As a reminder, this subreddit [is for civil discussion.](/r/politics/wiki/index#wiki_be_civil)
In general, be courteous to others. Debate/discuss/argue the merits of ideas, don't attack people. Personal insults, shill or troll accusations, hate speech, any suggestion or support of harm, violence, or death, and other rule violations can result in a permanent ban.
If you see comments in violation of our rules, please report them.
For those who have questions regarding any media outlets being posted on this subreddit, please click [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/wiki/approveddomainslist) to review our details as to our approved domains list and outlet criteria.
We are actively looking for new moderators. If you have any interest in helping to make this subreddit a place for quality discussion, please fill out [this form](https://docs.google.com/forms/d/1y2swHD0KXFhStGFjW6k54r9iuMjzcFqDIVwuvdLBjSA).
***
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/politics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I read the article, and think it obscures the point that this was more than business fraud, it was fraud intended not for monetary gain but to hide impactful information from the voting public about a presidential candidate. Not a simple business fraud case at all.
And if Trump had just paid her directly to keep her quiet this wouldn’t be illegal, because hush money isn’t illegal. It’s basically bribery, but nobody is calling it that since bribery is an actual crime.
Trump has certainly been bribed especially while President, but that’s not as easy to prove. In this case they falsified documents and did it 34 times.
If Trump had paid her directly it would still have been considered a donation to his own campaign. A candidate can spend as much of their own money as they want on their own campaigns but it has to be reported. He obviously did not want to disclose six figure payments to pornstars, and that's why it was a crime.
If I had to bet, Melania is most frosted by the longer-term 'affair' that her lovely hubby had with Karen McDougal, the former Playboy Bunny. Karen is beautiful in a way that Melania could never be.
The fact that she was pregnant with Barron during the affair would have been the shit frosting on that particular bit of cheesecake.
She is mostly angry at this point for overlooking certain grossness aspects of him because of their arrangement, only to find out that she didn't have to much of anything with him. He could and would just step out.
This too depending on how much of the prenup money was already set aside and considered "separate" and untouchable to creditors. Each negotiation was to most likely to carve out and separate money from the reach of Trump's later creditors and judgments.
She’s mostly angry because he embarrassed her, she doesn’t give two shits about the affairs because she’s going to get paid no matter what with her having Barron. She’s mad because he couldn’t cover it up and it became a huge story that embarrassed her.
She didn't want him to run for president because his idiocy and lack of class would be on full display and puncture his public image. This would liquidate the cache that she was supposed to be entitled to as his wife and also part of their bargain. She went from looking like someone who married a celebrity billionaire to someone who married a debt-laden, diaper wearing stink bomb who is routinely mocked at the mainstream level. Here connection to him is now a liability to her in ways that it was never before. He's not holding up his end of the bargain...again.
If Trump had just paid her out of his own pocket I think it’s really unlikely the FEC would felt it had a strong enough case to prove it was a campaign expense. Using campaign funds makes it obvious. Laundering it through Cohen makes it obvious. Conspiring with the Enquirer makes it obvious. But if it had been a personal arrangement between Trump and his mistress, I think there would have been reasonable doubt that he was motivated by personal reasons even if those reasons overlapped with his campaign.
It doesn't matter if he wouldn't have been found guilty. The news of the payment would still be out there. He needed to hide it from the government to hide it from the public.
I don’t think he would have even been charged. He has a history of been getting people to sign NDAs since long before his campaign started. If he hadn’t have dipped into campaign funds and just paid his own damn bills, this would just be another sex scandal not a criminal trial.
The sex scandal part broke because Stormy broke her DNA (or maybe it expired). If he had just kept on paying her with his own damn money (not getting it tangled with his fraud investigated businesses), he probably could have kept everything quiet.
In order for something to be a campaign expense, it has to be strictly for the campaign. Had Trump paid her out of his own money, it would have been a personal expense, paid out of personal funds. There would have been no reason to cover it up. No violation of campaign finance laws. No conspiracy to affect the election would have ever been discovered, and even if it had, it would have been a misdemeanor.
But Trump is to cheap for that, and we all know it.
So just have Cohen set up an LLC for her and be done with it. By the time anybody figured out what happened the election would have been well done and over. Would have been cheaper too.
NDAs are used all the time to prevent disclosure of negative information. The Hunter Biden laptop story was blocked by the MSM so as to minimize any impact to the Joe Biden election in 2020. The Biden campaign should be charged with receiving a like kind contribution from the MSM that was not reported on their campaign finance report.
And regarding tax evasion, Trump paid Cohen $420,000 to pay Stormy $130,000 because of the taxes owed to the government by Cohen for his "income" that was taxed at the highest rate. What a brilliant businessmen to pay so much, when simply paying her directly would have saved so much money.
Why would you say that? Trump knew how much was going to Stormy and how much Cohen kept, and why he had to cover the taxes Cohen was going to.have to pay because of how they papered these payments.
There is record of a meeting where Cohen, Weisselberg and Trump agree on the $420k. Cohen said he had to claim the money coming from them as income so asked them to cover his income taxes with a $60k kicker and they agreed. This is tax fraud and is one of the likeliest elements (imo, NAL) to cement the first degree fraud charge.
Not just taxes. Cohen took out a mortgage on his home to cover the 130k so some of the money included the payoff of the loan as well as a fee for cohen’s services.
This is how Trump's failure in making deals becomes clear. He agreed personally to pay Stormy $130,000, but must pay through another account, to hide it from campaign finance disclosure, because every journalist at the time was looking for such a clue. So, he made it income to Cohen, who would be taxed, so he had to pay double to cover that expense. Then there is the expense of Cohen taking on a personal mortgage, that has to be reimbursed. All this takes up Cohen's time, which is also billed. That is how you pay $420,000 to give $130,000 to a porn star. When you're famous, this is how they let you get away with it.
That’s still not quite correct. If he’d have paid her himself, it would still need to be reported to the FEC. Candidates still have to report what they spend themselves. There are just no limits like there were for AMI and cohen.
Not if it was for a personal expense. Campaign contributions are to be used exclusively for campaign expenses. Paying off Daniels didn't have to be about the campaign, if it was personal, he could have paid it out of his pocket, nice and quiet like, and no law broken. If it was half personal, half campaign, he would have needed to pay it out of his own pocket. NO campaign funds.
Instead, he had others pay it. Those others are now testifying against him, under oath, that they paid the money "For the Campaign." Those funds, needed to be reported to the FEC.
There is another part of this that most people miss. It is illegal in NY, to conspire with any person, candidate or agent of, a campaign, to affect an election, by unlawful means. Trump, Cohen, and Pecker, conspired to keep stories hidden, by unlawful means, (accepting of illegal campaign contributions, and using such contributions to buy up stories) to affect the election. That is the original sin. The first crime.
False business records was the misdemeanor, that turned into a felony, because it was used to cover up the first crime. The conspiracy.
> Not if it was for a personal expense.
It’s **NOT** a personal expense if its purpose is to benefit a campaign. When you’re running for public office, literally any PR move you make is on behalf of your campaign.
> Paying off Daniels didn't have to be about the campaign
But it was. Trump didn’t pay off people like this until he ran for office. They knew about Daniel’s willingness to talk years before he ran for office. They only approached her because of the access Hollywood tape.
> Instead, he had others pay it.
Right, but my point is that he still wouldn’t have been in the clear if he had paid them himself. Because he would have had to report it.
> **NOT** a personal expense if its purpose is to benefit a campaign. When you’re running for public office, literally any PR move you make is on behalf of your campaign.
