Spoiler Alert: Prosecutors' Tortuous Trump Case Is 'Confusing' to Nearly Everyone

[DBA]

Because it was an excessive campaign contribution in violation of the law.

But we have already established that Trump had reasons other than his campaign to keep it quiet. That is all that is required. It is up to the prosecution to prove that the sole reason he made the payment was to benefit his campaign. It most certainly was not given that, according to Daniels herself, Trump attempted to keep her quiet in 2011, well prior to Trump's campaign for President. If this is their case, they have lost, unless of course the TDS jury decides to ignore the obvious.

 

[DBA]

The prosecution doesn't need that. Sadly, it appears you don't even know what this trial is about.

I don't think you understand that what they must prove to legally get a felony conviction, they can't. Their only hope is a biased jury and perhaps a biased judge.

 

[John Edgar Slow Horses]

Doc is as goofy as excalibur.

All that has to be documented is that Trump, approved, and authorized the illegal payment.

 

[Billiejeens]

I don't think you understand that what they must prove to legally get a felony conviction, they can't. Their only hope is a biased jury and perhaps a biased judge.

They have each of those.

Plus, no juror would have the strength to vote to acquit in NYC.

The appellant court will have to clean it up,
which it will.

 

[Billiejeens]

Doc is as goofy as excalibur.

All that has to be documented is that Trump, approved, and authorized the illegal payment.

No

 

[John Edgar Slow Horses]

Yeah, and Hillary's dossier of outrageous LIES were broadcast as TRUTH for YEARS, boo boo.
But wait, that's Different.

It is. Hunter was not running for President.

 

[Rawley]

Spoiler Alert: ​

Prosecutors' Tortuous Trump Case Is 'Confusing' to Nearly Everyone​

Spoiler Alert: Prosecutors' Tortuous Trump Case Is 'Confusing' to Nearly Everyone

pjmedia.com

23 Apr 2024 ~~ By Victoria Taft

The first witness in Donald Trump's trial for alleged "criminal" bookkeeping errors came with National Enquirer-worthy titillations about what a hot commodity the former president was back in the day. Prosecutors thought they'd burst out of the gate with a little razzle-dazzle and T&A, hoping that jurors would believe the witness had anything to do with the actual charges in the case. This is because — spoiler alert — the prosecutors' actual case is a "confusing" distraction. It's the "Seinfeld" of legal cases.
But since a Manhattan jury will likely convict the former president because Orange Man Bad, here's what happened in court with the opening witness on truncated court sessions Monday and Tuesday.

David Pecker, the former publisher of the National Enquirer, testified that he worked with Trump's lawyer to kill stories that hurt Trump's reputation or would be hurtful to his wife and family. This is the so-called catch-and-kill scheme, wherein sources would approach the Enquirer with an unflattering story about Trump (this applies to Hollywood stars and big shots), offer money to the people telling it, and then make the story disappear.
And it went something like this:

• Pecker reportedly would alert Trump's lawyer, Michael Cohen, about the titillating story.
• Cohen got three sources to sign a non-disclosure agreement for a sum of money.
• Trump paid his legal bills, which covered Cohen's incurred costs plus more.

All of the above is legal.
~Snip~

​

~Snip~
The media have called this case a "hush money" case, but one of our crafty commenters called it the Hush Trump case. Touché. When a judge shuts up the defendant but not the other trial participants, you can't help but wonder if the fix is in. Where else will you read that in this censorious media world that we're living in?


Commentary:
Remembering when The Los Angeles Times “caught and killed” the story of Barack Obama’s banquet speech for Rashid Khalidi, which was on video. I bet that video is more damaging than sex with a stripper and had a bigger impact on the 2008 election than Daniels did in 2016. Nobody was prosecuted. Few even complained. The video is still in the vault.
THAT is not illegal. “Go away” settlements and NDAs are extremely common. The lying whorebag human toilet tried to milk a few dollars more out of him two weeks before the election.
130k to Trump is akin to me flipping a nickel to a bum who is annoying customers coming into my business. It’s a ridiculously small amount she accepted. That amount was offered because her lawyer knew it was so low no sane person would take it to court if they could make it go away for that trivial sum.
Nothing even slightly illegal about it.

