Trump's Hush-Money Trial Unveils Mood and DA's Case So Far

[Social Media]

 

The commencement of Donald Trump's highly anticipated criminal trial offers a window into his courtroom demeanor and the prosecution's case strategy, shedding light on the tone and legal maneuvers expected in the weeks ahead.

 

Endurance Test for Trump:
The trial signals an endurance test for the 77-year-old former president, requiring his presence in court each day. Observers note a change in Trump's demeanor, characterized by a more subdued and compliant demeanor compared to his past civil trials. Despite frustrations, Trump appears thinner and more controlled, conferring with his lead attorney in hushed tones.

 

Insight into Prosecution's Case:
Prosecutors crystallize their case around a grand theory of election interference, alleging a long-running conspiracy to influence the 2016 election. Central to their argument is the alleged cover-up of hush money payments to an adult film star, aimed at concealing or aiding additional crimes. Testimony from former National Enquirer publisher David Pecker bolsters this narrative, highlighting an agreement to manipulate media coverage in favor of Trump's campaign.

 

Tension and Challenges for Defense:
Trump's lead attorney faces a rocky start, clashing with the judge during a hearing on a gag order violation. Judge Merchan's hostile reaction raises concerns about the defense's credibility and effectiveness. While the defense navigates the fine line between zealous advocacy and frivolous arguments, the court's impatience suggests challenges ahead.

 

Outlook:
As the trial unfolds, observers await further developments and potential legal complexities. While the prosecution's election interference theory holds promise, it risks appellate and constitutional challenges. Meanwhile, the defense must tread carefully to maintain credibility and navigate judicial scrutiny.

 

The trial's trajectory remains uncertain, but its early stages offer intriguing insights into Trump's courtroom demeanor and the legal battleground ahead.

 

2024-04-29

 

Get our Daily Newsletter - Click HERE to subscribe

[jerrymahoney]

Published 10:11 AM EDT, Sun April 14, 2024

 

Trump’s lawyers said they plan to call at least two witnesses in their case: Bradley Smith, a former commissioner of the Federal Election Commission, and Alan Garten, the top legal officer of the Trump Organization. Merchan has limited the scope of Smith’s testimony to describing the role and function of the FEC and defining certain terms, such as campaign contributions, but has blocked him from testifying about whether the law was violated in this case.

 

https://edition.cnn.com/2024/04/14/politics/prosecutors-trump-trial-new-york/index.html

[LosLobo]

29 minutes ago, jerrymahoney said:

Published 10:11 AM EDT, Sun April 14, 2024

 

Trump’s lawyers said they plan to call at least two witnesses in their case: Bradley Smith, a former commissioner of the Federal Election Commission, and Alan Garten, the top legal officer of the Trump Organization. Merchan has limited the scope of Smith’s testimony to describing the role and function of the FEC and defining certain terms, such as campaign contributions, but has blocked him from testifying about whether the law was violated in this case.

 

https://edition.cnn.com/2024/04/14/politics/prosecutors-trump-trial-new-york/index.html

 

Your post seeming only poses innuendo, without offering an explanation for Bradley Smith's blockage.

Perhaps the Federal Election Commission (FEC) can investigate potential violations and provide guidance but does not have the authority to determine whether criminal law was violated in a court.

I suggest that determination can only be made by a court based on the facts of the case, the applicable law, and the arguments made by the parties.

[jerrymahoney]

12 minutes ago, LosLobo said:

Perhaps the Federal Election Commission (FEC) can investigate potential violations and provide guidance but does not have the authority to determine whether criminal law was violated in a court.

The FEC administers federal campaign finance laws. It enforces limitations and prohibitions on contributions and expenditures, administers the reporting system for campaign finance disclosure, investigates and prosecutes violations (investigations are typically initiated by complaints from other candidates, parties, watchdog groups, and the public), audits a limited number of campaigns and organizations for compliance, and administers the presidential public funding programs for presidential candidates.

 

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

[Tug]

Just commenting as a lay person I see no one in attendance supporting trump the man no family no friends also trump has been imploring his acolytes to demonstrate ….it’s been a rather flaccid response…….my take is trump is despondent 

[LosLobo]

1 hour ago, jerrymahoney said:

The FEC administers federal campaign finance laws. It enforces limitations and prohibitions on contributions and expenditures, administers the reporting system for campaign finance disclosure, investigates and prosecutes violations (investigations are typically initiated by complaints from other candidates, parties, watchdog groups, and the public), audits a limited number of campaigns and organizations for compliance, and administers the presidential public funding programs for presidential candidates.

 

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

 

The Federal Election Commission (FEC) has exclusive jurisdiction over the civil enforcement of federal campaign finance law. This includes handling investigations, audits, and administrative fines related to campaign finance violations.

The Department of Justice (DOJ), on the other hand, is responsible for the criminal enforcement of election law violations. This includes pursuing cases related to election fraud, campaign financing crimes, and civil rights crimes.

