‘Hush money’ is not a crime, and Bragg has no case against Trump

[BULLDOG]

Trump didn't falsify any business records.

That's what the trial will determine.

 

[Markle]

I can’t wait to hear Stormy Daniels testify

Defense: Did you or did you not have sex with Donald Trump?
Stormy: I can’t be sure
Defense: What do you mean you can’t be sure?
Stormy: He was so small (points to pinky) I couldn’t be sure if he was in or not.

 

[Skylar]

I think there is very little chance that Trump's lawyers will let him take the stand. The man lies like he breathes. And he's denied ever sleeping with Stormy Daniels.

Lying to MAGA zealots at a rally is a Tuesday for Trump. Lying to a jury in a criminal trial is some real jail time.

Ask the former CFO for Trump's businesses.

Ex-Trump Organization CFO Allen Weisselberg sentenced for perjury

Retired Trump Organization executive Allen Weisselberg has received a five-month jail sentence for lying under oath during testimony in a lawsuit brought against ex-President Donald Trump by New York’s attorney general.

www.nbcnewyork.com

 

[Skylar]

Also, Trump comes off as whiny, petulant, entitled, childish, and petty. Most people encountering this in real life are put off by it. The more Trump talks in person, the more a jury won't like him. Accompanied with his lies, he will erode his own credibility.

As demonstrated elegantly by his two trials for civil damages with Carroll. He was barely present at the first trial, and lost to the tune of $5 million. He was heavily involved in the second, huffing and puffy, glowering, pouting, whining and complaining.

He lost to the tune of $85 million.

 

[Markle]

Here are a couple MAGAs
View attachment 936881

 

[rightwinger]

Trump never did grow up
He has the genitalia of a toddler

 

[kjw47]

So trump is now officially campaigning against Jesus? I can't wait to see trump's tweets now.

If you believe trump is actually a real follower of Jesus, i have the brooklyn bridge for sale are you interested? 99% of all religion claiming to be christian are far removed from God and his son. They are not real followers. They are mislead out of the altered translations they are using.

 

[Skylar]

If you believe trump is actually a real follower of Jesus, i have the brooklyn bridge for sale are you interested? 99% of all religion claiming to be christian are far removed from God and his son. They are not real followers. They are mislead out of the altered translations they are using.

Ah, a No True Scotsman fallacy! Any Christian that does something you don't like is no True Christian.

That's a classic.

 

[rightwinger]

If you believe trump is actually a real follower of Jesus, i have the brooklyn bridge for sale are you interested? 99% of all religion claiming to be christian are far removed from God and his son. They are not real followers. They are mislead out of the altered translations they are using.

Trumps favorite Biblical Passage?
All of them

 

[Freedomisneverfree]

Lock him up

Never saw Hillary pay Hush Money to a Porn Star
Rikers Island is very pleasant this time of year

But Hillary laid down with a few Lesbians. ..

 

[rightwinger]

But Hillary laid down with a few Lesbians. ..

Melania got photographed

 

[BULLDOG]

But Hillary laid down with a few Lesbians. ..

Another fine example of the MAGA cult "no conspiracy theory left behind" tactic. Remember when Hillary was expected to die soon with Parkinson disease? You had plenty of theories, but no proof about that one too.

 

[meaner gene]

Just an outrageous matter. And it further marks NYC as a place businesses should avoid.

But this fake case with a corrupt Democrat hack of a judge presiding is the lowest point in American jurisprudence, perhaps ever.

It got me to thinking: Why do we call it the “hush money” trial?

Well, sure, the media-Democrat complex loves the salacious overtones of that spin. But that’s not the real reason. If Trump had robbed a bank or, as he once famously put it, shot someone on Fifth Avenue in broad daylight, we’d be talking about Trump’s bank robbery trial or his murder trial. That is, we’d be talking about the crime.

The problem that Democrats and their note-takers have, the problem that the elected progressive Democratic prosecutor Alvin Bragg has, is that what they want to accuse Trump of is not a crime.

Yes, of course, Bragg has indicted Trump for a nonsensical business-records falsification offense — a mere misdemeanor that he has abusively tried to inflate into 34 felonies. But that’s not what he and Democrats are really alleging.

What they want to say, instead, is that Trump stole the 2016 election. Only they can’t do that. After all, that would make them election deniers — just like Trump.

They’ve spent nearly four years telling Americans that Trump is the most profound threat to our constitutional order in history because, to this day and even as he seeks the Oval Office yet again, he will not admit that he lost the 2020 election fair and square. Yet, boiled down to its essence, Bragg’s indictment accuses Trump of stealing the 2016 election. It is not the former president but the district attorney who is the election denier.

But more to the point, Bragg’s elaboration of Trump’s supposed criminal scheme — laid out in a Statement of Facts, so-called, that he penned and published when the indictment was unsealed — elucidates that what he is accusing Trump of is not a criminal conspiracy.

That is why Democrats and their journo allies have to say “hush money” trial. It sounds sinister, and when you don’t have a crime and you’re about to commence a criminal trial, you’d better sound sinister.

In its curtain-raiser, the Democrats’ house organ, the New York Times, tells readers that in their opening statement, “Prosecutors from the Manhattan district attorney’s office are expected to say that Mr. Trump orchestrated a scheme to suppress stories that could have damaged his 2016 campaign.”

That’s probably right. There’s just one tiny glitch: It is not a crime to suppress damaging information.