The Secret Sources for ‘Bombshell’: Why Ex-Fox News Staffers Broke Their NDAs for Filmmakers

In order to paint a vivid picture of the network's culture, 'Bombshell's' makers spoke to about 20 people with a connection to Fox, including multiple women bound by confidentiality agreements, a task that sent the filmmakers into territory usually left to investigative journalists.

www.hollywoodreporter.com

**********​

4 things you should know about non-disclosure agreements

Learn more about how NDAs are handled in the workplace, including when they are enforceable and their benefits.

legal.thomsonreuters.com

An already bogus case just got that much more absurd.

 

[SeaMajor7]

It is. Hunter was not running for President.

Shut up you stupid asshole, that's not the point!!!!

 

[BlindBoo]

But we have already established that Trump had reasons other than his campaign to keep it quiet. That is all that is required. It is up to the prosecution to prove that the sole reason he made the payment was to benefit his campaign. It most certainly was not given that, according to Daniels herself, Trump attempted to keep her quiet in 2011, well prior to Trump's campaign for President. If this is their case, they have lost, unless of course the TDS jury decides to ignore the obvious.

How much was she paid in 2011 to hush up?

As the AP has reported, in a 2011 interview with the gossip magazine In Touch Weekly, Daniels — who the magazine said passed a polygraph exam — said the two had sex on one occasion and she described subsequent in-person meetings, phone calls and discussions about a potential TV appearance. In Touch held off on publishing her account after Cohen threatened to sue the publication; it was published in 2018.

 

[John Edgar Slow Horses]

Shut up you stupid asshole, that's not the point!!!!

You have made no point. That's the problem. Hunter and HRC have not a thing to do with Mr. Trump in court.

Yeah, SeaMajor7, you dupe, your orange master is in court!

 

[BlindBoo]

Shut up you stupid asshole, that's not the point!!!!

I always wondered what a sea monkey is like when triggered.

 

[DBA]

How much was she paid in 2011 to hush up?

As the AP has reported, in a 2011 interview with the gossip magazine In Touch Weekly, Daniels — who the magazine said passed a polygraph exam — said the two had sex on one occasion and she described subsequent in-person meetings, phone calls and discussions about a potential TV appearance. In Touch held off on publishing her account after Cohen threatened to sue the publication; it was published in 2018.

The fact that Trump didn't want it brought to light without a Presidential campaign on the horizon is enough.

Ask yourself this question. Would Trump have paid Daniels, using his own money, to sign an NDA if she had threatened to go public even if Trump was not running for President? The clear answer to that is absolutely.

Now, contrast that with Hillary who paid her attorney to investigate her political opponent via the Steele dossier in 2016. That is a clear violation and yet she was only fined.

 

[BlindBoo]

The fact that Trump didn't want it brought to light without a Presidential campaign on the horizon is enough.

Ask yourself this question. Would Trump have paid Daniels, using his own money, to sign an NDA if she had threatened to go public even if Trump was not running for President? The clear answer to that is absolutely.

Now, contrast that with Hillary who paid her attorney to investigate her political opponent via the Steele dossier in 2016. That is a clear violation and yet she was only fined.

It was her campaign and DNC that was fined.

 

[Rawley]

It was her campaign and DNC that was fined.

fined. Your cult want to put the former President om jail for the rest of his life - for less.

 

[John Edgar Slow Horses]

Shut up you stupid asshole, that's not the point!!!!

You have made no point. That's the problem. Hunter and HRC have not a thing to do with Mr. Trump in court.

Yeah, SeaMajor7, you dupe, your orange master is in court!

fined. Your cult want to put the former President om jail for the rest of his life - for less.

Oh, DJT has earned so many times.

 

[Rawley]

Oh, DJT has earned so many times.

Kudos JESH. Most lefties deny their hate, you embrace it. Kudos.

 

[leftwinger]

By Joe Hoft:

The attorneys representing the corrupt DA in New York, Alvin Bragg, in their case against President Trump, have made a serious error in their case. President Trump’s attorneys must move to dismiss.

