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

[jerrymahoney]

2 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

What do court documents say?

Allegations.

[Yellowtail]

1 minute ago, Chomper Higgot said:

What do court documents say?

How is paying hush money an illegal scheme? 

 

So like I've said all along, influencing an election is not illegal. 

[0ffshore360]

4 minutes ago, jerrymahoney said:

I like this oft stated rationale:

 

The trial is not about paying a prostitute. It is about illegal book keeping to avoid impact on a political campaign.

 

Instead of: The payments were made during a political campaign because that's when Stormy Daniels and her attorney decided to show up.

But does any alternative interpretation actually alter the reality?

 

[0ffshore360]

1 minute ago, jerrymahoney said:

Allegations.

Without plausible allegations to give cause for charges there would be no court case.

 

[jerrymahoney]

2 minutes ago, 0ffshore360 said:

But does any alternative interpretation actually alter the reality?

 

The reality is that after a failed attempt to cash in in 2011, Daniels shows up in 2016 to try again.

[Eric Loh]

29 minutes ago, Yellowtail said:

Did Trump not get a $600K judgement against Stormy? Don't remember seeing that on CNN...

You don’t see doesn’t mean it was not reported by CNN. No deflection nor gaslighting that the judge presiding the case was Judge James Otero, a Republican. 

https://www.cnn.com/2023/04/04/politics/stormy-daniels-pay-trump-legal-fees/index.html

[jerrymahoney]

1 minute ago, 0ffshore360 said:

Without plausible allegations to give cause for charges there would be no court case.

 

So. Allegation doesn't mean they proved it or what felonies were intent to violate.

[Yellowtail]

12 minutes ago, candide said:

Just a question as I am not familiar with such legal issues. 

Considering that paying Stormy was a personal matter and not a business matter, is it allowed that his company pays for it (whatever the type of entry), instead of Trump paying it with his personal funds?

If it negatively impacts his "brand", it could be argued it was in the best interest of the company to pay it. 

 

That said, as I understand it, the funds used were not company funds, but from the Trump trust. 

[0ffshore360]

1 minute ago, jerrymahoney said:

The reality is that after a failed attempt to cash in in 2011, Daniels shows up in 2016 to try again.

A reality is that she was encouraged to show up again because she had legitimate  cause?

[jerrymahoney]

 

April 25, 2024

 

Shugerman (in NY Times) also emphasizes that there’s not even any other New York case that sustains the use of another jurisdiction’s statute – federal law in this case – as the “other crime” in. 
But, Shugerman writes, there’s “no previous case of any state prosecutor relying on the Federal Election Campaign Act either as a direct crime or a predicate crime.” That, he says, is a “sign of overreach.”  

 

https://www.salon.com/2024/04/25/underestimating-alvin-braggs-case-against-donald-is-a-historic-mistake/

 

While falsifying business records is often a misdemeanor charge under New York State Law, it rises to a felony when the falsification is done to facilitate “another crime.” It remains untested whether the statutory language of “another crime” applies to only state or also federal crimes.

April 06, 2023 at 05:52 PM

 

https://www.law.com/newyorklawjournal/2023/04/06/new-york-state-has-issued-nearly-9800-felony-charges-of-falsifying-business-records-since-2015/

 

[jerrymahoney]

Just now, 0ffshore360 said:

A reality is that she was encouraged to show up again because she had legitimate  cause?

Legitimate? She has no corroborable proof other than a picture of her and Trump together in 2006.

[0ffshore360]

3 minutes ago, jerrymahoney said:

So. Allegation doesn't mean they proved it or what felonies were intent to violate.

And so the court case continues in the interest of the question .

[Walker88]

Lots of shaky ground here, and I'm not talking about trump's courtroom flatulence.

 

The fever swamps of right wing media were apoplectic that trump wasn't going to be able to attend his 'dear' son's high school graduation, when in fact the judge had never denied trump that privilege, and yesterday announced an off day on 17 May so that trump can HAS TO attend the graduation (it would sure look bad, albeit typically trumpian, if he was excused from court and went to play golf instead).

 

The irony of their lie was lost on the right wing talking heads, since there wouldn't be any trial if trump actually gave a sh!t about his kid or his wife, since all of this springs from his (alleged) tryst with Stormy and year long affair with Karen McDougal just after trump's 3rd wife gave birth. Yea, a real family man and devoted daddy, that Philanderer-in-Chief.

[Chomper Higgot]

13 minutes ago, jerrymahoney said:

Allegations.

Let the jury decide.

[jerrymahoney]

2 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

Let the jury decide.

