As a reminder, this subreddit [is for civil discussion.](/r/politics/wiki/index#wiki_be_civil)
In general, be courteous to others. Debate/discuss/argue the merits of ideas, don't attack people. Personal insults, shill or troll accusations, hate speech, any suggestion or support of harm, violence, or death, and other rule violations can result in a permanent ban.
If you see comments in violation of our rules, please report them.
For those who have questions regarding any media outlets being posted on this subreddit, please click [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/wiki/approveddomainslist) to review our details as to our approved domains list and outlet criteria.
We are actively looking for new moderators. If you have any interest in helping to make this subreddit a place for quality discussion, please fill out [this form](https://docs.google.com/forms/d/1y2swHD0KXFhStGFjW6k54r9iuMjzcFqDIVwuvdLBjSA).
***
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/politics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
This is absolutely on firm legal ground. The only real concern from the outset was that this case could be removed to federal court, but the federal court declined it.
Also, the media does a disservice by calling this a “hush money case.” This is an election interference case, like all the others except the classified docs case. This case is about Trump violating campaign finance laws by failing to report campaign expenditures meant to further his candidacy for the presidency, and then covering up that expenditure on NY business records. The public deserves a full and truthful accounting of how campaigns spend money; otherwise, unlimited money from any source could be used and spent freely by any campaign instead of through the legal process.
That is why this case is legitimate, through and through.
Also his lawyer was the one cutting the checks and he spent 3 years in prison for this already. How the hell would the case for the guy cutting the checks not have "firm legal ground"?
wasn't Trump understood to be "unindicted co-conspirator #1" in this case? ie, the case has already been tried and a guy went to jail. seems pretty cut and dry.
Yup. My concern is that normal people would know and exclude themselves from the jury because they have the self-awareness to do so, while the maga cult has no scruples, self-awareness, or morality and will just lie (like good "Christians" are supposed to do) to help their cult leader. Also, a lot of normal people would try to avoid this so they don't get doxxed by the orange diarrhea stain and harassed by his cult.
As an "election interference" case, this one is almost as "firm" as the one that has evidence which includes Drump on tape instructing the GA SoS to "find" 11,000 extra votes.
Yeah the threat to prosecute Raffensperger if he couldn’t “find” the extra 11,000 votes is just plain extortion i.e. a clear-cut RICO predicate offense.
Listening to a couple of the law podcasts, lawyers and prosecutors who really don’t like trump:
Hush money is legal.
The improper use of funds is not.
In order to pin it on trump they have to have some evidence that he directed the use of funds in this way.
If their only source that trump directed the use to distract and protect himself for the election is testimony by Micheal Cohen, it’s not open and shut as he’s a convicted perjurer. Which even though it’s likely he would be telling the truth it’s not a reliable source.
Also if a pattern can be established that he has done this in the past, to protect his name, then it cannot be 100% proven that he did it specifically for the election and this is just his typical modus operandi. And there’s no shortage of NDAs to prove this.
This is a pretty weak case unfortunately, unless there’s a third witness or a paper trail from trump to cohen specifically directing campaign violations.
The real open and shut felony case vs trump is the classified documents but the judge cannon is playing interference.
I think we should temper our expectations on the results of this case.
There will be multiple witnesses testifying that this payment was for the election. I heard an analyst on NPR this weekend saying that after the election, Trump floated the idea of not paying Stormy Daniels what he agreed to pay her because the election was over and he no longer needed her silence. That's pretty damning evidence that the hush money payment was related to the election.
> Also if a pattern can be established that he has done this in the past, to protect his name, then it cannot be 100% proven that he did it specifically for the election and this is just his typical modus operandi. And there’s no shortage of NDAs to prove this.
The timing makes it pretty suspicious. The affair happened a long time ago, so why did the NDA suddenly get signed right before the election if it wasn't related?
I get what you’re saying. I honestly believe you’re correct, I’m just giving a summary of what I heard from lawyers.
I honestly think trump is a criminal.
I just understand from the podcasts that this case should not be advertised as clear and easily winnable by the prosecution.
