- Thread starter
- #1,361
At the direction of Trump while paying hush money with stolen money from a charity. That is illegal. Don't believe me, talk to prosecutors. They filed the felony with the courts.The hush money scheme was at the direction of Trump, which is why we have felony court filings on Trump. In the mean time, Cohen is being sentenced for a crime that was at the direction of Trump.https://www.politico.com/f/?id=00000166-79ef-d3f0-a1f7-ffefca860002
The parties spend some time debating whether Mr. Trump acted with "actual malice" or "reckless disregard for the truth" in issuing the tweet in question. Assuming that Plaintiff is a "public figure," Plaintiff would have to show that Defendant acted with "actual malice" or "reckless disregard for the truth" to prevail on a cause of action for defamation. See Bentley, 94 S.W.3d at 580. Plaintiff's focus on the actual malice argument comes as no surprise because Plaintiff stands on thin ice in asserting that Mr. Trump's tweet is an actionable statement. Instead, Plaintiff seeks to use her defamation action to engage in a "fishing expedition" concerning the conclusory allegations in the Complaint. The Court will not permit Plaintiff to exploit the legal process in this way. Specifically, Plaintiff contends that she needs to conduct discovery to determine if Mr. Trump was involved in the 2011 threat against her or if he purposefully avoided learning about the 2011 threat. See Opposition at 11. Plaintiff believes that discovery pertaining to these issues will help her to establish that Mr. Trump acted with actual malice or reckless disregard for the truth (i.e. if Ms. Clifford can provide evidence showing that Mr. Trump knew of the 2011 threat, then he tweeted a lie when he challenged Plaintiff's reporting of the 2011 threat). (See Transcript of Proceedings
at 29:23-30:4.) However, Plaintiff's reasoning is entirely circular. She assumes that Mr. Trump knew of the 2011 threat, argues in her Complaint and her briefing that Mr. Trump knew of the 2011 threat, and then asks this Court for discovery to prove that Mr. Trump knew of the 2011 threat. In doing so, Plaintiff does not allege facts establishing how Mr. Trump knew or did not know about the 2011 threat in the first place. Plaintiff must do this to sustain a cause of action for defamation.
Not the same but this is where Stormy lost the case in court already..............I find it funny that in that case the OPENLY STATED that he would NOT ALLOW A "FISHING EXPEDITION"...........too funny.
Oh by the way..........Stormy owed Trump legal fees as a result of this case.......LOL
They just read off the sentencing for Cohen for which Trump orchestrated.tps://www.msnbc.com/deadline-white-house/watch/prosecutors-in-new-york-file-sentencing-memo-for-michael-cohen-1391880771925:abgg2q.jpg: I'm with you on that laugh.
You are truly dumb as hell since the section of the MEMO you claim you have read shows this that doesn't make any sense since "hush" money are NOT Campaign money:
"During the campaign, Cohen played a central role in two similar schemes to purchase the rights to stories each from women who claimed to have had an affair with Individual-1so as to suppress the stories and thereby prevent them from influencing the election. With respect to both payments, Cohen acted with the intent to influence the 2016 presidential election. Cohen coordinated his actions with one or more members of the campaign, including through meetings and phone calls, about the fact, nature, and timing of the payments. (PSR ¶ 51). In particular, and as Cohen himself has now admitted, with respect to both payments, he acted in coordination with and at the direction of Individual-1. (PSR ¶¶ 41, 45). As a result of Cohen’s actions, neither woman spoke to the press prior to the election. "
Paying people to not talk is NOT illegal.
Telling me hush money is not campaign money is totally irrelevant right now. It was stolen money from a charity that was never reported, and we the tax payer got ripped off and it was a few weeks before the election. Cohen is already going to jail for this crime, and Trump is next.
The fact that you think it wasn't campaign related is not relevant to prosecutors. They are tying it to the campaign, whether you like it or not.
Gosh you just ignored what the Prosecutors wrote!
"During the campaign, Cohen played a central role in two similar schemes to purchase the rights to stories each from women who claimed to have had an affair with Individual-1so as to suppress the stories and thereby prevent them from influencing the election. With respect to both payments, Cohen acted with the intent to influence the 2016 presidential election. Cohen coordinated his actions with one or more members of the campaign, including through meetings and phone calls, about the fact, nature, and timing of the payments. (PSR ¶ 51). In particular, and as Cohen himself has now admitted, with respect to both payments, he acted in coordination with and at the direction of Individual-1. (PSR ¶¶ 41, 45). As a result of Cohen’s actions, neither woman spoke to the press prior to the election."
bolding mine
It is clearly HUSHING money, NOT campaign money. You have yet to show that HUSHING people with money is illegal or that it violates campaign laws.