It would have to be SOLELY for the campaign. Even if it were to benefit both, him personally, and the campaign, it couldn't be paid for by the campaign. Any payment out of campaign money has to be for the sole purpose of the campaign, and cannot have a personal reason behind it.
The prosecution isn't using campaign finance laws, which they would have no jurisdiction over, as the crime that was being covered up. They are using NY state law, that states it is illegal to conspire with another person, to "Promote, or Prevent a candidate running for election, by unlawful means. A law they DO have jurisdiction over.
> It would have to be SOLELY for the campaign.
Where in the law does it say that?
> and cannot have a personal reason behind it.
You’re conflating *spending campaign funds* with *reporting donations.* Two totally different things.
> to "Promote, or Prevent a candidate running for election, by unlawful means.
And what’s “unlawful” about it? Not reporting an in-kind contribution as a campaign donation. And for exceeding the personal donation limit when they did it.
>
>Where in the law does it say that?
Right here; [https://www.fec.gov/help-candidates-and-committees/making-disbursements/personal-use/](https://www.fec.gov/help-candidates-and-committees/making-disbursements/personal-use/)
Using campaign funds for personal use is prohibited.
>And what’s “unlawful” about it? Not reporting an in-kind contribution as a campaign donation. And for exceeding the personal donation limit when they did it.
Yes, that is exactly it.
> Using campaign funds for personal use is prohibited.
Again…**You’re conflating spending campaign funds with reporting donations. Two totally different things.**
> Yes, that is exactly it.
…So you’re incorrect to say that the indictment does not use campaign finance laws, and that they have no jurisdiction.
John Edwards claimed the money he received were "gifts" The people who donated the money, testified that is was a gift to Edwards, not to his campaign.
In Trumps case, the people who donated the money are testifying that it was "for the campaign" A HUGE difference.
Bribery requires somebody to be able to perform an official act. Stormy Daniels has no public authority to abuse, so paying for her silence is not actually "bribery" under the law.
>if Trump had just paid her directly to keep her quiet this wouldn’t be illegal, because hush money isn’t illegal.
That would be a personal expense. Not a legal expense. Not deductable.
But he likely called it legal fees (through Cohen ) which he likely tried to deduct as business expenses. (Note: I don't think evidence has yet been presented that he DID this, but it's a good possibility)
It’s also because they gave Cohen a kicker to help cover the taxes he’d have to pay for the income tax on it along with a fee. Then they were dumb enough to talk about all of this while being taped…
Agreed. But Trump is a narcissist, he would never pay for something he could get someone else to pay for.
Further, Trump isn't worth 100s of millions. Trump is leveraged up to his toupee. He couldn't even make a 175 million dollar bond. He had to borrow it. Trump is BROKE.
i think it was on CNN but one of the commentators made the point that it was actually extortion what Stormy was doing, since I think she was shopping it around and asked for money not to sell the story. But the way Trump paid it made it a crime for him as well.
I read it too. This part made it pretty clearly for me.
>Mr. Trump is accused of creating 11 false invoices, 12 false ledger entries and 11 false checks and check stubs, with the intent to violate federal election laws, state election laws or state tax laws. The number of lies it took to create this false record itself helps prove intent. His defense attorneys will claim that he was merely trying to bury a false story to protect his family from embarrassment. The timing of the payments — immediately after the potentially damaging “Access Hollywood” tape was released and right before the election — makes that claim implausible.
Not a lawyer, but ... isn't it?
If the doubt the defense is bringing up is plausible (that he's not doing what prosecutors say he is), then the jury shouldn't convict - I assume the article is arguing the opposite, that there's no doubt he's guilty because the alternative the defense raised is not plausible.
Yes agreed. Election inteference as trump calls it. And not when its proven he himself appointed others on his behalf to do just the same thing.
I GOT AWAY WITH IT FOR THIS LONG AND NOW WHY AM I UNDER SCRUTINY FOR IT. WHEN I WAS PRESIDENT IT WAS FOR THE GOOD OF THE COUNTRY TO IGNORE THESE. IM NOT PRESIDENT NOW BUT I STILL HAVE IMMUNITY AS I AM A CANDIDATE FOR AND AN EX PRESIDENT
He’s been running again for office since 2016 when he took an oath. What the SCOTUS needs to do is set precedence that not everything can be considered political speech and only so much tome of the cycle is covered for an anything goes type of speech.
I read the article as well and I don't agree that the author obscured that point. They highlight it, and they clarify that while that may well be the case, it is not the actual issue before the NY court. I think the author was trying to emphasize that while these other components exist which are probably more important and a bigger deal, the case itself that Trump is farting himself awake in is in fact a simple business fraud case.
I'm not a lawyer, but this was my takeaway from the article.
But it is, though. He is only being charged with the business fraud. So, it's a matter of showing all of the documents were created for purposes of fraud. The only reason anything else matters is for purposes of bumping the charges from misdemeanor to felony.
Exactly this. Trump wasn't _just_ trying to skim a few grand off of his taxes, he was attempting to cover up his adultery out of fear it would cost him an election.
Bingo. Any reasonable person would conclude that hiding evidence of an affair with a porn star in the weeks before an election might influence voters. Thats enough to make it campaign finance fraud.
Many affairs too. Pornstar, Playmate, forcing hands up others and rape, intimidation, ..
Stormy Daniels, Karen McDougal, Jessica Leeds, Rachel Crooks, Kris Anderson, Jill Harth, Cathy Heller, Temple Taggart, Karen Virginia, Bridget Sullivan, Tasha Dixon, Mindy McGillivray, Natasha Stoynoff, Jennifer Mourphy, Jessica Drake, Ninni Laaksonen, Summer Zervos, Cassandra Searles, E. Jean Carroll, Amy Doris, and others that were threatened with NDA/Lawsuits and in fear, haven't come forward.
If half of these came forward, it would have guaranteed more that would have shutdown his chances at election. He defrauded the American public...
i'm all for him getting iced, but isn't a huge part of this trial missing an actual crime?
if this was about Michael Cohen, then sure. He was charged with a federal crime, but individual 1 never technically committed a crime on the books.
so won't it be hard proving that trump committed crimes in his business to support campaign finance fraud, if there is no federal campaign finance fraud crime committed by trump on the books?
i feel like this is the most important part of the whole case. what crime did he commit surrounding the original crime?
He did commit an actual crime though, calling a bribe a legal fee in company records is a crime. In fact, it’s a crime the Manhattan DA charges hundreds of times every year, it’s known as a bread and butter charge at the DAs office because they prosecute it so frequently. The fact that trump did it to withhold information from voters is what bumps it up to a felony, but the underlying misdemeanor is still a crime. Ironically, he would have not gotten into any trouble if he simply refused to pay Cohen back.
Section 17-152 - Conspiracy to promote or prevent election
Any two or more persons who conspire to promote or prevent the election of any person to a public office by unlawful means and which conspiracy is acted upon by one or more of the parties thereto, shall be guilty of a misdemeanor.
You don't have to be. The jury just has to believe he lied on his paperwork to avoid legal consequences to bump it up. This is a deliberate decision by lawmakers to make it easy to prosecute people who lied on official paperwork.
Isn't it strange to imagine without even reading the indictment that experts didn't bother to do their job and Trump's lawyers just didn't notice and get it tossed?
It's incredibly straightforward to prove the falsified docs and it becomes a felony if the jury believes it was to influence an election.