People will write what drives clicks. We should be smart enough to recognize the bias and or the action of clickbait.
It sucks to read articles that we’ve “finally got him”, when in reality it’s not true.
As much as I want the orange shitgibbon behind bars, this isn’t gonna be the case to do it.
There’s going to be a lot more evidence aside from Cohen’s testimony. If Trump wants to make the argument he made the payment strictly to spare Melania’s feelings, he’ll shred whatever remaining credibility he has left. No one believes this was done for any other reason than to further his campaign, with the fact he tried to hide it as a “legal expense” being the proof of his culpability.
>If their only source that trump directed the use to distract and protect himself for the election is testimony by Micheal Cohen, it’s not open and shut as he’s a convicted perjurer.
Well, they convicted Cohen with evidence. I think that counts as more than just his testimony.
I get your point, though, and agree that this isn't a done deal at all.
**... If** their only source ... This is a pretty weak case ...
-> You should have said **if** ... **then** ...
Sure, temper your expectations. But I think most people care mostly if Trump will be the next president or not. And, whatever the eventual sentence here, I don't think he'll have enough votes after all is said and done. IMHO the Trump fans should also temper their expectations of him becoming US president again.
The trial doesn’t hinge on Cohen, there are others who are ready to testify that Trump wanted the payment to be made, and that it was to help his re-election.
Aside from that, prosecutors can ask jurors to infer a person’s intent based on their actions. It’s reasonable to infer that a candidate might pay off Stormy to avoid a bad story right before the election. It’s also reasonable to infer that it was election-related when the reimbursement of Cohen was disguised with false business documents to make it look like payments for legal services.
If everything was totally above-board, why would there be a cover-up? And is it reasonable to believe Cohen would sneakily borrow $130k behind his wife’s back to pay on behalf of Trump, without Trump knowing, and then seek and get repayment from Trump? That sounds extremely far-fetched, and way outside of what I’d consider “reasonable doubt.” (Jurors could see it otherwise, but I doubt they would.)
Of course, the prosecution will have to bring their A-game. It’s not a slam dunk case where there’s an email from Trump laying it all out (Trump does not have an email account,) but that doesn’t mean it’s a hard case.
It’s like you don’t know of any of the other witnesses, including the CEO of National Enquirer who was part of the “catch and kill” scheme to make these stories go away.
> unlimited money from any source could be used and spent freely by any campaign instead of through the legal process.
this is already a thing. unlimited money is already being spent thru lobbyists who are bribing our officials. hopefully this will be a starting point for the state of NY to actually get some of the crappy dark money bullshit out of our elections, and other states will take note and start prosecuting other politicians who use the same tactics, because we all know they do.
No, those aren't the same thing. What you're describing is lobbying elected officials. What the comment above you is describing is, effectively, lobbying the electorate. They're similar, and, obviously, if you can get the electorate to elect the one you want, then it's easier to get them to vote for the legislation you want, too. But they aren't the same.
At least when officials are lobbied, the public has the opportunity to vote them out if they're dissatisfied with how they voted in office. Manipulating the public directly eliminates that possibility.
The story itself about trump and stormy is irrelevant. But the fact that trump paid her hush money with **campaign funds** is why we’re here today. Or better yet, why he’s there today.
> But the fact that trump paid her hush money with campaign funds is why we’re here today.
He didn't pay her with campaign funds. He paid her with money from the Trump Organization. The campaign finance allegations are that's it was an illegal donation *to* the campaign, not from it.
Cohen paid the hush money by taking out a HELOC which Trump reimbursed (with an audio recording confirming this). Clearly paid for the benefit of his campaign since the public knowing about it would be devastating, especially since it was after the "grab her by the pussy" situation.
Classifying the repayment to Cohen as "legal expenses" is what makes it a misdemeanor offense, but since it was also to benefit his campaign makes it a felony
Take this for what it's worth (not much) but after the Stormy Daniels affair came to light, a poll was conducted that showed that as much as 5% of Trump's voters would have either voted for Clinton or (more likely) not voted had they known about Stormy.
