The biggest problem with the Hush money trial

a reply to: crayzeed

YEP!

And, there's already proof she took the money.

Case closed.

originally posted by: JadedGhost

originally posted by: xuenchen

originally posted by: JadedGhost
a reply to: CarlLaFong

They reimbursed Cohen with extra to cover the taxes, which indicates Trump payed it with the full knowledge it was being disguised as legal expenses.

Is there 100% rock solid verified proof of that? 😃

That’s up to the jury to decide.

In order for there to be a jury, there needs to be a crime for a jury to deliberate on.

What's the crime????

This has gone on way too long.

I pay my hookers with food stamps.

Prostitution is a barter trade activity. You give me something and I give you something in return.

a reply to: network dude

NDA....this matter is an intriguing one. There is the assumption that in having SD paid and NDA signed that this may have got DJT elected due to her silence. Clearly that is not the case. A fan of Trumo does not give to hoots about this. Infact I believe his fans only got more involved with his election. That right there makes the election interfere aspect moot.
And honestly even though I don't agree with sleeping around and using wealth and an NDA to cover one's tracts, it is what it is. I don't see a crime really as not a single person was hurt financially I don't think. Well accept for the freaking tax payers......like as in the courts system being turned into a fantastical game show.
I just woke up after a long night and wanted to give my opinion on the matter.

originally posted by: JadedGhost
a reply to: network dude

What all these other witnesses are doing is confirming Cohens testimony when he takes the stand with the knock out blow.

Do you agree the fact Trump paid Cohen validates Cohen?

a reply to: Flyingclaydisk

I dislike the guy just on principle, but this case I really am failing to see any serious crime.
Maybe violations gag order but that is only there because of this trial.

originally posted by: JadedGhost

originally posted by: xuenchen

originally posted by: JadedGhost
a reply to: CarlLaFong

They reimbursed Cohen with extra to cover the taxes, which indicates Trump payed it with the full knowledge it was being disguised as legal expenses.

Is there 100% rock solid verified proof of that? 😃

That’s up to the jury to decide.

How can a Jury "decide" something without proof? 😀

a reply to: budzprime69

Gag order violations for a trial where no crime has even been announced, and a man has been thus falsely accused???

Wow!...that's a stretch. I wouldn't be surprised to see Bragg or someone go there though, before this is all over.

Maybe the judge should have just ordered Trump, or John Q Public, not to speak at all, ever. That's essentially what this would amount to, that a judge can just arbitrarily order an average person walking down the street to never speak again.

These guys are in so far over their heads it's laughable, and they keep digging their hole deeper.

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: JadedGhost
a reply to: network dude

What all these other witnesses are doing is confirming Cohens testimony when he takes the stand with the knock out blow.

Do you agree the fact Trump paid Cohen validates Cohen?

How do we know Cohen told Trump the truth about the "legal" fees ? 💡

originally posted by: xuenchen

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: JadedGhost
a reply to: network dude

What all these other witnesses are doing is confirming Cohens testimony when he takes the stand with the knock out blow.

Do you agree the fact Trump paid Cohen validates Cohen?

How do we know Cohen told Trump the truth about the "legal" fees ? 💡

Why does that matter?

But pretty sure it’s been established what this payment was for.

Now up to the jury.

a reply to: Flyingclaydisk

Og the gag order is a joke IMHO.
It's a violation of the 1st to order that when a crime has not been committed. I get that noone should ever talk to or reference a judge or those in the court in a negative light. But we have rights and I'm sorry but no judge will ever tell me to shut up when I have done nothing wrong.
She signed the NDA. This ended with that right there.

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: xuenchen

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: JadedGhost
a reply to: network dude

What all these other witnesses are doing is confirming Cohens testimony when he takes the stand with the knock out blow.

Do you agree the fact Trump paid Cohen validates Cohen?

How do we know Cohen told Trump the truth about the "legal" fees ? 💡

Why does that matter?

But pretty sure it’s been established what this payment was for.

Now up to the jury.

Yup. The payment was made by Cohen. 😃

originally posted by: xuenchen

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: xuenchen

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: JadedGhost
a reply to: network dude

What all these other witnesses are doing is confirming Cohens testimony when he takes the stand with the knock out blow.

Do you agree the fact Trump paid Cohen validates Cohen?

How do we know Cohen told Trump the truth about the "legal" fees ? 💡

Why does that matter?

But pretty sure it’s been established what this payment was for.

Now up to the jury.

Yup. The payment was made by Cohen. 😃

If Trump had not paid Cohen back we would not be discussing this.

