid out.

[jerrymahoney]

1 minute ago, Danderman123 said:

Layman's term. You see, we all laymen in this topic, so that using common terminology is appropriate.

 

And there's really no point defending Trump here, the jury will decide.

 

I comment on the proceedings, and my prediction is conviction absent a holdout juror. The Trump fans make claims that contradict the witness testimony, I suspect some of them don't even know what the witnesses are saying.

You can comment on anything you want. But this is a complicated case using a NY State Statute for which there is no case precedence. I try to unravel the 4-tier alleged crime case looking at the statutes and what legal scholars even those favoring the Bragg prosecution have to say. And nothing is clear in that Bragg has not completely identified what was the "unlawful means" in the election statute cited. Or as the one generally pro-prosecution analysis put it:

 

Clear as mud.

 

So you do it your way and I'll do mine.

[Walker88]

11 minutes ago, Yellowtail said:

Does anyone want to wait to be paid? Clearly, she had more leverage before the election than after. 

 

I do not think anyone is arguing Trump did not care about the election, it is you and some of the other leftists that are arguing that he does not care about his wife and children. Leftists think everyone is like them, that's why they don't care about Biden lying about the deaths of his wife and children to gain sympathy, or Hunter's laptop of his daughter's diary or the women that have accusing him of molesting them. 

 

Get Trump! 

 

LOL!

 

Yes, trump cared so much he was schtupping a porn star and a Playboy model while wifey #3 was caring for the newborn.

 

Even if he did care about his wife and kid, the fact that he cared about how news of the trysts would impact the election is the only relevant thing, even if that was a 10% concern. Hope Hicks testified trump told her the election was a concern.

 

Got to laugh about him 'caring'. He whined about the kid's graduation and the judge not allowing him to attend (a lie, as the judge ordered a recess on that day), yet he has scheduled a rally for that same day.

 

Oh, and he got his kid's age wrong, saying "I think 17" when it is 18.

 

Yea, devoted family man, that serial philanderer and self-described women's genitalia grabber.

 

LOL!

[placeholder]

I don't think this needs any editorializing:

Prosecutors Reveal Alleged Hush Money Deal to Trump Crony

In court on Friday, prosecutors revealed that the Trump Organization has promised to pay Weisselberg three installments of $250,000 due later this year in June, September, and December. However, only if he doesn’t “cooperate” with law enforcement.

One part of the contract, read out loud in court, says Weisselberg promises “not to verbally or in writing disparage, criticize, denigrate” the company or any of its executives. Another section says “he will not communicate with” and “otherwise will not cooperate with” any entity seeking “adverse claims” against the company.

And while the law generally punishes people for “aiding or abetting” a criminal, Weisselberg’s contract by contrast punishes him if he decides to “aid, abet, or cause” any action against the Trump real estate empire.

https://www.thedailybeast.com/trump-trial-prosecutors-reveal-alleged-hush-money-deal-to-trump-crony-allen-weisselberg

[TorquayFan]

Yellow, "exposes" is a typo I think. You contend, "But reimbursing your attorney for exposes they incur on your behalf, is a legal expense". Very funny.

 

Or is that from 'expose', (in the sense of discovering) ?

 

However, your assertion is not right. Say you pay an Attorney for conveyancing of £5,000 and £100,000 for a house. That's legal expenses £105,000 ?

 

Clearly not ! ATB

[Yellowtail]

4 minutes ago, placeholder said:

I don't think this needs any editorializing:

Prosecutors Reveal Alleged Hush Money Deal to Trump Crony

In court on Friday, prosecutors revealed that the Trump Organization has promised to pay Weisselberg three installments of $250,000 due later this year in June, September, and December. However, only if he doesn’t “cooperate” with law enforcement.

One part of the contract, read out loud in court, says Weisselberg promises “not to verbally or in writing disparage, criticize, denigrate” the company or any of its executives. Another section says “he will not communicate with” and “otherwise will not cooperate with” any entity seeking “adverse claims” against the company.

And while the law generally punishes people for “aiding or abetting” a criminal, Weisselberg’s contract by contrast punishes him if he decides to “aid, abet, or cause” any action against the Trump real estate empire.

https://www.thedailybeast.com/trump-trial-prosecutors-reveal-alleged-hush-money-deal-to-trump-crony-allen-weisselberg

So another NDA, yawn. 

 

Meanwhile, the border's wide open, were stopping arms to Israel and we're arraigning to bring thousands of Palestinians to the US. 

[Danderman123]

2 hours ago, Yellowtail said:

Right, he was paid for legal expenses, the expense being what Cohen paid to Stormy. 

I know remember he paid her out of his "pocket", that's why the reimbursement had to be grossed-up. 

You've got the facts all screwed up.

 

The jury understands the transaction, no need to explain to you again.

 

 

[Danderman123]

1 hour ago, TorquayFan said:

Yellow, "exposes" is a typo I think. You contend, "But reimbursing your attorney for exposes they incur on your behalf, is a legal expense". Very funny.

 

Or is that from 'expose', (in the sense of discovering) ?

 

However, your assertion is not right. Say you pay an Attorney for conveyancing of £5,000 and £100,000 for a house. That's legal expenses £105,000 ?

 

Clearly not ! ATB

@Yellowtailclearly doesn't understand the transaction.

 

One thing he loves to do is misconstrue the term "legal expense".

[Danderman123]

2 hours ago, Yellowtail said:

But reimbursing your attorney for exposes they incur on your behalf, is a legal expense. 

 

 

You are flailing at this.

 

Let Trump's defense team handle this, they are much better at it than you.