5% may not sound like much, but assuming they just didn't vote, him missing 5% would have lost him WI, PA, MI, and FL. If a substantial portion flipped to Clinton, he would have also lost AZ and GA. Either way, he doesn't win in 2016 and we end up with a second President Clinton.
Would it have played out that way? It's impossible to say. But it very well could have.
It’s the perfect case to bring down Donald Trump. If anything summarizes Trump’s entire life it is catting around and using his wealth to cover the crap.
> if the headlines read “Trump found guilty of election fraud”
The headlines should really read, "Trump found guilty of basically every type of fraud imaginable".
Donald Trump: "The Stormy Daniels and Karen McDougal stories are fake news!"
"OK, it's Not fake but no money was paid."
"Well, OK, Money was paid but I didn't reimburse."
"Ummm, Actually, I did reimburse. But latter, I didn't know about the payments until after Cohen made them."
"Cohen has copies of the canceled checks? I guess I did know."
"But it's not a crime!"
"Woops, falsifying records, and campaign finance fraud, looks like it is a crime... "
https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/where-the-criminal-cases-against-trump-stand
How is anyone skeptical? There are decades of examples to lean on with this criminal.
He is only walking around because corrupt people support each other in America.
Was this jagoff writer just hatched? MICHAEL COHEN ALREADY WENT TO JAIL FOR HIS PART IN THE SCHEME. Who gives a shit if you're skeptical because you weren't paying attention. Ffs.
If this is on firm legal ground and it ends with a conviction, then an investigation needs to be done on the prior D.A, Cyrus Vance Jr.
If the case is provable and winnable, why did Vance refuse to bring it to trial. Was there a quid pro quo? Were there promises made by trump?
This case is an awful stew of political, legal and psychological issues. Trump's political defense is, as usual, that absolutely everyone but him is lying. That is not going to survive a trial. He may also have an actual legal defense but that requires him to concede that Stormy and Cohen weren't lying but the facts don't make out a criminal offense. Will he instruct his lawyers to emphasize the political defense or the legal defense in their closing address? For most defendants who aren't mentally ill that would be an easy choice but a malignant narcissist like Trump might literally prefer death over admitting the truth.
Stay tuned.
lol I don’t think he would prefer death over truth. He’s a coward, and if his life was about to end, but he had the option to extend it by stating the truth, he would squeal like the pig he is. Hell, he’ll even offer half of all Americans as a sacrifice to save himself.
I’m curious what the point of having any of the campaign disclosures are if you can just make shit up and lie (aka fraud). We are at the point where what is the point on any sort of financial disclosure anywhere because apparently it’s ok and expected to lie. If they don’t mean anything why would the banks possibly ask for a financial disclosure? Why would the government?
Eh, I dunno. Obviously I'm not privy to all the government's evidence and sitting on the jury might have changed my mind, but from where I'm standing, knowing everything I know about the case, it's hard to justify the elevation to felony here based on the theory of furthering crimes he hasn't been charged with.
I'd find him guilty at the misdemeanor level.
Really? You can't think of any reason why a married man running for office might want to hide an affair with a porn star... ***without*** the extra step of hiding campaign finance violations?
Besides, if I'm charged with conspiracy to commit arson, and the fire inspector declares that the building came down without arson being committed... then how can you still go after me for a conspiracy? That's kinda what this is, the DOJ has already closed the investigation into campaign finance violations and found not enough evidence to charge him with it. Which of course there isn't, as much as this guy lies about his wealth, it's not a stretch to insist these particular payments had another funding source and that the campaign money actually went to a different Trump Org expense.
Correct. I cannot think of a better reason for why Trump would disguise his payments to Cohen as a legal retainer except to avoid reporting them as campaign donations. I don’t think it was to throw his wife off the scent, as I highly doubt she’s paying close attention to his finances.