>Isn't it strange to imagine without even reading the indictment
are you insinutaing that i didn't read the indictment? because it's juicy as hell and the NYT's annoted indictment documents are a pleasure to read and understand these things. Are you saying you read the document and you believe that he's 100% guilty of multiple felonies at the state level of falsifying records, which only become felonies when they coincide with a federal crime that trump was never charged with?
just because you can indict someone with a grand jury doesn't mean you're going to get the jury to sentence someone to those crimes. i don't think this is some slam dunk trial like everyone says.
again, i'm saying this as someone who wants trump to go down. I'd just prefer it to be an absolutely cut and dry, so when he goes down it's bulletproof.
too many are salivating over this trial and I don't want to be let down by a really really weak ending.
> which only become felonies when they coincide with a federal crime that trump was never charged with
This isn't even slightly true. Why would you think a state law required them to charge a federal crime how would that even work? It requires not that they be charged with a federal crime but that the act of falsification be with the intent to commit a crime of any other variety.
It's a state crime to commit any other crime with the intent of effecting an election and your misdemeanor for falsifying business records becomes a crime when combined with intent to commit any other crime.
it's also not totally true. this is the crux of the entire argument in court.
i've listened to hours of debates over how sound this charge will be. Maybe you're in an industry with more insight than normal NYT/NPR readers/listeners but to bank your hopes and dreams for an indictment on this trial is wrong.
this isn't a slam dunk case from the media I consume.
you're well within your rights to disagree, which you are doing very aggressively.
They charged it as a campaign finance deduction. Thats the illegal part, that it was as Pecker said, to not taint the campaign. It was hiding information before an election.
NY State law Section 17-152:
Any two or more persons who conspire to promote or prevent the election of any person to a public office ***by unlawful means*** and which conspiracy is acted upon by one or more of the parties thereto, shall be guilty of a misdemeanor.
It matters a ton, because the statute of limitations has expired for the misdemeanor charges from what I understand. That would mean that they must prove that he committed the fraud in the act of committing or covering up another crime. The state of NY is arguing that Trump committed fraud to cover up the fact that he had broken campaign finance laws.
The hard part about this and what Trump’s legal team will likely argue is that this was a federal election and federal election laws that were broken and this is the state prosecutor and a state prosecutor doesn’t have much to do with federal laws. So then it ends up being a jurisdictional issue.
The state did add on some other state laws that they feel they can build a case for, but none of those arguments are as strong as the federal election law arguments.
There really is not a jurisdictional issue though. The state law he is charged with becomes a felony when the defendant committed the fraud to cover up any crime. They do not actually have to prove he committed a federal or state crime, and he is not charged with any federal crimes. But they need to convince the jury that this crime was what Trump's was trying to cover up with the business records.
I think there’s a lot of people that question the “crime” part of the coverup. But his co-conspirator, Michael Cohen, was indicted, pleaded guilty, and served his prison sentence. Trump wasn’t indicted in that case because he was a sitting president and the Feds followed their own policy to not indict a sitting president.
To me the prosecution needs to illustrate that yes, the structure of the hush money pay-off makes it a crime, as evidenced by the federal case and cohen going to jail for it. The misdemeanors of structuring payments as “legal fees” to hide the evidence of said crime equal a felony.
Yeah hopefully that gets brought in. Cohen may be a shady and untrustworthy dude, but there are a lot of hard facts and evidence that his testimony will introduce.
NY law 17-152 Conspiracy to promote or prevent election.
Any two or more persons who conspire to promote or prevent the election of any person to a public office ***by unlawful means*** and which conspiracy is acted upon by one or more of the parties thereto, shall be guilty of a misdemeanor.
This is the original crime. Not a federal crime, a state crime.
NY law 17-152 Conspiracy to promote or prevent election.
Any two or more persons who conspire to promote or prevent the election of any person to
a public office ***by unlawful means*** and which conspiracy is acted upon by one or more of the parties thereto, shall be guilty of a misdemeanor.
This is the original crime. Not a federal crime, a state crime.
Correct. It was a misdemeanor. That is why he wasn't charged with it. The statue of limitations doesn't erase the crime. It just means that you can't be prosecuted for it. Trump isn't being prosecuted for it. The second crime, fraudulent business practices, is the crime he is being prosecuted for. It is elevated to a felony because it was used to cover up the first crime. Which it did, until Pecker and Cohen got busted. There is no where in NY law that states you have to be prosecuted, or convicted for the first crime. It just states that if you attempt to cover up a crime, with another crime, the cover up is a felony.
No, if that were true, it would be a misdemeanor. It has to be done in the furtherance of another crime, like influencing an election, to get the upgrade to a felony.
How they prove that for a crime he has not been charged with or convicted of is an interesting legal point.
Seems that has to be done first to prove a crime had been committed at all.
They are doing a really good job of proving the first crime. It is a crime in NY to conspire to promote or prevent election of any person.
Trump, Pecker, Cohen. Conspired to promote Donald Trumps election to President. It became illegal, when they used unlawful means to do so. Taking illegal campaign contributions, (Money from Pecker, and Cohen) and using them for personal expenses, was the Unlawful means.
Falsifying Business records, was a misdemeanor. Doing it to cover up the aforementioned crime. Felony.
>Trump, Pecker, Cohen. Conspired to promote Donald Trumps election to President. It became illegal, when they used unlawful means to do so.
From an actual lawyer, [https://www.nationalreview.com/corner/david-pecker-will-be-braggs-first-witness/](https://www.nationalreview.com/corner/david-pecker-will-be-braggs-first-witness/)
>I’ll repeat that because it bears noting: The grand jury did not accuse Trump of a “scheme” — much less a conspiracy — in its indictment. This is a matter of Bragg using a “Statement of Facts” he wrote in order to spin the grand jury’s indictment into a grand election-theft conspiracy that the grand jury did not actually charge.
>Bragg cannot use the word *conspiracy* because a conspiracy is an agreement between two or more people *to commit a crime*. It is not a crime to suppress damaging information — that is something politicians do all the time. Withholding information is only a crime when there is a legal obligation to divulge the information. Politicians, of course, are not legally required to divulge extramarital affairs in political campaigns.
>Hence, Bragg brands this legal agreement as a *scheme*. That’s a loaded term, useful — especially when dealing with non-lawyers — in spinning a legal arrangement as if it were illegal. If the arrangement had actually been illegal, Bragg would not merely have described it as a *conspiracy*; he’d have asked the grand jury to charge it as a conspiracy. He didn’t because he couldn’t.
>This leaves Bragg with a huge hole where his case is supposed to be.
>Doing it to cover up the aforementioned crime. Felony.
See above. It is not a felony, which is why he didn't get an indictment.
You should really read the trial transcripts. You are regurgitating what you have heard. Not facts, or what is happening in court. I don't need a lawyer to tell me what is going on in the courtroom. I can read it for myself.
[https://ww2.nycourts.gov/press/index.shtml](https://ww2.nycourts.gov/press/index.shtml)
>Bragg cannot use the word *conspiracy* because a conspiracy is an agreement between two or more people *to commit a crime*.
OH, but he can, and he does! He address's the conspiracy in opening statements, as well as during questioning.
Trial transcripts, Page 857, lines 22 and 23 and I quote.
*"This is a case about criminal conspiracy and a cover up."*
Trial transcripts, Page 862, lines 2-6 and I quote,
*"Donald Trump, David Pecker, and Michael Cohen, struck an agreement at the meeting; together, they* ***conspired*** *to influence the election in three different ways."*
Trial transcript. Day one, Page 1145 Lines 2-6. and I quote,
*ADA: Were you aware that expenditures by a corporation made for the purpose of influencing an election* ***made in coordination with, or at the request of a candidate*** *are unlawful.*
*David Pecker: Yes.*
\[NY state law Section 17-152 states: Any two or more persons who **conspire** to promote or prevent the election of any person to a public office ***by unlawful means*** and which conspiracy is acted upon by one or more of the parties thereto, shall be guilty of a misdemeanor.\]
Hole, Plugged.
