Why Trump should win his NY hush money trial

When he starts drooling, that's going to be the money shot!

 

In order to have been defeated you would have had to put up a fight and you didn't.

Oh you're doing is appealing to authority.

That's more the behavior of a subject than a citizen.

 

Oh no! I didn’t even put up a fight! I cited a court order but that doesn’t count! Trumpers’ feelings are awesome and valid and court orders are weak and lame and not putting up a fight. I failed and lost!

 

See previous post.

 

You have very convincing feelings.

 

The left is so pathetic. Cohen paid without Trump even knowing. Good luck on appeal while Orange Man Bad is sitting in the Oval Office or a jail cell, whichever he will still be President.

 

No, it is not. The DA of NYC is the persecutor.

 

This Is the Biggest Head-Shaking Issue in the ‘Bogus’ NYC Case Against Trump.

“Bragg’s legal theory is that Donald Trump stole the 2016 election from Hillary Clinton. Yes, really. Clinton won nearly two to one in Bragg’s state of New York, but there’s something even more odd going on here than the fact that he bases his state case on other states’ electoral outcomes.”



'There are a ton of flaws in the record-keeping case against former President Donald Trump by the Manhattan District Attorney and former Justice Department lawyer Alvin Bragg, but there's one big head-shaking flaw that even Trump detractors can't get over. The issue is over the timing of the 34 alleged "crimes" for which Trump stands trial.'

'Judge Merchan told Trump that he'd think about whether he could campaign on the court's weekly day off on Wednesday. Isn't it nice that a local judge can determine whether a presidential candidate can campaign?'

'how someone could steal an election if all the alleged "crimes" happened in 2017 — after the election. All 34 charges are stated to have happened after the election, according to Bragg's indictment.'

"What Alvin Bragg is trying to say with his bogus legal theory is that when [Trump] booked these in 2017, it was somehow a campaign benefit... [and] campaign finance violation from 2016. It is a laughable legal theory,"

This is about election fixing, and it's obvious.

Read the whole thing.

 

This is a pathetically poor reinterpretation of the law. It doesn’t even make sense. Things can have dual purposes. You can only pay for something if it is entirely campaign related. It’s an embarrassingly inept presumption to claim that an NDA to protect your personal and professional reputation cannot be a personal expense.

 

This is a whole bunch of nonsense. The NDA had personal benefits. You can only pay for something out of a campaign account if it is solely for the purpose of a campaign. This is to protect donors from having their funds being used for personal benefit. Paying for this NDA out of campaign funds would have been a crime the same as when John Edwards was paying for haircuts out of his campaign funds for his campaign image. Those haircuts had a personal benefit so it could not be paid for out of campaign funds. They were solely for the benefit of the campaign. That’s the law. On top of all of that, federal election and campaign violations are not prosecutable in state courts. The DOJ looked at this and came to the conclusion that your argument about all of this “fraud” is BS. They looked at all the evidence and said there was no case to make of it.

Additionally, you’re making no sense on the payments. It doesn’t matter how you label a legal expense in a ledger. It has the same exact tax implications. The vast majority of people who enter NDAs of this type list the expense in similar ways. The entire point of it is to provide privacy. Nobody has ever been charged for doing this and it happens quite regularly.

 

An NDA to cover up a crime has no legal force, sorry.

It's all about 'intent'. Edwards/Trump is not an apples to apples comparison. With Edwards, the distinction between personal v campaign expence was no where near as clear cut (which is why they didn't prosecute) as it is with the Stormy/Trump case. The case against Trump is fundamentally different than the Edwards case as it revolves around the violation of campaign finance laws, specifically undeclared contributions. The payment to Stormy Daniels, made by his attorney Michael Cohen and then reimbursed by Trump, was argued to be an unreported campaign expense meant to influence the outcome of the 2016 election. Unlike Edwards, the allegations against Trump also involve additional aspects of falsifying business records, as indicated by charges brought by the Manhattan district attorney.

It's all about intent, and testimonies to support the prosecution's charges.

You do not have a right to 'privacy' in a criminal conspiracy.

Nobody has been charged for doing what, specifically?

 

Judge Merchan reportedly refused to dismiss a juror who was posting videos of what Trump's legal team believes were anti-Trump events around the 2020 election Merchan said he "looked her in the eye and thought she could be fair"

 

Hey, Rod---who from the SDNY said that Trump committed no crime?

 

It was a request to dismiss for cause. If Team Crybaby felt strongly that this juror couldn't be fair to the Orange Turd, they always have a number of preemptory strikes.

 

So, according to the Trumper analysis, a presidential candidate can cause an agent to arrange a payment to someone for their silence, and as long as they don’t use the campaign account, the nature of the transaction is magically transformed into a “personal” transaction. As if it wasn’t ever meant to influence the campaign. Yes, it’s that warped, folks.

 

Read this!

 

It was a loan..

 

I guess Trump can designate any NDA payments as “personal” and—-voila——it’s personal!

It’s just like government documents. He can wave his tiny orange hands over government documents and they’re all personal documents!

 

LOL! Explain the whole transaction. Details!

 

It was a misdemeanor that the statute of limitations had run out...

 

The court must have missed those awesome arguments.

 

you first

https://oversight.house.gov/wp-content/uploads/2023/10/Fourth-Bank-Records-Memo.pdf

 

Actually they did.... that is why everybody butt you think it is a scam trial from the beginning...

 

That was a real loan to his brother. It doesn’t make Trump’s non loan payments…TO HIS LAWYER….to pay off a woman who Trump boned for her silence a loan. And then he lied about the payments and said they were attorneys fees.

The story keeps changing. LOL!

 

Oh, you and Trump’s lawyers are highly encouraged to make these contradictory arguments on appeal. LOL!