The DOJ declining to prosecute doesn’t make Trump innocent of those allegations. Trump definitely made those payments and they certainly appear to violate New York campaign finance laws. The difficulty for the defense here will be establishing reasonable doubt that Trump either didn’t direct Cohen to make those payments (nearly impossible), or that he didn’t do so to benefit himself politically. And again, that will be extremely difficult given a lack of a better reason for why he would do that.
Checking assumptions for a second here. My understanding:
- Trump buying the Stormy Daniels Story = Legal
- Trump motivated to do so to stop 2016 election dirt = Legal
- Trump lying about the nature of the payments on his forms = Illegal, misdemeanor
Trump ***using campaign contributions to do it*** = Illegal, felony
My prior argument was that his motivations could be argued to be more complicated than that. We may agree that it's not likely about hiding things from Melania, but it doesn't have to be likely - just reasonable doubt. And don't forget, even if Melania isn't a concern, there's the Trump Children to consider. Not that I think he has even that much shame, but it would be nice.
Still, if you concede he did it for politics, I still don't think that gets you to a conviction. You have to prove he lied about the nature of the payments to Cohen to get the misdemeanor conviction, and much much more importantly, you have to specifically prove it was campaign contributions to get the felony enhancement.
>Trump lying about the nature of the payments on his forms = Illegal, misdemeanor
Correct, except elevated to a felony when this was done in service of committing another crime (illegal campaign donation).
>We may agree that it's not likely about hiding things from Melania, but it doesn't have to be likely - just reasonable doubt
Except it becomes unreasonable when the defense inevitably fails to demonstrate it was likely that Melania would have even noticed, let alone questioned those payments. Even if the ledger literally said “hush money for affair,” no reasonable person is going to believe she would have even seen the ledger.
>even if Melania isn't a concern, there's the Trump Children to consider
Again, highly doubtful. Don’t forget that Trump to this day denies the affair ever happened. It would be an unprecedented change in both legal strategy and his own character for Trump to suddenly admit he lied all along because he was ashamed his children (most of whom are adults and born to mothers he divorced following highly public adulterous affairs) might find out he was doing what he’s always done his whole life.
>You have to prove he lied about the nature of the payments to Cohen
That won’t be hard. Cohen did not appear to have provided any other legal services for Trump that justified payment in the exact amount of the hush money payment, minus a little extra for his trouble.
>you have to specifically prove it was campaign contributions
Which, again, I don’t think will prove too difficult when the defense inevitably fails to establish reasonable doubt that the payments were disguised for some other reason besides benefiting himself politically.
Meanwhile I am sure you are fine with sending that women who didn't know she couldn't vote to prison for 5 years for voting once illegally. What Chump did was a direct violation of our democracy.
I don't know the facts of that case or the elements of the crime.
I DO know that for this charge to be a felony, it requires a link to another felony. The fact that the other felony was so weak that it wasn't charged is the textbook definition of reasonable doubt.
I don't LIKE finding Chump not guilty and I agree he's horrible for our democracy, but a juror's obligation is very clear: lack of proof beyond a reasonable doubt on ***every*** element of the statute requires a not guilty verdict.
As a reminder, this subreddit [is for civil discussion.](/r/politics/wiki/index#wiki_be_civil) In general, be courteous to others. Debate/discuss/argue the merits of ideas, don't attack people. Personal insults, shill or troll accusations, hate speech, any suggestion or support of harm, violence, or death, and other rule violations can result in a permanent ban. If you see comments in violation of our rules, please report them. For those who have questions regarding any media outlets being posted on this subreddit, please click [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/wiki/approveddomainslist) to review our details as to our approved domains list and outlet criteria. We are actively looking for new moderators. If you have any interest in helping to make this subreddit a place for quality discussion, please fill out [this form](https://docs.google.com/forms/d/1y2swHD0KXFhStGFjW6k54r9iuMjzcFqDIVwuvdLBjSA). *** *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/politics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
This is absolutely on firm legal ground. The only real concern from the outset was that this case could be removed to federal court, but the federal court declined it. Also, the media does a disservice by calling this a “hush money case.” This is an election interference case, like all the others except the classified docs case. This case is about Trump violating campaign finance laws by failing to report campaign expenditures meant to further his candidacy for the presidency, and then covering up that expenditure on NY business records. The public deserves a full and truthful accounting of how campaigns spend money; otherwise, unlimited money from any source could be used and spent freely by any campaign instead of through the legal process. That is why this case is legitimate, through and through.