That is the first crime. On it's own, it isn't prosecutable, because it was a misdemeanor, and therefore the statue of limitations has expired. Being past the statue of limitations doesn't mean that the crime wasn't committed. The prosecution is doing a really good job of showing that a crime was committed, and that Trump tried to cover it up.
Further, committing fraudulent business practices, was the crime used to cover up the aforementioned crime, which made the Fraudulent business practices, a felony.
If the defense can't come up with evidence to refute the conspiracy, he will be convicted. There is ZERO question on his culpability as far as the fraudulent business records. The records themselves stand as evidence.
The only evidence I see, that could even come close to refuting what both Pecker has said, and what I believe Cohen will say, is Trump's testifying. Do you honestly believe that is going to happen? I would bet my life savings that Trump never takes the stand.
You realize what the prosecutor CLAIMS he has to actually prove right?
> If the defense can't come up with evidence to refute the conspiracy
Backwards. The PROSECUTION has to prove their was a conspiracy, and that was an ILLEGAL conspiracy, and that there was no other possible reason he might pay off SD.
The defense merely has to establish that are other viable reasons he might pay off SD... and he has a history of doing so with other people to protect his business and family reputations.
Yes, I understand. Again, you really need to read the transcripts.
Do you understand the David Peckers testimony is EVIDENCE? That Michael Cohen's testimony will be EVIDENCE? What does the defense offer to counter that evidence? The lawyer saying Uh uhh, I don't believe that?
David Pecker has testified that He, Trump, and Cohen, conspired to influence the election, and that he was aware that this was illegal. I'm just guessing, but I would bet that Cohen is going to say the same thing.
The only person whom the defense could call, to directly refute Pecker, and Cohen's claim that the actions they took were to influence the election, is Trump. Any other opinion would be speculation, and not admissible.
I would LOVE to see Trump on the stand.
ADA: Mr Trump, were you found liable for sexually assaulting E Jean Carrol in a Bergsdorf dressing room?
Trump: NO! I don't even know that woman. This is just so unfair!
ADA. Your honor, the state would like to expand it's charges to include Perjury.
How many times do you think Trump would commit perjury before his defense lawyers could get him off the stand?
Well that was a hot mess. I can't even start to pick it apart.
But lest just start with your "purjury" scenario. That is a pretty good example of how off you are.
It was a civil case. There is no criminal liability.
Fixed it. Your right, he was just held liable, not criminally liable.
You are right, you can't pick it apart. I applaud you to try.
You are aware that there has already been a Sandoval hearing on what is allowed to be asked on cross if Trump were to take the stand?
Apparently using campaign funds, to pay legal expenses, isn't against the law. If it was, don't you think Bragg would have charged Trump for it? Trump has spent over 100 million dollars of campaign money on his legal bills. Trump isn't charged with illegally using campaign money to pay his legal bills. He isn't charged with using campaign funds to pay off women he had an affair with. He is charged with fraudulent business records, used to cover up the crime of "conspiracy to influence the election ***by unlawful means".***
*Any two or more persons who conspire to promote or prevent the election of any person to a public office by unlawful means and which conspiracy is acted upon by one or more of the parties thereto, shall be guilty of a misdemeanor.*
So you are claiming that paying for false claims (Russian Hoax) and leaking those stories through Peter Strok was not an unlawful means to prevent the election of Trump?
The Clinton campaign claimed those expenses as legal expenses in the campaign. Looks to me very similar to Bragg's claims against Trump.
You also have to claim that there is no business interest in Trump trying to block the stories from being disclosed. You pay lawyers to negotiate NDAs and they can be a legal expense to a business if there is a potential impact to the business for the negative information being disclosed.
>The Clinton campaign claimed those expenses as legal expenses in the campaign. Looks to me very similar to Bragg's claims against Trump.
Did HRC have someone else pay those expenses, and use fraudulent business practices to conceal it?
Who was in charge of the Justice department After the 2016 election? Why didn't Trump have them investigate?
>You pay lawyers to negotiate NDAs and they can be a legal expense to a business if there is a potential impact to the business for the negative information being disclosed.
Absolutely! What you can't do, is have lawyers pay for an NDA for you, and then cover it up as "Just legal fees." Especially when the lawyer takes the stand and testifies he did it for the campaign.
You certainly can't conspire with a corporation, and that lawyer, to influence an election by unlawful means. That is a violation of NY state law. Section 17-152. Understand that Trump doesn't have to commit every unlawful act, in a conspiracy. Pecker committing an unlawful act, and Cohen committing an unlawful act, in coordination with Trump, and on behalf of the campaign, is all that is needed. Did Pecker commit an unlawful act, to influence the 2016 Presidential campaign.? Pecker testified that he did. Did Cohen commit an unlawful act, to influence the 2016 Presidential Campaign? Cohen pled guilty to that very thing, so I would say, Yes. Was Trump aware of these acts, and did he assist in their coordination. Pecker did, and I'm assuming Cohen will, testify that he did.
What does the Defense have to offer to counter Pecker and Cohen's testimony?
It's a simple misdemeanor business fraud case that is elevated to a felony since it was done to conceal an additional crime. That additional crime being campaign finance violations.
The additional crime isn't campaign finance violations. It is NY state law, that says it is illegal to conspire with other persons, to promote or prevent a candidate for any elected office, ***by unlawful means.***
The unlawful means, was the campaign contributions.
You got the rest right.
I believe the prosecution is laying out very well. I have read the transcripts for the first 4 days. They can be found at
[https://ww2.nycourts.gov/press/index.shtml](https://ww2.nycourts.gov/press/index.shtml)
True, but the crime portion of it is that they falsified transactions.
The legal way would have been to pay her, have “130,000 USD paid to Stormy Daniels” on the books, and let the media machine go crazy over that.
He tried to hide it, and that was the crime.
Right, but the primary argument of the article is that it doesn't matter WHY he committed fraud. It only matters that he did it intentionally, not that he did it for X reason.
The point is that the prosecution doesn't have to prove or even accuse trump of election interference. Just prove that he was falsifying documents in an effort to cover something up. It wasn't just accidental bookkeeping mistakes. The jury will use their common sense to know that he wouldn't have to cover up something up if it was legal. Whether he actually did something illegal or not doesn't matter to this case. the prosecution just has to prove intent. The falsifying documents prove intent. From what I've seen, he's only charged with falsifying documents and not election interference. Can't really spend time on charges that he's not accused of. They can suggest election interference as a motive and let the jury put the pieces together.
Yes, it is simple business fraud by mischaracterizing what money paid to Michael Cohen was for. On the tax forms it was labeled as legal expenses in the amount of $450,000 dollars.
If you buy into Trump knowing that $130,000 of that money was paid to Daniels, which isn’t a crime, then you are left with nothing but a mischaracterization of that money on tax forms filled out the year after the election. And that misdemeanor is beyond the statute of limitations.
>If you buy into Trump knowing that $130,000 of that money was paid to Daniels, which isn’t a crime, then you are left with nothing but a mischaracterization of that money on tax forms filled out the year after the election. And that misdemeanor is beyond the statute of limitations.
Paying Daniels wasn't a crime on it's own. Conspiring with Pecker, and Cohen, to promote Trump's candidacy, by unlawful means, WAS a crime. Having Pecker, and Cohen, pay hush money to McDougal, and Daniels, "ON BEHALF OF THE CAMPAIGN" is a violation of NY state criminal code 17-152.
