BackAgain
Neutronium Member & truth speaker #StopBrandon
Chilliconfuzed misses the point of course.----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
However, that 'intent'-thingy is a thing as, very likely, the above will testify.
What a total Scumbag, like Cohen, says was Trump’s intent is not only irrelevant, it’s objectionable. Witnesses cannot properly state their opinions and conjectures especially about things like the state of mind of another.
You are wrong. If (big if) scumbag Cohen claims that Trump ever said what his intent was, that might be admissible. But I don’t think that you’re baseless speculation has any validity. If Trump supposedly told Cohen to pay in cash, that direction may be admissible. But if Trump never said “my reason to payoff the honks to assist my re-election prospects,” which only the most gullible would believe he ever verbalized, then the jury ain’t likely to be getting ANY evidence of Trump’s “intent.”As offered earlier:
So, tho I ain't a lawyer, I could see an argument going this way:
- "New York appellate courts have held in a long series of cases that intent to defraud includes circumstances in which a defendant acts “for the purpose of frustrating the state’s power” to “faithfully carry out its own law.” To the extent Mr. Trump was covering up campaign contributions that violated New York law, that seems to be exactly what he did."
Prosecutor: Who asked you to pay this money? Don Trump did? OK, thank you.
- Witness Pecker said he paid this money to these folks so they wouldn't hurt the election.
- Witness Cohen said he paid this money to these gals so they wouldn't hurt the election.
Prosecutor: Did he say why he wanted you to pay this money? OK, He said it would harm his election chances. OK, thank you.
Prosecutor: Oh by the way, did he ever mention it was his intent to keep the revelation of these serial infidelities away from his current wife? He never did, OK, thank you.
So, you see, good poster BackAgain.....the above is my imagination, but......but if this thing goes to trial, intent will be a thing, in this prosecution thing.
I ain't a lawyer.....but I think it will be a thing*.
And your avatar (which still doesn’t even exist) doesn’t have any opinions at all. Even if you had an avatar, what you’re actually saying is what your own opinion is.