These distinctions clarify the separate roles of the FEC and DOJ in the context of enforcing election laws and are relevant to understanding the legal proceedings in cases like that of Donald Trump.

The FEC’s role is informative in such trials, but the determination of criminal violations is indeed made by the court, based on the evidence and applicable criminal statutes.

FEC | Legal resources | Enforcement

Federal Prosecution of Election Offenses Seventh Edition May 2007 (Revised August 2007) (justice.gov)

[jerrymahoney]

OK you did say criminal. As to what and why are Judge Merchan's restrictions on Brad Smith beyond what is said in the CNN article, I don't know. 

 

This is the non-prosecution agreement from DOJ to AMI/Pecker in the McDougal matter.

 

https://www.justice.gov/usao-sdny/press-release/file/1119501/dl

Edited April 29 by jerrymahoney

[jerrymahoney]

16 minutes ago, Tug said:

Just commenting as a lay person I see no one in attendance supporting trump the man no family no friends also trump has been imploring his acolytes to demonstrate ….it’s been a rather flaccid response…….my take is trump is despondent 

I don't know about friends but all of Trump's adult family members excepting Tiffany have been listed by Judge Merchan as potential witnesses and are excluded  from court prior to any testimony.

[LosLobo]

10 minutes ago, jerrymahoney said:

OK you did say criminal. As to what and why are Judge Marchan's restrictions on Brad Smith, I don't know. 

It seems you've provided the 'what' in your original post, and I've already provided the logical and likely 'why' in mine.

 

Edited April 29 by LosLobo

[jerrymahoney]

6 minutes ago, LosLobo said:

It seems you've provided the 'what' in your original post, and I've already provided the logical and likely 'why' in mine.

 

The why is your opinion likely or not.

 

NY times headline:

 

Why was Trump indicted by the Manhattan D.A. over hush money, but not by the Justice Department?
Some of the reasons appear to concern how federal prosecutors viewed Donald J. Trump’s longtime fixer, Michael D. Cohen.

 

March 31, 2023  The prosecutors and the Justice Department have never said publicly why Mr. Trump was not charged, but some of the reasons appear to concern how the prosecutors viewed Mr. Cohen, who is expected to be involved in the case brought by the district attorney, Alvin L. Bragg.

 

https://www.nytimes.com/2023/03/31/nyregion/justice-dept-trump-indictment-charges.html

Edited April 29 by jerrymahoney

[Tug]

12 minutes ago, jerrymahoney said:

I don't know about friends but all of Trump's adult family members excepting Tiffany have been listed by Judge Merchan as potential witnesses and are excluded  from court prior to any testimony.

Even maliana?

[Prubangboy]

30 minutes ago, Tug said:

 ….it’s been a rather flaccid response…….

Stormy, is that you?

[jerrymahoney]

3 minutes ago, Tug said:

Even maliana?

yes.

 

New York Judge Juan Merchan provided the names of over 40 potential witnesses in the trial, where Trump faces 34 felony charges for allegedly falsifying business records over hush money payments to Daniels ahead of the 2016 election.

 

Those potential witnesses also included members of Trump’s family, including his adult children Donald Trump Jr., Ivanka Trump and Eric Trump, as well as his wife Melania Trump and Jared Kushner, Ivanka Trump’s husband.

 

https://www.forbes.com/sites/brianbushard/2024/04/15/trump-witnesses-could-include-giuliani-steve-bannon-stormy-daniels-and-these-others-in-hush-money-trial/?sh=40d905142cff

Edited April 29 by jerrymahoney

[LosLobo]

7 minutes ago, jerrymahoney said:

Why was Trump indicted by the Manhattan D.A. over hush money, but not by the Justice Department?

As a purveyor of innuendo, perhaps Geoffery Berman could offer you a reason:

Geoffrey Berman, the former U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of New York, discusses his dismissal in his book titled “Holding the Line.” In the book, Berman describes his firing by Attorney General William Barr as politically motivated and details his clashes with Barr over various legal matters. 

He suggests that his independence and the investigations he was overseeing posed a threat to President Trump’s re-election, which led to his dismissal.

The book provides an insider’s perspective on the tensions between the Department of Justice under Trump and the Southern District of New York, offering a detailed account of Berman’s experience and the political pressures he faced.

Holding the Line review: Geoffrey Berman blasts Barr and dumps Trump | Books | The Guardian

[jerrymahoney]

I got up this morning and posted a CNN article about the only 2 identified Trump witnesses. Thank you..

[Yagoda]

I will laugh like a Banshee if Trump is aquitted. I will laugh more if he is convicted and its reveresed on appeal.

 

Hint: Molineaux Rule. Ask Harvey

[Danderman123]

41 minutes ago, Yagoda said:

I will laugh like a Banshee if Trump is aquitted. I will laugh more if he is convicted and its reveresed on appeal.

 

Hint: Molineaux Rule. Ask Harvey

I would give Trump a reasonable chance of being convicted. And a higher chance of the appeal mitigating the conviction. Years later.

