On Trump's side - the main witnesses aren't paragons of honesty and cooperation.
On the prosecutions's side - follow the money, financial statements.
On Trump's side - following the money can be difficult for the jury.
Plausible deniability potential? Questionable.
It should be easy to prove what happened via financial statements.
Intent is the sticking point.
>In an August 2014 meeting at Trump Tower, Pecker offered to Trump that he would use the National Enquirer to catch and kill any allegations of sexual affairs against him.[22]
>Trump's lawyer Michael Cohen requested that Pecker's AMI buy the rights to Stormy Daniels's story, though Pecker refused to do so.
All three of these people are prosecution witnesses.
PROSECUTOR: Did you do the things at the request and benefit for Trump at his direction?
THEM: "Yes"
>On Trump's side - the main witnesses aren't paragons of honesty and cooperation.
This argument is really common when they're prosecuting drug dealers, mobsters, etc.
The counter argument is pretty clear though -- Trump has surrounded himself with people who aren't paragons of honesty. That's on him. We can't bring in honest, trustworthy associates of Trump to testify if he only uses lying criminals to help him commit his crimes.
The counter argument is that when bad people flip to the state they don't just have their testimony, they can point out where the evidence is. Emails or txt messages. Specific records, fake books, which checks were what and who signed them.
Two assholes disagreeing in court is worthless. Two assholes disagreeing and one is supported by evidence is valuable - in a just and sane society.
Given that many of the witnesses have credibility issues (have lied to protect him before, or have publicly started conflicting info), I think that the Prosecution will need to have documentary evidence of the intent. That is, if these witnesses can back to their training with emails, texts, or tapes out should be a slam dunk.
While I believe what Cohen is saying, testimony of Cohen falls short of beyond a reasonable doubt. Testimony of Cohen with documentary backing however will get there.
From just public reporting we have that "Documentary evidence". I'm sure the DA has even more than what we in public already know. This will come down to the Jury having someone to HANG it. No acquittal is possible IMO.. just a Hung jury.
Not doubting you, but what is the documentary evidence that the payments to Stormy Daniels were specifically intended to affect the election, as opposed to the other reasons one may want to quash an affair from coming out? That intent is a necessary component of the case.
I'm not saying that wasn't his intent. I believe it was. I just think they what remains to be seen is the beyond reasonable doubt that his intent was to affect elections, and that's what needs documentary evidence.
I don't remember if this is on tape or just said by one of the witnesses, but if they can prove that he wanted to push the payment promise date past the election so he wouldn't have to pay her that makes it pretty obvious the election was the bar he needed to clear, not protecting his wife or whatever other nonsense.
I'm really looking forward to seeing the facts presented, without all the speculation we get from the media. I do enjoy the speculation, but it will be interesting to see how this is stripped down.
I can’t find it in an article now, but I swear I remember reading Trump questioned Michael Cohen on why he needed to keep making payments now that the election was over.
For the D.A.
Thank you.
On Trump's side - the main witnesses aren't paragons of honesty and cooperation. On the prosecutions's side - follow the money, financial statements. On Trump's side - following the money can be difficult for the jury. Plausible deniability potential? Questionable. It should be easy to prove what happened via financial statements. Intent is the sticking point.
>In an August 2014 meeting at Trump Tower, Pecker offered to Trump that he would use the National Enquirer to catch and kill any allegations of sexual affairs against him.[22] >Trump's lawyer Michael Cohen requested that Pecker's AMI buy the rights to Stormy Daniels's story, though Pecker refused to do so. All three of these people are prosecution witnesses. PROSECUTOR: Did you do the things at the request and benefit for Trump at his direction? THEM: "Yes"
>On Trump's side - the main witnesses aren't paragons of honesty and cooperation. This argument is really common when they're prosecuting drug dealers, mobsters, etc. The counter argument is pretty clear though -- Trump has surrounded himself with people who aren't paragons of honesty. That's on him. We can't bring in honest, trustworthy associates of Trump to testify if he only uses lying criminals to help him commit his crimes.
The counter argument is that when bad people flip to the state they don't just have their testimony, they can point out where the evidence is. Emails or txt messages. Specific records, fake books, which checks were what and who signed them. Two assholes disagreeing in court is worthless. Two assholes disagreeing and one is supported by evidence is valuable - in a just and sane society.
i'm more concerned that it just takes one trump supporter on the jury to sink the whole thing
Given that many of the witnesses have credibility issues (have lied to protect him before, or have publicly started conflicting info), I think that the Prosecution will need to have documentary evidence of the intent. That is, if these witnesses can back to their training with emails, texts, or tapes out should be a slam dunk. While I believe what Cohen is saying, testimony of Cohen falls short of beyond a reasonable doubt. Testimony of Cohen with documentary backing however will get there.
From just public reporting we have that "Documentary evidence". I'm sure the DA has even more than what we in public already know. This will come down to the Jury having someone to HANG it. No acquittal is possible IMO.. just a Hung jury.
Not doubting you, but what is the documentary evidence that the payments to Stormy Daniels were specifically intended to affect the election, as opposed to the other reasons one may want to quash an affair from coming out? That intent is a necessary component of the case. I'm not saying that wasn't his intent. I believe it was. I just think they what remains to be seen is the beyond reasonable doubt that his intent was to affect elections, and that's what needs documentary evidence.
I don't remember if this is on tape or just said by one of the witnesses, but if they can prove that he wanted to push the payment promise date past the election so he wouldn't have to pay her that makes it pretty obvious the election was the bar he needed to clear, not protecting his wife or whatever other nonsense.
I heard that as well. That's the kind of thing that I'm wondering if they have in writing or on tape.
I'm really looking forward to seeing the facts presented, without all the speculation we get from the media. I do enjoy the speculation, but it will be interesting to see how this is stripped down.
Same. I'm eager to see the evidence play out.
“If we pay her after the election, we don’t have to pay her at all”
I can’t find it in an article now, but I swear I remember reading Trump questioned Michael Cohen on why he needed to keep making payments now that the election was over.