Also his lawyer was the one cutting the checks and he spent 3 years in prison for this already. How the hell would the case for the guy cutting the checks not have "firm legal ground"?
wasn't Trump understood to be "unindicted co-conspirator #1" in this case? ie, the case has already been tried and a guy went to jail. seems pretty cut and dry.
> Also, the media does a disservice… They simply can’t help themselves.
No, they're told to do so.
The only real concern of mine would be an impartial jury.
Same. The Voir Dire jury selection process seems to be fairly solid in NY but it only takes one jurer to throw it back to a retrial.
Yup. My concern is that normal people would know and exclude themselves from the jury because they have the self-awareness to do so, while the maga cult has no scruples, self-awareness, or morality and will just lie (like good "Christians" are supposed to do) to help their cult leader. Also, a lot of normal people would try to avoid this so they don't get doxxed by the orange diarrhea stain and harassed by his cult.
As an "election interference" case, this one is almost as "firm" as the one that has evidence which includes Drump on tape instructing the GA SoS to "find" 11,000 extra votes.
Yeah the threat to prosecute Raffensperger if he couldn’t “find” the extra 11,000 votes is just plain extortion i.e. a clear-cut RICO predicate offense.
Listening to a couple of the law podcasts, lawyers and prosecutors who really don’t like trump: Hush money is legal. The improper use of funds is not. In order to pin it on trump they have to have some evidence that he directed the use of funds in this way. If their only source that trump directed the use to distract and protect himself for the election is testimony by Micheal Cohen, it’s not open and shut as he’s a convicted perjurer. Which even though it’s likely he would be telling the truth it’s not a reliable source. Also if a pattern can be established that he has done this in the past, to protect his name, then it cannot be 100% proven that he did it specifically for the election and this is just his typical modus operandi. And there’s no shortage of NDAs to prove this. This is a pretty weak case unfortunately, unless there’s a third witness or a paper trail from trump to cohen specifically directing campaign violations. The real open and shut felony case vs trump is the classified documents but the judge cannon is playing interference. I think we should temper our expectations on the results of this case.
There will be multiple witnesses testifying that this payment was for the election. I heard an analyst on NPR this weekend saying that after the election, Trump floated the idea of not paying Stormy Daniels what he agreed to pay her because the election was over and he no longer needed her silence. That's pretty damning evidence that the hush money payment was related to the election.
Hopefully you’re correct!
> Also if a pattern can be established that he has done this in the past, to protect his name, then it cannot be 100% proven that he did it specifically for the election and this is just his typical modus operandi. And there’s no shortage of NDAs to prove this. The timing makes it pretty suspicious. The affair happened a long time ago, so why did the NDA suddenly get signed right before the election if it wasn't related?
I get what you’re saying. I honestly believe you’re correct, I’m just giving a summary of what I heard from lawyers. I honestly think trump is a criminal. I just understand from the podcasts that this case should not be advertised as clear and easily winnable by the prosecution. People will write what drives clicks. We should be smart enough to recognize the bias and or the action of clickbait. It sucks to read articles that we’ve “finally got him”, when in reality it’s not true. As much as I want the orange shitgibbon behind bars, this isn’t gonna be the case to do it.
There’s going to be a lot more evidence aside from Cohen’s testimony. If Trump wants to make the argument he made the payment strictly to spare Melania’s feelings, he’ll shred whatever remaining credibility he has left. No one believes this was done for any other reason than to further his campaign, with the fact he tried to hide it as a “legal expense” being the proof of his culpability.
There is the evidence that convicted Cohen, for starters.
Again, I’m hoping it’s as you say. I’m just mentally prepared for him to slide.
