They are busting Trump rght now in court

[struth]

I did in context with his previous post. His next post didn't match his first post.

He just said you didn't. Moreover I can read.

The reality is you keep going in circles, instead of simply admitting you have no clue.

 

[Faun]

https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/4642409-hope-hicks-offers-dramatic-testimony-in-trump-trial-five-takeaways/

Hicks, while being questioned by prosecutors, said that Trump was worried how the story “would be viewed by his wife,” Melania.

Later, when the defense questioned Hicks, she expanded on the point, saying that Trump “really, really respects” what Melania has to say; “I think he was just concerned of what her perception of this would be.”

This is a very significant issue in the case.

Again, there's conflicting testimony. Others have testified it was for the election. And then there's the timing. That royally fucks Trump.

 

[struth]

Again, there's conflicting testimony. Others have testified it was for the election. And then there's the timing. That royally fucks Trump.

what other testimony?

and why in the world would the State offer up testimony conflicting their own case?

Who are we to believe from the State? They have the burden of proof beyond a reasonable doubt.

 

[ThisIsMe]

I don’t believe they need to prove that election crime but only his intent of trying to commit it.

That’s not what the charge Bragg brought says. To raise his misdemeanor to a felony and revive the statute of limitations, the charge of “falsifying business records in the second degree” requires that the falsification of business records was done to further another crime. It also says intent to defraud must be present.

 

[Faun]

Okay, so you are claiming the conspiracy was to solicit illegal campaign contributions?

No you did not. I asked you how "the way it was paid" was illegal.

You told me what wasn't illegal.

Something has to be illegal about the "catch and kill" scheme to satisfy the felony enhancement of falsification of records.

I am asking what part of "catch and kill" was illegal. Recording the payments to Cohen as legal expenses happened after the election was over, and it cannot be used to argue the scheme was illegal.

There has to be some other basis. You initially said it was "the way the payments were recorded" that made it illegal. That dog does not hunt.

Cohen's payment to Stormy was illegal.

 

[Faun]

what other testimony?

and why in the world would the State offer up testimony conflicting their own case?

Who are we to believe from the State? They have the burden of proof beyond a reasonable doubt.

I've already pointed it out to you. Maybe you should be taking notes if you can't remember.

 

[Slade3200]

Are you saying they conspired to "promote an election" by making unlawful campaign contributions?

No, that’s not at all what I was saying

 

[struth]

I've already pointed it out to you. Maybe you should be taking notes if you can't remember.

So why do you think the State would contradict their own case? and who are we do believe? Is Hick lying? Why?

 

[Slade3200]

Are you saying they conspired to "promote an election" by making unlawful campaign contributions?

The FEC and the DOJ investigated Trump for that. The DOJ declined to bring charges, and the FEC dismissed the complaint.

"Burying the stories" is a component of the underlying crime.
"Hiding the payments" is the "falsification of records".

For the falsification of records to be a felony, it has to be for the purpose of concealing some other crime. The judge already ruled that the other crime cannot be another "falsification of records".

Taking the Statements of Fact as true, the meeting in August at Trump Tower was the birth of the conspiracy.

The "statement of facts" and the testimony is that in that meeting, Pecker told Trump that women would be coming out of the woodwork with accusations. They should be on the lookout for these women so they could purchase the stories, and suppress them so they would not embarrass Trump and impact the campaign. Trump went along with the idea. The DA calls it "catch and kill".

Pretty straightforward.

Pecker said he expected to be reimbursed, Cohen expected (and was reimbursed). The money that Trump paid Cohen was not from his campaign funds.

A candidate is not subject to the contribution limits that apply to other parties- he can put as much of his own money into his campaign as he wants to.

The idea that "catch and kill" was a conspiracy to commit campaign finance violations is just not plausible. It was a plan to suppress negative stories so they would not impact the campaign.

Pecker in particular was sensitive to the campaign finance issue- he had already run afoul of it with the Swarzenegger business. He structured the NDA with McDougal to include having her providing content for AMI so that there was a plausible reason for the NDA.

"Conspiracy to violate FECA" is pretty dang thin. Neither Pecker or Cohen were expecting to pay money out of their own pockets for the NDA's..

They had a much stronger case in the John Edwards situation, and were still unable to get a conviction...

I agree that the case is thin. I wish we were looking at the classified docs or election conspiracy cases… I’m also confident that if this case has no legal legs the judge and jury will make the right call. I do think Trump knew about these payments and the attempts to hide them. If that bares out to break the law then he should be found guilty and held responsible. I dont think he should go to jail unless he continues to violate the gag order.

 

[Slade3200]

That’s not what the charge Bragg brought says. To raise his misdemeanor to a felony and revive the statute of limitations, the charge of “falsifying business records in the second degree” requires that the falsification of business records was done to further another crime. It also says intent to defraud must be present.

Agreed and that’s what the prosecution needs to prove

 

[Lastamender]

Cohen did it at Trump's bequest.

Cohen has as much credibility as you do. 0.

 

[IM2]

Have you noticed how every single Prosecution witness that Bragg has called either helps Trump with their testimony as much as they help the prosecution...or they're a pants on fire liar like Cohen and Daniels? This case is a joke and this judge is going to get bitch slapped on appeal for allowing it to go on.

That has not been the case. That's why trump has gotten in trouble for mumbling during testimonies.

 

[IM2]

Agreed and that’s what the prosecution needs to prove

So far so good for the prosecution.

 

[IM2]

Cohen has as much credibility as you do. 0.

Cohen lied for Trump. Cohen went to prison for doing what Trump told him. And that's why Trump will not testify.

 

[struth]

That has not been the case. That's why trump has gotten in trouble for mumbling during testimonies.

who's testimony do you think really hurt Trump and helped Bragg?

 

[IM2]

Oh? What about Davidson? How did his testimony help the defense?

Man with a Plan is crazy. Hope Hicks hurt trump badly.

 

[IM2]

who's testimony do you think really hurt Trump and helped Bragg?

All of them so far.

 

[struth]

All of them so far.

I for one loved Hope Hicks testimony....in particular where she said Trump wanted the NDA out of concern for his wife. That really helped out Bragg....do you agree?

 

[para bellum]

Cohen's payment to Stormy was illegal.

Cohen pled to making an excessive campaign contribution (under some severe duress).

The DOJ and the FEC investigated Trump. The FEC dismissed the complaint, and the DOJ declined to bring charges.

Trump is not guilty of Cohen's crime, and it is very debatable that it was a crime, for the obvious reason that he was reimbursed by Trump.

The underlying crime is conspiracy to promote an election using unlawful means.

So to be clear- is it your view that the underlying crime was "a conspiracy to promote the election by violating Federal Campaign Finance laws"?

 

[IM2]

Cohen pled to making an excessive campaign contribution (under some severe duress).

The DOJ and the FEC investigated Trump. The FEC dismissed the complaint, and the DOJ declined to bring charges.

Trump is not guilty of Cohen's crime, and it is very debatable that it was a crime, for the obvious reason that he was reimbursed by Trump.

The underlying crime is conspiracy to promote an election using unlawful means.

So to be clear- is it your view that the underlying crime was "a conspiracy to promote the election by violating Federal Campaign Finance laws"?

Do not try using what happened in the DOJ when William Barr was Trumps fixer to argue.