[Danderman123]

What's going to convict Trump is his claim in court of not having a relationship with Stormy Daniels. Every witness who supports Ms. Daniels provides another nail in Trump's proverbial coffin.

[jerrymahoney]

Here's my going out on a limb but not predictions like the 2 above:

 

Michael Cohen negotiates for silence

2016: Actress Karen McDougal's attorney Keith Davidson approaches the National Enquirer about selling her story of an affair she had with Trump in 2006 and 2007, according to documents later filed by the Federal Election Commission.

<SNIP>

Davidson, who now also represents Daniels, tells the Enquirer she's willing to share details about her alleged affair on the record. The Enquirer notifies Cohen, who agrees to pay Daniels $130,000 in exchange for the rights to her story and a nondisclosure agreement.

 

https://www.axios.com/2023/03/18/trump-stormy-daniels-hush-money-trial-timeline

 

So if Ms. Daniels were ever a witness for prosecution, my question on cross-exam would be:

 

Why didn't you try to sell your story in 2015?

 

 

[Danderman123]

1 hour ago, jerrymahoney said:

 

 

Why didn't you try to sell your story in 2015?

 

 

You mean, before Trump was considered a realistic candidate?

 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2015/11/04/after-100-plus-days-donald-trump-falls-from-the-polling-average-lead/

Edited April 29 by Danderman123

[Chomper Higgot]

7 hours ago, Social Media said:

Endurance Test for Trump:

Oddly no mention of the Defendant falling asleep in court.

 

Although I understand this is now being portrayed as Defendant Trump being ‘Anti-Woke’. 

[jerrymahoney]

20 minutes ago, Danderman123 said:

You mean, before Trump was considered a realistic candidate?

Yes. She had tried once before in 2011.

 

[Danderman123]

3 minutes ago, jerrymahoney said:

Yes. She had tried once before in 2011.

 

She failed to sell the story before he was a credible candidate. Which he wasn't until the 2016 Republican primaries.

[jerrymahoney]

3 minutes ago, Danderman123 said:

She failed to sell the story before he was a credible candidate. Which he wasn't until the 2016 Republican primaries.

Right. She waited until Trump was a credible candidate to hire (or re-hire) Keith Davidson to shop her story. Trump did not seek out Daniels; Daniels through Davidson started shopping venues who would go the NDA/Catch&kill which for years has been Davidson's métier.

[Danderman123]

5 minutes ago, jerrymahoney said:

Right. She waited until Trump was a credible candidate to hire (or re-hire) Keith Davidson to shop her story. Trump did not seek out Daniels; Daniels through Davidson started shopping venues who would go the NDA/Catch&kill which for years has been Davidson's métier.

And your point is ....?

[jerrymahoney]

2 minutes ago, Danderman123 said:

And your point is ....?

My point if any is this is stuff that could come out if Stormy D. were called as a witness. Also

 

Updated Mar 22, 2024 at 6:58 AM EDT

That could include over $600,000 that Daniels owes Trump for her failed defamation suit. The total surpassed $600,000 after the adult film actress was ordered to pay Trump an additional $121,972 in legal fees last year.

https://www.newsweek.com/letitia-james-could-use-stormy-daniels-help-pay-donald-trumps-judgment-1882024

[earlinclaifornia]

3 hours ago, jerrymahoney said:

yes.

 

New York Judge Juan Merchan provided the names of over 40 potential witnesses in the trial, where Trump faces 34 felony charges for allegedly falsifying business records over hush money payments to Daniels ahead of the 2016 election.

 

Those potential witnesses also included members of Trump’s family, including his adult children Donald Trump Jr., Ivanka Trump and Eric Trump, as well as his wife Melania Trump and Jared Kushner, Ivanka Trump’s husband.

 

https://www.forbes.com/sites/brianbushard/2024/04/15/trump-witnesses-could-include-giuliani-steve-bannon-stormy-daniels-and-these-others-in-hush-money-trial/?sh=40d905142cff

Lara Trump is not a potential witness and is not in court to support Trump so far.

She was brave enough to show up at WHCD and took a beating well deserved though.

[Srikcir]

11 hours ago, Social Media said:

The trial signals an endurance test

What his long can Trump hold in his gas or stay awake?

[Roo Island]

What's the source? Kinda worthless without knowing

[thaipo7]

Tug -So far every one of your posts have been wrong because you are blinded by Democrat hatred.  This is a case about a nondisclosure agreement.  DA Bragg took this case up when so many others passed on it.  He went up the chain of command with an idea to call this "hush money" and upgraded it from a misdemeanor to a felony.  The upper brass was excited about this and gave him the OK.  "Hush money" sounds more sinister than a non-disclosure.  100s of non-disclosures  are issued every day in America, including at all the State controlled media outlets that you put your trust in.  This is only being used to keep Trump off the campaign trail.  Biden is so weak, any action to discount Trump is to be taken.  This is election interference by the Marxist Democrats.  Here is a little meme for you and your like minded friends.