Oh really. Is that how it works?

[Yellowtail]

Why do you guys suppose the judge will not allow a campaign finance expert to testify for Trump? 

 

And why was the case resurrected only after Matthew Colangelo moved from one of the top spots in the Biden DOJ to NY, and (coincidentally) ends up on this case. 

 

Enquiring minds want to know...

[jerrymahoney]

9 minutes ago, Yellowtail said:

Why do you guys suppose the judge will not allow a campaign finance expert to testify for Trump? 

That it turns out it is standard NY State criminal procedure as an 'expert' who is not familiar in detail with the facts of the case cannot offer any opinion on whether a crime has been committed.

Edited May 1 by jerrymahoney

[Roo Island]

1 hour ago, Yellowtail said:

No, that would not help Trump, because whether or not he had sex with them is irreverent as far as the "crime" is concerned. 

 

The whole thing is designed to drag Trump through the mud, keep him from campaigning, punish him brutalize him with legal costs, and at the end of the day, it does not matter that much if he is convicted. If he is convicted, it will go to appeal, and if he is acquitted, the damage will have been done, and the press will be all about why he was really guilty, in spite of his being acquitted. 

 

Had he reported the stormy payment as a campaign expense, he would have been prosecuted for that. 

 

The whole thing is to protect the dignity of our legal system. Break the law, pay the price. Sad some perceive this as political.

[Roo Island]

1 hour ago, Yellowtail said:

The moderator posted that the bickering had been deleted, which it was, but the post inn which Roo is falsely claiming I misquoted the link was not. 

 

He can just post a link to the mod's post. 

 

Roo does not understand how quotes are identified, that's why he is confused. 

You modified the text that was in the link you posted. Thus. It was removed.

[Yellowtail]

1 minute ago, Roo Island said:

You modified the text that was in the link you posted. Thus. It was removed.

Yes, I modified the text, but I did not post it as a quote, and no, it was not deleted. 

Edited May 1 by Yellowtail

[Roo Island]

1 hour ago, Yellowtail said:

Yeah, the left loved him before the election. 

Not most new Yorkers. Especially the ones who lost money on their casino investment.

[Roo Island]

1 minute ago, Yellowtail said:

Yes, I modified the text, but I did not post it as a quote, and no, it was not deleted. 

Ok. Show the link...jeez.

[frank83628]

5 hours ago, Roo Island said:

It's not about the affair. It's about cooking the books!

no, its about get trump at any costs, a purely political witch hunt and has been since he ran for office.... how amny thing have the demoncrats thrown at him so far?

[Yellowtail]

1 hour ago, Roo Island said:

Not most new Yorkers. Especially the ones who lost money on their casino investment.

Ok. Show the link...jeez.

[Roo Island]

1 hour ago, frank83628 said:

no, its about get trump at any costs, a purely political witch hunt and has been since he ran for office.... how amny thing have the demoncrats thrown at him so far?

Totally wrong. Trump's been in this situation for decades. Do the research.

[Roo Island]

1 hour ago, Yellowtail said:

Ok. Show the link...jeez.

https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2016/10/how-donald-trump-destroyed-his-empire-and-dumped-ruins-others-timeline/

 

Read it. Something many of us have known for a very long time

[Yellowtail]

3 minutes ago, Roo Island said:

Totally wrong. Trump's been in this situation for decades. Do the research.

Link? 

[Yellowtail]

Just now, Roo Island said:

https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2016/10/how-donald-trump-destroyed-his-empire-and-dumped-ruins-others-timeline/

 

Read it. Something many of us have known for a very long time

Mother Jones, got it. 

[BangkokReady]

On 4/26/2024 at 4:51 AM, Social Media said:

At the heart of the matter lies a series of glaring inconsistencies that undermine the narrative put forth by the prosecution.

 

Hardly surprising.  While Trump says and does a lot of daft things, his critics lie about him all day long.  Luckily, courts are at least still impartial, so the accusations have to be proven.  And when things need to be proven, the left-wing narrative often falls apart.  🤷‍♂️

Edited May 1 by BangkokReady

[placeholder]

14 minutes ago, BangkokReady said:

 

Hardly surprising.  While Trump says and does a lot of daft things, his critics lie about him all day long.  Luckily, courts are at least still impartial, so the accusations have to be proven.  Since the accusations need to be proven, the left-wing narrative often falls apart.  🤷‍♂️

I know what you mean. For instance, the Trump organization was repeatedly slandered by leftists for being a corrupt enterprise. But the courts proved them wrong. While it was indicted on 17 criminal counts, it was only convicted on 17 of them.