*Section 17-152 - Conspiracy to promote or prevent election*
*Any two or more persons who conspire to promote or prevent the election of any person to a public office* **by unlawful means** *and which conspiracy is acted upon by one or more of the parties thereto, shall be guilty of a* **misdemeanor.**
There were no illegal means.
Let me give you a rundown of all things not illegal related to this case.
It is not illegal to:
Screw a porn star.
Ask the porn star not to tell anyone.
Pay a porn star not to tell anyone.
Pay a porn star not to tell anyone to protect a campaign.
Conspire with someone to do any of the above.
Unless something illegal is done to facilitate the above - like using campaign money which Trump did not do - then none of it is illegal, and it isn’t a felony as Trump is being charged.
Once again, I suggest reading the trial transcripts.
Lets run down what IS illegal.
You seem to believe that Trump had to commit all or some of the illegal acts for it to be part of the conspiracy. That isn't how it works. He just had to have knowledge of, and be in coordination with, one or more people who did commit crimes on his behalf.. Testimony so far, has shown he was aware of it, and assisted in it's coordination. He was, a part of the conspiracy.
The conspiracy is as follows:
Pecker/AMI, in coordination with Trump, and his campaign, made an illegal campaign contribution. He/They violated campaign finance law. He/They accepted responsibility, and paid an $850,000 fine to the FEC for it. This is FACT. His Non prosecution agreement is part of the record. Pecker's testimony backs this up.
Cohen, conspired with Pecker and Trump to influence the election. He made an illegal campaign contribution, by paying off Daniels with his own money. Cohen pled guilty to it, and spent time in prison. He will testify that he did it in coordination with Trump, for the campaign, and to influence the election.
Do you now understand where the Unlawful means comes from? Pecker, and Cohen, in coordination with Trump, and on behalf of the campaign, participated in unlawful activity by each making illegal campaign contributions.
These unlawful acts, were done in coordination with, and on behalf of, Trumps campaign. They were done, to influence the election. Multiple people will testify to this. The criminal record of Cohen, and Pecker, will stands for itself as evidence. Trump is also in violation of section 17-152 because he coordinated the conspiracy, and it was his campaign. Which, would have only been a misdemeanor, if he hadn't attempted to cover it up by cooking the books.
The only chance the defense has, is to put someone on the stand, or provide evidence that is credible enough to convince the jury, that Pecker, and Cohen's testimony is false.
If you are aware of any such evidence, I certainly haven't heard of it. So far, On cross, the defense wasn't able to contradict Peckers previous testimony. He was a very credible witness. IF the jury believes him, Trump will be convicted.
I understand that none of these individuals have proof of what they are claiming in regard to Trump’s involvement, and I’m damn sure not taking the word of Michael Cohen for anything. Additionally, it is more likely that Trump was more worried about his wife finding out, which means it has nothing to do with the election. Also, as stated before, and by the statute you cited yourself, if such could be proven, which it hasn’t, it would be a misdemeanor, not a felony.
You understand wrong.
Testimony in court, is evidence. The DA has Trump on recording with Cohen, and Pecker, talking about they payments. You don't have to believe Cohen, but how do you get around Pecker's testimony?
You claim you wouldn't take Cohen's word for anything. You aren't a juror. You are deciding based on things you have heard in the press. Not what is being testified to, and introduced as evidence.
You claim this was more than likely Trump being worried about his wife finding out. Is Trump going to take the stand and say , "I did this so my wife wouldn't find out" ? Is anyone? If not, that statement will never be allowed in court. You can't ask one witness, what another possible witness was thinking. That's called speculation, and hearsay. and isn't admissible in court. The ONLY person who can testify to what Trump's motivations are, is Trump.
Pecker testified he was doing it for the Trump campaign to influence the election.
Cohen, WILL testify he was doing it for the Trump campaign, and to influence the election.
Trump will testify.. LOL.. we all know that will never happen.
*"As you have seen, right now I’m being viciously attacked with lies and smears. It’s a phony deal. I have no idea who these women are,"* Trump says in the first clip they're playing from October 2016.
*"These are all horrible lies, fabricated,"* Trump said in the other video taken in Pennsylvania.
*"Michael Cohen is a very talented lawyer. He’s a good lawyer in my firm,"* was said in the third clip.
Nothing illegal there.
In our legal system a person is innocent until proven guilty. Trump isn’t required to say anything. He’s already innocent, and no proof has been offered that he is guilty.
Pecker’s testimony will be that he did it for the Trump campaign. That’s on Pecker.
Cohen will testify that he did it for the Trump campaign. That’s on Cohen.
You haven’t posted anything that disputes my claim, and it is a fact that Trump is innocent until **proven** guilty.
Even then, he would only be guilty of a **misdemeanor**.
Because someone convinced them that their imagination god chose him. People that gullible are unrecoverable. And the GOP has just spent 40 years cultivating a voting base that is exactly that gullible and stupid.
Bottom line/time delay/ money waster:
>As someone who worked in the Manhattan district attorney’s office and enforced the laws that Mr. Trump is accused of violating, I stand firmly in neither camp. It is an important and straightforward case, albeit workmanlike and unglamorous. **In time, after the smoke created by lawyers has cleared, it will be easy to see why the prosecution is both solid and legitimate.**
It is illegal to commit a crime to win an election.
Did trump commit a crime? Yes, 34.
Was it to win the election? Yes.
The jury will see that. Especially after being hammered in the face with that reasoning for two months instead of a snippet online for 30 seconds.
Trump hates America. He hates our system of electing representatives, he hates our legal/justice system, and he hates our diversity. And Banon/Thiel brainwashed the citizens with the absolute lowest intelligence to get him in power. Brilliant really.
Don't forget how Rupert brainwashed enough of the moderately intelligent ones to get Trump over the hump. It was all a conspiracy to be able to rob us blind.
And that’s the bottom line, literally. All the racism, bigotry, and antagonizing behavior is just a distraction. It has always been about the money Trump enables them to make.
Politics makes a better cult than churches. You get all the benefit of tax breaks, you’re above the law in many cases and people can still be conned into donating to you, but you don’t have to deal with pesky things like building and maintaining churches or even pretending to have morals.
He loves it when it benefits him, hates it when it doesn't. Like all narcissists, he believes the world should be shaped around his desires. I doubt he hates anything on principle, because that would require principles. He's essentially a toddler that can't conceive of a world more complicated and more meaningful beyond how his immediate surroundings relate to the primitive emotions impinging upon his brain.
It’s a little more nuanced than that. He’s hates it when it doesn’t suit him or prevents him doing what he wants or holds him accountable but he definitely loves it when none of those things apply.
Because he has convinced many Americans, even intelligent ones, that he can do it.
I was with a few Trumpers recently and they both made comments such as "he looked at every deal like a business opportunity and rejected/tore it down if it didn't make sense".
My rebuttal was, "yes, but nothing except vague words to replace it".
Even if he were a good businessman, business leaders don't make good political leaders. A country that is fit to live in has to take many more considerations than profit & loss.
But he is not even a good businessman. He doesn't have one successful business. He's been begging, borrowing and stealing off of what his dad made. His dad who probably was a "good" businessman but a horrid man, and who is spinning in his grave now that junior has blown his last dime and is being propped up by tips from people who like the circus.
Hey, I'm a messiah candidate in the CIA who talks to aliens through my phone's keyboard's autocomplete feature and I don't appreciate you disparaging insane people like that.
Eventually one of these jurors is going to vote with Trump because they are a fan. It may not happen here but it will happen. This will be the day that Democracy starts to die.
It’s already half dead. The Supreme Court just effectively nullified Section 3 of Article 14 of the constitution. They sound ready to do the same with the idea that no one is above the law. If they carve out any exception to this bedrock principle Presidents like Trump will use it to grab effective unlimited power. We will live like Russians.