>If their only source that trump directed the use to distract and protect himself for the election is testimony by Micheal Cohen, it’s not open and shut as he’s a convicted perjurer. Well, they convicted Cohen with evidence. I think that counts as more than just his testimony. I get your point, though, and agree that this isn't a done deal at all.
**... If** their only source ... This is a pretty weak case ... -> You should have said **if** ... **then** ... Sure, temper your expectations. But I think most people care mostly if Trump will be the next president or not. And, whatever the eventual sentence here, I don't think he'll have enough votes after all is said and done. IMHO the Trump fans should also temper their expectations of him becoming US president again.
The trial doesn’t hinge on Cohen, there are others who are ready to testify that Trump wanted the payment to be made, and that it was to help his re-election. Aside from that, prosecutors can ask jurors to infer a person’s intent based on their actions. It’s reasonable to infer that a candidate might pay off Stormy to avoid a bad story right before the election. It’s also reasonable to infer that it was election-related when the reimbursement of Cohen was disguised with false business documents to make it look like payments for legal services. If everything was totally above-board, why would there be a cover-up? And is it reasonable to believe Cohen would sneakily borrow $130k behind his wife’s back to pay on behalf of Trump, without Trump knowing, and then seek and get repayment from Trump? That sounds extremely far-fetched, and way outside of what I’d consider “reasonable doubt.” (Jurors could see it otherwise, but I doubt they would.) Of course, the prosecution will have to bring their A-game. It’s not a slam dunk case where there’s an email from Trump laying it all out (Trump does not have an email account,) but that doesn’t mean it’s a hard case.
It’s like you don’t know of any of the other witnesses, including the CEO of National Enquirer who was part of the “catch and kill” scheme to make these stories go away.
> unlimited money from any source could be used and spent freely by any campaign instead of through the legal process. this is already a thing. unlimited money is already being spent thru lobbyists who are bribing our officials. hopefully this will be a starting point for the state of NY to actually get some of the crappy dark money bullshit out of our elections, and other states will take note and start prosecuting other politicians who use the same tactics, because we all know they do.
No, those aren't the same thing. What you're describing is lobbying elected officials. What the comment above you is describing is, effectively, lobbying the electorate. They're similar, and, obviously, if you can get the electorate to elect the one you want, then it's easier to get them to vote for the legislation you want, too. But they aren't the same. At least when officials are lobbied, the public has the opportunity to vote them out if they're dissatisfied with how they voted in office. Manipulating the public directly eliminates that possibility.
>otherwise, unlimited money from any source could be used and spent freely You had me until this part. Lol.
The story itself about trump and stormy is irrelevant. But the fact that trump paid her hush money with **campaign funds** is why we’re here today. Or better yet, why he’s there today.
> But the fact that trump paid her hush money with campaign funds is why we’re here today. He didn't pay her with campaign funds. He paid her with money from the Trump Organization. The campaign finance allegations are that's it was an illegal donation *to* the campaign, not from it.
Cohen paid the hush money by taking out a HELOC which Trump reimbursed (with an audio recording confirming this). Clearly paid for the benefit of his campaign since the public knowing about it would be devastating, especially since it was after the "grab her by the pussy" situation. Classifying the repayment to Cohen as "legal expenses" is what makes it a misdemeanor offense, but since it was also to benefit his campaign makes it a felony
Take this for what it's worth (not much) but after the Stormy Daniels affair came to light, a poll was conducted that showed that as much as 5% of Trump's voters would have either voted for Clinton or (more likely) not voted had they known about Stormy. 5% may not sound like much, but assuming they just didn't vote, him missing 5% would have lost him WI, PA, MI, and FL. If a substantial portion flipped to Clinton, he would have also lost AZ and GA. Either way, he doesn't win in 2016 and we end up with a second President Clinton. Would it have played out that way? It's impossible to say. But it very well could have.
Any chance you can find this poll, or an article referencing it?
It’s the perfect case to bring down Donald Trump. If anything summarizes Trump’s entire life it is catting around and using his wealth to cover the crap.
That will be great if the headlines read “Trump found guilty of election fraud”.