The Wall Street Journal reported on January 12, 2018, that Cohen paid Daniels $130,000 in October 2016, a month before the election, to stop her discussing the alleged affair.

He held no political position when the alleged incident occurred. Who cares anyway?

originally posted by: xuenchen

originally posted by: JadedGhost

originally posted by: xuenchen

originally posted by: JadedGhost
a reply to: CarlLaFong

They reimbursed Cohen with extra to cover the taxes, which indicates Trump payed it with the full knowledge it was being disguised as legal expenses.

Is there 100% rock solid verified proof of that? 😃

That’s up to the jury to decide.

How can a Jury "decide" something without proof? 😀

It’s up to the jury to decide if there is absolute proof. I personally think there is, but that’s kind of irrelevant.

originally posted by: StoutBroux

The Wall Street Journal reported on January 12, 2018, that Cohen paid Daniels $130,000 in October 2016, a month before the election, to stop her discussing the alleged affair.

He held no political position when the alleged incident occurred. Who cares anyway?

But he was campaigning for office.

originally posted by: JadedGhost

originally posted by: xuenchen

originally posted by: JadedGhost

originally posted by: xuenchen

originally posted by: JadedGhost
a reply to: CarlLaFong

They reimbursed Cohen with extra to cover the taxes, which indicates Trump payed it with the full knowledge it was being disguised as legal expenses.

Is there 100% rock solid verified proof of that? 😃

That’s up to the jury to decide.

How can a Jury "decide" something without proof? 😀

It’s up to the jury to decide if there is absolute proof. I personally think there is, but that’s kind of irrelevant.

There’s proof.

But is it enough to get a conviction?

originally posted by: network dude
Even thought Brag has not offered up a crime yet, there is one glaring problem with all of this. It's kind of obvious, but apparently, it needs to be pointed out. Here we have an insunation that Trump paid that porn star to stay quiet. I think that is accepted as true. Trump admits, it, and everyone agrees that happened. Bragg claims the reason was to sway the electoin, and somehow that's a crime. If we can accept that, then how do we make that into a crime?

......

Looking forward to being schooled.

I believe the prosecution is claiming that Trump is in violation of two NY laws simultaneously.

New York State Statute § 175.10 Falsifying business records in the first degree. A person is guilty of falsifying business records in the first degree when he commits the crime of falsifying business records in the second degree, and when his intent to defraud includes an intent to commit another crime or to aid or conceal the commission thereof. Falsifying business records in the first degree is a class E felony.

New York State Statute: § 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 unlawful means and which conspiracy is acted upon by one or more of the parties thereto, shall be guilty of a misdemeanor.

He falsified business records. That's what the prosecution claims the documentary evidence and testimony shows. If true, that would mean he committed the misdemeanor of falsifying records in the second degree, regardless of any other considerations.

But the intent of that misdemeanor was to promote the election of Trump by the unlawful means of committing that misdemeanor. That's the additional crime and that intent raises the falsification of the records to a felony.

And by the way Trump (or his lawyers) do NOT admit that the sexual encounter took place. That's the entire reason for Stormy Daniels' testimony. The judge [Merchan] pointed this out in his decision the other day:

"Merchan also referred back to the defense’s opening statement when Blanche denied there was ever a sexual encounter between Daniels and Trump. The judge said that assertion opened the door for the prosecution to make an effort to show her story was credible to prove their case, allowing them to ask more detailed questions about the encounter.

“The more specificity Ms. Daniels can provide about the encounter, the more the jury can weigh whether the encounter did occur and if so whether they choose to credit Ms. Daniels’ story,” Merchan said.

Anyone that can look at this case, and then ignore the congressional slush fund to pay hush money and not see the double standard needs to step away from following this stuff.

Even if convicted of a felony (honestly I dont see how he can get a fair trial where he is) it wont prevent him from running and potentially holding office, which refers me back to the first point because I would wager a number of politicians in NY could be prosecuted for the same thing and crickets.

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: xuenchen

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: xuenchen

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: JadedGhost
a reply to: network dude

What all these other witnesses are doing is confirming Cohens testimony when he takes the stand with the knock out blow.

Do you agree the fact Trump paid Cohen validates Cohen?

How do we know Cohen told Trump the truth about the "legal" fees ? 💡

Why does that matter?

But pretty sure it’s been established what this payment was for.

Now up to the jury.

Yup. The payment was made by Cohen. 😃

If Trump had not paid Cohen back we would not be discussing this.

And if the accountant(s) redrew the columns maybe the Sun would have rose from The West that day too. 😀

Legal fees are legal fees when a lawyer tells a client it's legal fees. 😀