Politicians do that habitually. The Clintons and their cronies notoriously ran a “bimbo eruption” war room in the lead-up to Bill’s 1992 election, squelching revelations by women who credibly claimed to have had trysts with the then-Arkansas governor.

Come to think of it, who among us doesn’t have some skeletons we’d prefer were left in the closet? Unless there is a legal obligation to disclose, it is not a crime to suppress embarrassing details.

What are pejoratively described as “hush money” deals are actually legal and commonplace. They are less promiscuously described as non-disclosure agreements. Far from being unlawful, NDAs are a staple of civil litigation settlements in the United States.

Look, if scheming to suppress information were a crime, Bragg’s case would be very simple: He would have charged Trump with scheming to suppress information.

And if Bragg had evidence that Trump had actually stolen the 2016 election, that would be simple too: He would have charged Trump with crimes that were committed in the lead-up to the 2016 election.

Instead, Bragg has charged business-records falsification on the absurd theory that the way Trump booked NDA payments violated federal campaign laws — even though Bragg, a state prosecutor, has no authority to enforce federal law; and even though the NDA payments were technically not campaign expenditures, which is why the feds did not bring enforcement action against Trump.

And since he doesn’t have an election-theft crime, Bragg has ludicrously charged as felonies the booking of NDA installment payments that occurred from February through December 2017. You are being asked to suspend common sense and believe that Trump stole an election in 2016 by committing crimes that didn’t happen until the following year.

That’s why they call it the “hush money” trial. From the perspective of Bragg and Democrats, to accurately describe what they’ve alleged would be to see it laughed out of any court that isn’t a kangaroo court.

Andrew C. McCarthy is a former federal prosecutor.​

âHush moneyâ is not a crime, and Bragg has no case against Trump

From the perspective of Bragg and Democrats, to accurately describe what they’ve alleged would be to see it laughed out of any court that isn’t a kangaroo court.

nypost.com

---

It's called the hush money case, because that's the easiest to understand underlying act.

 

[meaner gene]

Trump didn't falsify any business records.

That's what the trial will determine.

DEC 6 2022
Trump Organization guilty on all 17 counts of fraud, falsifying business records and conspiracy

Trump has already had his company convicted of falsifying business records. Now what is to be determined is did Trump commit these additional 34 false business records.

 

[meaner gene]

I think there is very little chance that Trump's lawyers will let him take the stand. The man lies like he breathes. And he's denied ever sleeping with Stormy Daniels.

Lying to MAGA zealots at a rally is a Tuesday for Trump. Lying to a jury in a criminal trial is some real jail time.

Right now, they can't present evidence from Trumps other lost court cases, because it would be prejudicial. But as soon as Trump takes the stand, that opens Trump up to questioning on those cases. And any statement he makes, can be cross examined, and rebutted with previously excluded evidence.

 

[Markle]

Trump never did grow up
He has the genitalia of a toddler

I'm not surprised to see you so fascinated with another man's package. Whatever flips your switch.

 

[Skylar]

Right now, they can't present evidence from Trumps other lost court cases, because it would be prejudicial. But as soon as Trump takes the stand, that opens Trump up to questioning on those cases. And any statement he makes, can be cross examined, and rebutted with previously excluded evidence.

You're misunderstanding me. I'm not saying that the jurors in Trump's criminal trial won't like Trump because of his behavior during the civil trial.

I'm saying that Trump is profoundly unlikable in person. He comes off as petulant, childish, entitled, bitter and pouty. He whines. He lies. He insults people and makes up names about them. He's 77. This is not a good look for him.

When a jury is exposed directly to Trump, outcomes aren't good for him. I used the Carrol verdict as an example. When the jury wasn't exposed to Trump much in the first trial, the verdict was $5 million. When the jury was exposed to Trump extensively in the second trial, the verdict was $85 million.

No competent lawyer would ever let Trump on the stand in front of a jury. The man lies like he breathes and comes off as profoundly unlikable.

 

[meaner gene]

You're misunderstanding me. I'm not saying that the jurors in Trump's criminal trial won't like Trump because of his behavior during the civil trial.

I'm saying that Trump is profoundly unlikable in person. He comes off as petulant, childish, entitled, bitter and pouty. He whines. He lies. He insults people and makes up names about them. He's 77. This is not a good look for him.

I was expanding on your point of Trump being a bad witness, being unlikeable to the jury. But add the additional subjects Trump would have to testify to. They could ask him why the judge didn't believe him in his fraud case. Why the jury didn't believe him in the E. Jean Carroll case. Why he settled the Trump University case, when he said he would never settle.

Trump would have to testify under oath, and restrained to staying "on topic"

 

[meaner gene]

No competent lawyer would ever let Trump on the stand in front of a jury. The man lies like he breathes and comes off as profoundly unlikable.

Absolutely, but every defendant has the right to legal representation. But no obligation to listen to them. If Trump tells the judge he wants to testify, his lawyers can't stop him.

 

[Skylar]

I was expanding on your point of Trump being a bad witness, being unlikeable to the jury. But add the additional subjects Trump would have to testify to. They could ask him why the judge didn't believe him in his fraud case. Why the jury didn't believe him in the E. Jean Carroll case. Why he settled the Trump University case, when he said he would never settle.

Trump would have to testify under oath, and restrained to staying "on topic"

If he testifies, he'll be asked straight up if he had an affair with Stormy Daniels. He's denied it ever happened....at rallies. If he tries that in court, he's fucked.