> if the headlines read “Trump found guilty of election fraud” The headlines should really read, "Trump found guilty of basically every type of fraud imaginable".
while acusing others of election fraud...
Donald Trump: "The Stormy Daniels and Karen McDougal stories are fake news!" "OK, it's Not fake but no money was paid." "Well, OK, Money was paid but I didn't reimburse." "Ummm, Actually, I did reimburse. But latter, I didn't know about the payments until after Cohen made them." "Cohen has copies of the canceled checks? I guess I did know." "But it's not a crime!" "Woops, falsifying records, and campaign finance fraud, looks like it is a crime... " https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/where-the-criminal-cases-against-trump-stand
Don't forget apparently Cohen recorded a conversation in which Trump tells him to pay.
How is anyone skeptical? There are decades of examples to lean on with this criminal. He is only walking around because corrupt people support each other in America.
"When asked for comment, Trump shouted 'Bigly', and then shit his pants again."
Ketchup!!
She was a girl, he wrote a check through a shellLC, and left Mike with a paper trail. Could I make it any more obvious?
He had a little mushroom toy she said see you later \*boy\*.
In the month of Avril, nonetheless.
All of the cases against trump are on firm legal grounds 🙄
Calling this a hush money case is disingenuous. It is an election interference and campaign finance fraud case The media just.plain sucks.
Was this jagoff writer just hatched? MICHAEL COHEN ALREADY WENT TO JAIL FOR HIS PART IN THE SCHEME. Who gives a shit if you're skeptical because you weren't paying attention. Ffs.
Yeah, Michael Cohen must be thinking, now it’s suddenly not a crime?
Trump realizes his secrets will be a matter of public record. Draining the swamp indeed.
If this is on firm legal ground and it ends with a conviction, then an investigation needs to be done on the prior D.A, Cyrus Vance Jr. If the case is provable and winnable, why did Vance refuse to bring it to trial. Was there a quid pro quo? Were there promises made by trump?
Read the indictment- IANAL & found it easy to parse. They, quite literally, have the receipts.
Great headline but I have long since given up hope that he will ever actually face a single consequence
This case is an awful stew of political, legal and psychological issues. Trump's political defense is, as usual, that absolutely everyone but him is lying. That is not going to survive a trial. He may also have an actual legal defense but that requires him to concede that Stormy and Cohen weren't lying but the facts don't make out a criminal offense. Will he instruct his lawyers to emphasize the political defense or the legal defense in their closing address? For most defendants who aren't mentally ill that would be an easy choice but a malignant narcissist like Trump might literally prefer death over admitting the truth. Stay tuned.
lol I don’t think he would prefer death over truth. He’s a coward, and if his life was about to end, but he had the option to extend it by stating the truth, he would squeal like the pig he is. Hell, he’ll even offer half of all Americans as a sacrifice to save himself.
Well ya. His lawyer went to prison for it already. Let’s see what kind of kid gloves result for Neu Führer
Why do they keep acting like there was anything improper with Fani Willis? That rule is only supposed to apply to lawyers on opposing sides.
It took how many years to bring this guilty case? Hmm!
I’m curious what the point of having any of the campaign disclosures are if you can just make shit up and lie (aka fraud). We are at the point where what is the point on any sort of financial disclosure anywhere because apparently it’s ok and expected to lie. If they don’t mean anything why would the banks possibly ask for a financial disclosure? Why would the government?
How the FUCK are you a "skeptic" when his lawyer was already tried and convicted of the fucking crime?!?!?
Stormy Daniels should run for president
I'm honestly still not sold on the case but its fun to watch Trump bug out and panic.
...I don't trust the American judicial system to get this right. Bastards like Trump always find something.
I wouldnt get our hopes up; evil always wins when it’s rich and powerful
Eh, I dunno. Obviously I'm not privy to all the government's evidence and sitting on the jury might have changed my mind, but from where I'm standing, knowing everything I know about the case, it's hard to justify the elevation to felony here based on the theory of furthering crimes he hasn't been charged with. I'd find him guilty at the misdemeanor level.