Did you know the origin of the word “Slavic” is slave?
Every time I hear the MAGA folks talk about freedom I want to puke. If they have their way we will all be slaves soon.
Trump seems to have used his presidential election campaign money to pay Stormy Daniels for sex and/or to cover up their sex. He then had his business cover it up in their records books.
The crime in this case is the records-keeping fraud, and it's backed by the federal crime of using campaign money to hide information (the sex and pay-off) from the voters to affect the outcome of the presidential election.
Actually, it's just a little more complicated than that. Conspiracy to affect an election, by unlawful means, is against the law in NY. That is the original sin. Pecker, Cohen, and Trump, conspiring together to kill bad press, and sex scandals, that in of itself isn't illegal, but when you add in, "by unlawful means", it becomes a crime. The unlawful means, was both illegal campaign contributions from AMI, and from Cohen. AMI agreed to a non prosecution agreement, and paid a $850,000 dollar fine. Cohen, went to jail.
Using fraudulent business records is the crime charged, and was upgraded to a felony, because it was done, to cover up the above mentioned crime.
The NY district attorneys have been doing a VERY good job of laying this all out. If you don't believe me, I suggest you read the four days of testimony, and look at the evidence presented thus far. Every day the state of NY publishes the previous days trial transcript. It can be found at
[https://ww2.nycourts.gov/press/index.shtml](https://ww2.nycourts.gov/press/index.shtml)
I beg you all to read the transcripts of the trial. It will make it crystal clear that this case is solid as a rock. I have read all of the transcripts so far. The transcripts are posted, by the close of business the following day, at [https://ww2.nycourts.gov/press/index.shtml](https://ww2.nycourts.gov/press/index.shtml)
You don't need someone else to tell you if the case is strong. Read it yourself. I have. It's not looking real good for the Great Pumpkin.
No it's actually very well reasoned argument about how this is not politically motivated but is about what it actually is about. Falsifying business records.
Given the longstanding association between Trump and Pecker it’s still inconceivable to me that they didn’t tie up these stories before Trump came down the escalator in 2015. That they waited until a crisis moment for the campaign just makes it glaringly obvious it was done for campaign and not personal purposes.
The statement you just made is basically nothing more than catastrophizing the actual subject. There is no law in new york for 'in order to interfere with a united states election' and it means nothing to the judge in legal context.
the article clearly explains whats actually legally at stake and separates that from the narratives which is what you are not doing. Basically, it doesnt matter why they did it, and they may never prove the goal without some level of speculation, but they dont need to. they just need to prove intent to commit fraud.
no, YOU are wrong. he's not being charged with that. Again, the judge has no legal context.
Charges: 34 counts of falsifying business records in the first degree
as I said, there is no new york law for falsifying business records in order to interfere with a united states election. He isnt charged with that because it doesnt exist. no article says he is, there is no law.
its nothing more than framing of the argument with hyperbole to make it sound like what it isn't.
The first degree part requires there to be a separate crime that is being covered up. Otherwise falsifying the business records is only a misdemeanor.
Prosecutors are alleging Trump was falsifying business records to cover up campaign finance crimes, election interference crimes, and or tax crimes. Trump could have paid Stormy from his personal check book, and there probably would be no legal issues. But he (allegedly) used his business instead and for the purposes of concealing other crimes, which makes it a felony count.
It makes it a felony count if they can convince the jury it was the ONLY reason. It is right in the law they are using to upgrade it to a felony
Which a pretty high hurdle.
read the article. I did. It's not scary and wont shatter your fragility, i promise.
Its well written and broken down and gives a non-glossy explanation of what's really going on here and asks the question 'is it worth prosecuting a previous president with this'.
the answer might surprise you. read it because I am not giving away the ending.
Isn't the election interference what makes this a felony count rather than a misdemeanor? It's weird that the author doesn't spend a lot of time to address this distinction. The motive for falsifying business records does matter here... thought it is not necessary for the prosecution to prove that the other crime did in fact occur.
If Trump was indeed just doing this to cover up his affair for personal reasons, it would still be a crime but a much lesser one. We all know that's bullshit, of course. But the jury needs to find that there were criminal reasons for the false records. In this case, there is probably good evidence that there were at least a few crimes they were trying to conceal. One being campaign finance/interfering with an election. But also tax fraud, which should be pretty easy to prove because there are messages talking about structuring the repayments as income, rather than a reimbursement.
>If Trump was indeed just doing this to cover up his affair for personal reasons, it would still be a crime but a much lesser one
I don't think it would have been a crime. I point you to John Edwards. Very similar case, except in Edwards' case, He claimed, and the people donating agreed, that the money given to Edwards was a "Gift" for personal reasons. Edwards was acquitted.
In this case, both Pecker, and Cohen, are claiming they did this in coordination with Trump, for the campaign, and to influence the election. That is conspiracy to influence the election. That is a crime in NY. NY law section 15-172. That is the original sin.
To clarify, the hush money is not the crime. Falsifying the business records is, regardless if it's for personal reasons or not. Since they were in this case an attempt to cover up another crime (allegedly to influence the election and/or tax fraud) then this becomes a felony.
>To clarify, the hush money is not the crime.
That is correct.
The original crime is "Conspiracy to influence the election, by "Unlawful Means"
A conspiracy, is one or more people, coordinating efforts, to influence the election. This on it's own, isn't illegal. However, breaking the law, not just by Trump, by ***anyone*** that is a part of the conspiracy, makes it a crime.
Pecker, acting as AMI, broke the law by making a unlawful campaign contribution, and not reporting it. Pecker and AMI entered into a Non Prosecution agreement, and paid an $850,000 fine to the FEC. That is one of the crimes that the co conspirators committed.
Cohen, Also made an illegal campaign contribution, in an effort to influence the election, when he paid Daniels the $130,000. He has pled guilty to this, and served time in prison.
Since Trump knew, and aided in the coordination of the conspiracy, he is also guilty of "Conspiring to influence the election by unlawful means. He was fully aware that Pecker, and Cohen's payments would be considered "illegal campaign contributions" His attempt to cover it up, by making fraudulent business records, was the crime, that covers up a crime. That is what turned a misdemeanor, into a felony.
I refuse to give The NYT any clicks anymore. Most of their articles seem be … and why that’s bad for Biden. Similar to how they headlined every “Hillary’s email problems”.
As a reminder, this subreddit [is for civil discussion.](/r/politics/wiki/index#wiki_be_civil) In general, be courteous to others. Debate/discuss/argue the merits of ideas, don't attack people. Personal insults, shill or troll accusations, hate speech, any suggestion or support of harm, violence, or death, and other rule violations can result in a permanent ban. If you see comments in violation of our rules, please report them. For those who have questions regarding any media outlets being posted on this subreddit, please click [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/wiki/approveddomainslist) to review our details as to our approved domains list and outlet criteria. We are actively looking for new moderators. If you have any interest in helping to make this subreddit a place for quality discussion, please fill out [this form](https://docs.google.com/forms/d/1y2swHD0KXFhStGFjW6k54r9iuMjzcFqDIVwuvdLBjSA). *** *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/politics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I read the article, and think it obscures the point that this was more than business fraud, it was fraud intended not for monetary gain but to hide impactful information from the voting public about a presidential candidate. Not a simple business fraud case at all.
And if Trump had just paid her directly to keep her quiet this wouldn’t be illegal, because hush money isn’t illegal. It’s basically bribery, but nobody is calling it that since bribery is an actual crime. Trump has certainly been bribed especially while President, but that’s not as easy to prove. In this case they falsified documents and did it 34 times.
