The (many) indictments of Donald Trump

#16,460
#16,460
lawgator1 said:
That is incorrect. There is audio of Trump discussing it with Cohen.

And, honestly, does anyone in their right mind still believe that he paid her off over the embarrassment factor to his wife? Please.

View attachment 638302
Click to expand...
If you say so chief. It seems that this audio hasn't seen the light of day yet.
If you have this "audio" handy then post it for us to hear but until then STFU.
 
#16,462
#16,462
W.TN.Orange Blood said:
If you say so chief. It seems that this audio hasn't seen the light of day yet.
If you have this "audio" handy then post it for us to hear but until then STFU.
Click to expand...

Annnnndddddd.... it was played yesterday at the trial.

www.forbes.com

Recording Shows Trump Told Michael Cohen He Hated ‘That We Did It’ — Reportedly Referring To Hush Money Payment

“I can’t even tell you how many times he said to me ‘I hate the fact that we did it,’” ex-Trump attorney Michael Cohen said in a recorded phone call played before the court Thursday.
www.forbes.com www.forbes.com

1714752802252.gif
 
#16,463
#16,463
lawgator1 said:
Annnnndddddd.... it was played yesterday at the trial.

www.forbes.com

Recording Shows Trump Told Michael Cohen He Hated ‘That We Did It’ — Reportedly Referring To Hush Money Payment

“I can’t even tell you how many times he said to me ‘I hate the fact that we did it,’” ex-Trump attorney Michael Cohen said in a recorded phone call played before the court Thursday.
www.forbes.com www.forbes.com

View attachment 638309
Click to expand...


More specifically as to Trump, himself:

www.nytimes.com

Jury Hears Tape of Trump and Cohen Discussing Hush-Money Deal

The tape, played at the former president’s criminal trial, captured Michael Cohen telling Donald Trump about a payment to a former Playboy model.
www.nytimes.com www.nytimes.com
 
#16,464
#16,464
#16,465
#16,465
#16,466
#16,466
hog88 said:
And what was illegal about it?
Click to expand...


To me, they have to prove:

1) Payment was made.
2) Trump knew payment was made, before or as it happened
3) The purpose of the payment was to influence the election
4) The payment was intentionally listed fraudulently as for legal services, i.e. laundered through Cohen, and Trump knew that


To me, 1 and 2 are proven.

# 3 the defense is going to try to argue that this was not about the election but was to avoid embarrassing his family. I find that extremely hard to believe but that is the defense theory and they have not had their chance to offer that yet. And remember, they only have to establish a reasonable doubt that this was the motivation, not overwhelmingly prove it. Personally, I think you'd have to be a moron not to think it was about the election. But, at least in theory, it only takes one dug in moron on the jury to at least get a mistrial.

#4 is the hardest part. Cohen may be the premier witness on that point and he has credibility problems. Again, the defense may have the upper hand as to reasonable doubt on this, but the prosecution is not yet concluded, so let's see what else they have on it.
 
#16,467
#16,467
lawgator1 said:
To me, they have to prove:

1) Payment was made.
2) Trump knew payment was made, before or as it happened
3) The purpose of the payment was to influence the election
4) The payment was intentionally listed fraudulently as for legal services, i.e. laundered through Cohen, and Trump knew that


To me, 1 and 2 are proven.

# 3 the defense is going to try to argue that this was not about the election but was to avoid embarrassing his family. I find that extremely hard to believe but that is the defense theory and they have not had their chance to offer that yet. And remember, they only have to establish a reasonable doubt that this was the motivation, not overwhelmingly prove it. Personally, I think you'd have to be a moron not to think it was about the election. But, at least in theory, it only takes one dug in moron on the jury to at least get a mistrial.

#4 is the hardest part. Cohen may be the premier witness on that point and he has credibility problems. Again, the defense may have the upper hand as to reasonable doubt on this, but the prosecution is not yet concluded, so let's see what else they have on it.
Click to expand...
#1 isn't a crime
#2 isn't a crime
#3 isn't a crime
#4 would be an IRS issue if they disagreed with the classification

At best you have some misdemeanors in which the SoL has expired.
 
  • Like
Reactions: SpaceCoastVol, whodeycin85 and davethevol
#16,468
#16,468
hog88 said:
#1 isn't a crime
#2 isn't a crime
#3 isn't a crime
#4 would be an IRS issue if they disagreed with the classification

At best you have some misdemeanors in which the SoL has expired.
Click to expand...


# 4 is the crime. 1, 2, and 3 are the predicate acts.

If convicted, Trump is free to appeal and seek a determination that # 4 is not actually a felony that avoids the SOL defense. I have no idea how the NY appellate court would view that argument.
 
#16,469
#16,469
hog88 said:
#1 isn't a crime
#2 isn't a crime
#3 isn't a crime
#4 would be an IRS issue if they disagreed with the classification

At best you have some misdemeanors in which the SoL has expired.
Click to expand...
Driving or being in control of a motor vehicle isn’t a crime.
Doing so on a public roadway or place frequented by the public isn’t a crime.
Being drunk isn’t a crime.
 
#16,470
#16,470
lawgator1 said:
# 4 is the crime. 1, 2, and 3 are the predicate acts.

If convicted, Trump is free to appeal and seek a determination that # 4 is not actually a felony that avoids the SOL defense. I have no idea how the NY appellate court would view that argument.
Click to expand...

Incredibly weak case. Paying hush money isn't a crime, doing so to influence and election isn't a crime, MAYBE the bookkeeping is questionable and chargeable but again that would be a misdemeanor and the SoL has expired.
 
  • Like
Reactions: SpaceCoastVol and davethevol
#16,471
#16,471
hog88 said:
Incredibly weak case. Paying hush money isn't a crime, doing so to influence and election isn't a crime, MAYBE the bookkeeping is questionable and chargeable but again that would be a misdemeanor and the SoL has expired.
Click to expand...

My understanding is that you are incorrect about # 4 and that it has been litigated and Trump has lost that issue at the trial court level. As I say, he can of course appeal that if convicted.
 
#16,473
#16,473
lawgator1 said:
My understanding is that you are incorrect about # 4 and that it has been litigated and Trump has lost that issue at the trial court level. As I say, he can of course appeal that if convicted.
Click to expand...

When/where has that been litigated?
 
#16,474
#16,474
hog88 said:
When/where has that been litigated?
Click to expand...

www.businessinsider.com

Trump loses big in NY hush-money hearing, as judge rejects all efforts to dodge or delay March 25 trial

Former Pres. Donald Trump will head to trial next month on felony charges stemming from an alleged illegal payment to adult film actress Stormy Danels.
www.businessinsider.com www.businessinsider.com

Trump's side had also asked, in papers filed in September, to dismiss the entirety of the case as too old , including on statute of limitations grounds, and as legally defective. This, too, the judge rejected.
Click to expand...
 
#16,475
#16,475
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top