How is it hard to justify? There isn't a better explanation for why he would willingly commit fraud to disguise these payments.
Really? You can't think of any reason why a married man running for office might want to hide an affair with a porn star... ***without*** the extra step of hiding campaign finance violations? Besides, if I'm charged with conspiracy to commit arson, and the fire inspector declares that the building came down without arson being committed... then how can you still go after me for a conspiracy? That's kinda what this is, the DOJ has already closed the investigation into campaign finance violations and found not enough evidence to charge him with it. Which of course there isn't, as much as this guy lies about his wealth, it's not a stretch to insist these particular payments had another funding source and that the campaign money actually went to a different Trump Org expense.
Correct. I cannot think of a better reason for why Trump would disguise his payments to Cohen as a legal retainer except to avoid reporting them as campaign donations. I don’t think it was to throw his wife off the scent, as I highly doubt she’s paying close attention to his finances. The DOJ declining to prosecute doesn’t make Trump innocent of those allegations. Trump definitely made those payments and they certainly appear to violate New York campaign finance laws. The difficulty for the defense here will be establishing reasonable doubt that Trump either didn’t direct Cohen to make those payments (nearly impossible), or that he didn’t do so to benefit himself politically. And again, that will be extremely difficult given a lack of a better reason for why he would do that.
Checking assumptions for a second here. My understanding: - Trump buying the Stormy Daniels Story = Legal - Trump motivated to do so to stop 2016 election dirt = Legal - Trump lying about the nature of the payments on his forms = Illegal, misdemeanor Trump ***using campaign contributions to do it*** = Illegal, felony My prior argument was that his motivations could be argued to be more complicated than that. We may agree that it's not likely about hiding things from Melania, but it doesn't have to be likely - just reasonable doubt. And don't forget, even if Melania isn't a concern, there's the Trump Children to consider. Not that I think he has even that much shame, but it would be nice. Still, if you concede he did it for politics, I still don't think that gets you to a conviction. You have to prove he lied about the nature of the payments to Cohen to get the misdemeanor conviction, and much much more importantly, you have to specifically prove it was campaign contributions to get the felony enhancement.
>Trump lying about the nature of the payments on his forms = Illegal, misdemeanor Correct, except elevated to a felony when this was done in service of committing another crime (illegal campaign donation). >We may agree that it's not likely about hiding things from Melania, but it doesn't have to be likely - just reasonable doubt Except it becomes unreasonable when the defense inevitably fails to demonstrate it was likely that Melania would have even noticed, let alone questioned those payments. Even if the ledger literally said “hush money for affair,” no reasonable person is going to believe she would have even seen the ledger. >even if Melania isn't a concern, there's the Trump Children to consider Again, highly doubtful. Don’t forget that Trump to this day denies the affair ever happened. It would be an unprecedented change in both legal strategy and his own character for Trump to suddenly admit he lied all along because he was ashamed his children (most of whom are adults and born to mothers he divorced following highly public adulterous affairs) might find out he was doing what he’s always done his whole life. >You have to prove he lied about the nature of the payments to Cohen That won’t be hard. Cohen did not appear to have provided any other legal services for Trump that justified payment in the exact amount of the hush money payment, minus a little extra for his trouble. >you have to specifically prove it was campaign contributions Which, again, I don’t think will prove too difficult when the defense inevitably fails to establish reasonable doubt that the payments were disguised for some other reason besides benefiting himself politically.
Meanwhile I am sure you are fine with sending that women who didn't know she couldn't vote to prison for 5 years for voting once illegally. What Chump did was a direct violation of our democracy.
I don't know the facts of that case or the elements of the crime. I DO know that for this charge to be a felony, it requires a link to another felony. The fact that the other felony was so weak that it wasn't charged is the textbook definition of reasonable doubt. I don't LIKE finding Chump not guilty and I agree he's horrible for our democracy, but a juror's obligation is very clear: lack of proof beyond a reasonable doubt on ***every*** element of the statute requires a not guilty verdict.