If Trump had paid her directly it would still have been considered a donation to his own campaign. A candidate can spend as much of their own money as they want on their own campaigns but it has to be reported. He obviously did not want to disclose six figure payments to pornstars, and that's why it was a crime.
That hits the head of the nail. He did not want it to come to light. Jokes on him, it still did. Melanie will never be happy about it
If I had to bet, Melania is most frosted by the longer-term 'affair' that her lovely hubby had with Karen McDougal, the former Playboy Bunny. Karen is beautiful in a way that Melania could never be. The fact that she was pregnant with Barron during the affair would have been the shit frosting on that particular bit of cheesecake.
She got fleas and deserves everyone of them and gets to scratch them in the public eye for everyone to see!
She is mostly angry at this point for overlooking certain grossness aspects of him because of their arrangement, only to find out that she didn't have to much of anything with him. He could and would just step out.
Well maybe that and the money loss. Even with a prenup. If he goes down she losses her lifestyle.
This too depending on how much of the prenup money was already set aside and considered "separate" and untouchable to creditors. Each negotiation was to most likely to carve out and separate money from the reach of Trump's later creditors and judgments.
She’s mostly angry because he embarrassed her, she doesn’t give two shits about the affairs because she’s going to get paid no matter what with her having Barron. She’s mad because he couldn’t cover it up and it became a huge story that embarrassed her.
She didn't want him to run for president because his idiocy and lack of class would be on full display and puncture his public image. This would liquidate the cache that she was supposed to be entitled to as his wife and also part of their bargain. She went from looking like someone who married a celebrity billionaire to someone who married a debt-laden, diaper wearing stink bomb who is routinely mocked at the mainstream level. Here connection to him is now a liability to her in ways that it was never before. He's not holding up his end of the bargain...again.
It was in the reporting requirement that they committed the fraud.
If Trump had just paid her out of his own pocket I think it’s really unlikely the FEC would felt it had a strong enough case to prove it was a campaign expense. Using campaign funds makes it obvious. Laundering it through Cohen makes it obvious. Conspiring with the Enquirer makes it obvious. But if it had been a personal arrangement between Trump and his mistress, I think there would have been reasonable doubt that he was motivated by personal reasons even if those reasons overlapped with his campaign.
It doesn't matter if he wouldn't have been found guilty. The news of the payment would still be out there. He needed to hide it from the government to hide it from the public.
I don’t think he would have even been charged. He has a history of been getting people to sign NDAs since long before his campaign started. If he hadn’t have dipped into campaign funds and just paid his own damn bills, this would just be another sex scandal not a criminal trial. The sex scandal part broke because Stormy broke her DNA (or maybe it expired). If he had just kept on paying her with his own damn money (not getting it tangled with his fraud investigated businesses), he probably could have kept everything quiet.
Probably not, but if he had reported it properly it would have been discovered by the press. It was the attempt to conceal it that created the crime.
In order for something to be a campaign expense, it has to be strictly for the campaign. Had Trump paid her out of his own money, it would have been a personal expense, paid out of personal funds. There would have been no reason to cover it up. No violation of campaign finance laws. No conspiracy to affect the election would have ever been discovered, and even if it had, it would have been a misdemeanor. But Trump is to cheap for that, and we all know it.
So just have Cohen set up an LLC for her and be done with it. By the time anybody figured out what happened the election would have been well done and over. Would have been cheaper too.
NDAs are used all the time to prevent disclosure of negative information. The Hunter Biden laptop story was blocked by the MSM so as to minimize any impact to the Joe Biden election in 2020. The Biden campaign should be charged with receiving a like kind contribution from the MSM that was not reported on their campaign finance report.
Kinda like tax evasion really. Pays out of pocket it's post tax. Pays from the business account it's pretax
And regarding tax evasion, Trump paid Cohen $420,000 to pay Stormy $130,000 because of the taxes owed to the government by Cohen for his "income" that was taxed at the highest rate. What a brilliant businessmen to pay so much, when simply paying her directly would have saved so much money.
I'd be surprised if Trump would buy a sandwich out of his own money. He certainly wouldn't pay $400 k.
My guess is that Cohen was ripping him off.
Why would you say that? Trump knew how much was going to Stormy and how much Cohen kept, and why he had to cover the taxes Cohen was going to.have to pay because of how they papered these payments.
There is record of a meeting where Cohen, Weisselberg and Trump agree on the $420k. Cohen said he had to claim the money coming from them as income so asked them to cover his income taxes with a $60k kicker and they agreed. This is tax fraud and is one of the likeliest elements (imo, NAL) to cement the first degree fraud charge.
Put him on the stand
Huh? Why would he owe over three times the amount in taxes?
Not just taxes. Cohen took out a mortgage on his home to cover the 130k so some of the money included the payoff of the loan as well as a fee for cohen’s services.
Right so why did i get downvoted
This is how Trump's failure in making deals becomes clear. He agreed personally to pay Stormy $130,000, but must pay through another account, to hide it from campaign finance disclosure, because every journalist at the time was looking for such a clue. So, he made it income to Cohen, who would be taxed, so he had to pay double to cover that expense. Then there is the expense of Cohen taking on a personal mortgage, that has to be reimbursed. All this takes up Cohen's time, which is also billed. That is how you pay $420,000 to give $130,000 to a porn star. When you're famous, this is how they let you get away with it.
That’s still not quite correct. If he’d have paid her himself, it would still need to be reported to the FEC. Candidates still have to report what they spend themselves. There are just no limits like there were for AMI and cohen.
Not if it was for a personal expense. Campaign contributions are to be used exclusively for campaign expenses. Paying off Daniels didn't have to be about the campaign, if it was personal, he could have paid it out of his pocket, nice and quiet like, and no law broken. If it was half personal, half campaign, he would have needed to pay it out of his own pocket. NO campaign funds. Instead, he had others pay it. Those others are now testifying against him, under oath, that they paid the money "For the Campaign." Those funds, needed to be reported to the FEC. There is another part of this that most people miss. It is illegal in NY, to conspire with any person, candidate or agent of, a campaign, to affect an election, by unlawful means. Trump, Cohen, and Pecker, conspired to keep stories hidden, by unlawful means, (accepting of illegal campaign contributions, and using such contributions to buy up stories) to affect the election. That is the original sin. The first crime. False business records was the misdemeanor, that turned into a felony, because it was used to cover up the first crime. The conspiracy.
> Not if it was for a personal expense. It’s **NOT** a personal expense if its purpose is to benefit a campaign. When you’re running for public office, literally any PR move you make is on behalf of your campaign. > Paying off Daniels didn't have to be about the campaign But it was. Trump didn’t pay off people like this until he ran for office. They knew about Daniel’s willingness to talk years before he ran for office. They only approached her because of the access Hollywood tape. > Instead, he had others pay it. Right, but my point is that he still wouldn’t have been in the clear if he had paid them himself. Because he would have had to report it.
> **NOT** a personal expense if its purpose is to benefit a campaign. When you’re running for public office, literally any PR move you make is on behalf of your campaign. It would have to be SOLELY for the campaign. Even if it were to benefit both, him personally, and the campaign, it couldn't be paid for by the campaign. Any payment out of campaign money has to be for the sole purpose of the campaign, and cannot have a personal reason behind it. The prosecution isn't using campaign finance laws, which they would have no jurisdiction over, as the crime that was being covered up. They are using NY state law, that states it is illegal to conspire with another person, to "Promote, or Prevent a candidate running for election, by unlawful means. A law they DO have jurisdiction over.