DA Bragg’s case is in serious trouble. The gang behind the prosecution of President Trump made a serious error that should lead President Trump’s team to move to dismiss.

Prosecutors in New York have revealed what the other crime is that Donald Trump was allegedly trying to conceal when he was falsifying business records and they claim it was to unlawfully promote his candidacy. The fatal error is that the NY Statute they cite only applies to elections within the State of New York and not Federal Elections!

Trump was running for the federal office of President of the United States and not a State Office and therefore the premise of what the prosecution is trying to prove as the second crime used to get around the statute of limitations issue and to elevate this business records case to a felony must fail!

Prosecutors also cannot use a federal law as the second crime and additionally, the FEC, Federal Election Commission, declined on two occasions to prosecute the claim against Trump that the alleged hush money payment was in fact a federal violation.

In this case, Bragg and Colangelo, in an exercise of their legal analysis of the law maintain that Trump, Cohen, and Pecker conspired to get Trump elected to President of the United States. This is the basis for the elevation of charges. This is enough to end the case but that’s not all.

The case refers to accounting entries “made” by President Trump (which is lunacy) or entries President Trump forced others to make. But these entries were made in 2017. So how could President Trump possibly impact the 2016 election with accounting entries that were made (clearly not by the President but by some entry-level accountant in his multi-billion dollar organization) in 2017? On top of that, even far-left radical liberals are shaking their heads at this case and the evidence used to “get Trump”.

Trump, who faces 34 counts of falsifying business records in connection to payments made to porn actress Stormy Daniels before the 2016 election, was discussed on MSNBC’s “Morning Joe” where legal analyst Lisa Rubin presented a skeptical view of the prosecution’s case.

“The big takeaway is that this is a crime about falsification of business records, and yet, what the government seems to have the most evidence of is the underlying conspiracy,” Rubin explained on the show. She highlighted a lack of direct evidence linking Trump to the specific crimes charged: “What’s still unknown to me is how they’re going to prove Donald Trump’s own involvement in the falsification of the business records.”

President Trump handed over his companies to his sons before his inauguration in January 2017. The accounting entries in question were made after the handover occurred.

President Trump didn’t make any entries because no CEO of any multi-billion dollar company makes entries to the financials.
The accounting discussion in this case doesn’t make sense to anyone who’s ever worked in a large financial reporting operation.

 

[struth]

She didn't even know of it's existence during most of the campaign. You got a check or receipt that she personally funded it?

Also what did Durham find in his investigation into Obamagate?

Haha of course she did! She helped pay for it! Hence why the FEC said she violated campaign laws and fined her and the dnc

 

[BlindBoo]

Haha of course she did! She helped pay for it! Hence why the FEC said she violated campaign laws and fined her and the dnc

Prove she personally paid anything, like the Dirty Don did, or had anything to do with the bookkeeping.

The Clinton campaign hired Perkins Cole, which then hired Fusion GPS, a research and intelligence firm, to conduct opposition research on Republican candidate Donald Trump’s ties to Russia. But on FEC forms, the Clinton campaign classified the spending as legal services.

DNC, Clinton campaign agree to Steele dossier funding fine

Hillary Clinton’s 2016 presidential campaign and the Democratic National Committee have agreed to pay $113,000 to settle a Federal Election Commission investigation.

apnews.com

 

[struth]

Prove she personally paid anything, like the Dirty Don did, or had anything to do with the bookkeeping.

The Clinton campaign hired Perkins Cole, which then hired Fusion GPS, a research and intelligence firm, to conduct opposition research on Republican candidate Donald Trump’s ties to Russia. But on FEC forms, the Clinton campaign classified the spending as legal services.

DNC, Clinton campaign agree to Steele dossier funding fine

Hillary Clinton’s 2016 presidential campaign and the Democratic National Committee have agreed to pay $113,000 to settle a Federal Election Commission investigation.

apnews.com

The FEC already fined her personally for it, she paid…case closed

Trump never paid for the dossier

He did pay his legal bill…which he’s suppose to do