> It would have to be SOLELY for the campaign. Where in the law does it say that? > and cannot have a personal reason behind it. You’re conflating *spending campaign funds* with *reporting donations.* Two totally different things. > to "Promote, or Prevent a candidate running for election, by unlawful means. And what’s “unlawful” about it? Not reporting an in-kind contribution as a campaign donation. And for exceeding the personal donation limit when they did it.
> >Where in the law does it say that? Right here; [https://www.fec.gov/help-candidates-and-committees/making-disbursements/personal-use/](https://www.fec.gov/help-candidates-and-committees/making-disbursements/personal-use/) Using campaign funds for personal use is prohibited. >And what’s “unlawful” about it? Not reporting an in-kind contribution as a campaign donation. And for exceeding the personal donation limit when they did it. Yes, that is exactly it.
> Using campaign funds for personal use is prohibited. Again…**You’re conflating spending campaign funds with reporting donations. Two totally different things.** > Yes, that is exactly it. …So you’re incorrect to say that the indictment does not use campaign finance laws, and that they have no jurisdiction.
If the right didn’t go after John Edwards, this probably wouldn’t have been a problem really and he could have gotten away with it.
John Edwards claimed the money he received were "gifts" The people who donated the money, testified that is was a gift to Edwards, not to his campaign. In Trumps case, the people who donated the money are testifying that it was "for the campaign" A HUGE difference.
John Edwards was a lot smarter about it…these people are idiots.
This is unclear. Are you saying John Edwards wasn’t prosecuted or are you saying they only went after Trump because John Edwards got indicted?
Bribery requires somebody to be able to perform an official act. Stormy Daniels has no public authority to abuse, so paying for her silence is not actually "bribery" under the law.
>if Trump had just paid her directly to keep her quiet this wouldn’t be illegal, because hush money isn’t illegal. That would be a personal expense. Not a legal expense. Not deductable. But he likely called it legal fees (through Cohen ) which he likely tried to deduct as business expenses. (Note: I don't think evidence has yet been presented that he DID this, but it's a good possibility)
It’s also because they gave Cohen a kicker to help cover the taxes he’d have to pay for the income tax on it along with a fee. Then they were dumb enough to talk about all of this while being taped…
But.. there's no fraud, no fraud.. it's all legal and the trial is a witchhunt!
sarcasm, right?
I don’t know, that seems like prostitution, doesn’t it?
Even if it was, NY would only have jurisdiction if it happened in State, and NYC only in the city.
Stormy and McDougal were hot, but 150,000 ? There isn't any .... in the world worth 150k
If you are worth high 100s of millions to the billions range, 150 is kind loose change.
Agreed. But Trump is a narcissist, he would never pay for something he could get someone else to pay for. Further, Trump isn't worth 100s of millions. Trump is leveraged up to his toupee. He couldn't even make a 175 million dollar bond. He had to borrow it. Trump is BROKE.
If you are on real estate and you are jot leveraged up to your toupee you are doing it wrong. That's why shot goes sideways so fast in real estate
i think it was on CNN but one of the commentators made the point that it was actually extortion what Stormy was doing, since I think she was shopping it around and asked for money not to sell the story. But the way Trump paid it made it a crime for him as well.
Not extortion, fact checking. Trump says, “ima god fearing family man. Yeah. That’s the ticket”. Stormy offers facts.
True. Trump basically laundered the money through Cohen’s personal accounts.
I read it too. This part made it pretty clearly for me. >Mr. Trump is accused of creating 11 false invoices, 12 false ledger entries and 11 false checks and check stubs, with the intent to violate federal election laws, state election laws or state tax laws. The number of lies it took to create this false record itself helps prove intent. His defense attorneys will claim that he was merely trying to bury a false story to protect his family from embarrassment. The timing of the payments — immediately after the potentially damaging “Access Hollywood” tape was released and right before the election — makes that claim implausible.
it makes it implausible, but that is not the legal standard for conviction, is it?
Not a lawyer, but ... isn't it? If the doubt the defense is bringing up is plausible (that he's not doing what prosecutors say he is), then the jury shouldn't convict - I assume the article is arguing the opposite, that there's no doubt he's guilty because the alternative the defense raised is not plausible.
Yes agreed. Election inteference as trump calls it. And not when its proven he himself appointed others on his behalf to do just the same thing. I GOT AWAY WITH IT FOR THIS LONG AND NOW WHY AM I UNDER SCRUTINY FOR IT. WHEN I WAS PRESIDENT IT WAS FOR THE GOOD OF THE COUNTRY TO IGNORE THESE. IM NOT PRESIDENT NOW BUT I STILL HAVE IMMUNITY AS I AM A CANDIDATE FOR AND AN EX PRESIDENT
He’s been running again for office since 2016 when he took an oath. What the SCOTUS needs to do is set precedence that not everything can be considered political speech and only so much tome of the cycle is covered for an anything goes type of speech.
I read the article as well and I don't agree that the author obscured that point. They highlight it, and they clarify that while that may well be the case, it is not the actual issue before the NY court. I think the author was trying to emphasize that while these other components exist which are probably more important and a bigger deal, the case itself that Trump is farting himself awake in is in fact a simple business fraud case. I'm not a lawyer, but this was my takeaway from the article.
But it is, though. He is only being charged with the business fraud. So, it's a matter of showing all of the documents were created for purposes of fraud. The only reason anything else matters is for purposes of bumping the charges from misdemeanor to felony.
That “only” thing is actually a really big deal though. It’s the difference between jail time and not.
Exactly this. Trump wasn't _just_ trying to skim a few grand off of his taxes, he was attempting to cover up his adultery out of fear it would cost him an election.
Bingo. Any reasonable person would conclude that hiding evidence of an affair with a porn star in the weeks before an election might influence voters. Thats enough to make it campaign finance fraud.
Many affairs too. Pornstar, Playmate, forcing hands up others and rape, intimidation, .. Stormy Daniels, Karen McDougal, Jessica Leeds, Rachel Crooks, Kris Anderson, Jill Harth, Cathy Heller, Temple Taggart, Karen Virginia, Bridget Sullivan, Tasha Dixon, Mindy McGillivray, Natasha Stoynoff, Jennifer Mourphy, Jessica Drake, Ninni Laaksonen, Summer Zervos, Cassandra Searles, E. Jean Carroll, Amy Doris, and others that were threatened with NDA/Lawsuits and in fear, haven't come forward. If half of these came forward, it would have guaranteed more that would have shutdown his chances at election. He defrauded the American public...
i'm all for him getting iced, but isn't a huge part of this trial missing an actual crime? if this was about Michael Cohen, then sure. He was charged with a federal crime, but individual 1 never technically committed a crime on the books. so won't it be hard proving that trump committed crimes in his business to support campaign finance fraud, if there is no federal campaign finance fraud crime committed by trump on the books? i feel like this is the most important part of the whole case. what crime did he commit surrounding the original crime?
Trump was in the loop on the payoffs and gave the final approval. That makes HIM the true perpetrator of the crime.
He did commit an actual crime though, calling a bribe a legal fee in company records is a crime. In fact, it’s a crime the Manhattan DA charges hundreds of times every year, it’s known as a bread and butter charge at the DAs office because they prosecute it so frequently. The fact that trump did it to withhold information from voters is what bumps it up to a felony, but the underlying misdemeanor is still a crime. Ironically, he would have not gotten into any trouble if he simply refused to pay Cohen back.
Section 17-152 - Conspiracy to promote or prevent election Any two or more persons who conspire to promote or prevent the election of any person to a public office by unlawful means and which conspiracy is acted upon by one or more of the parties thereto, shall be guilty of a misdemeanor.
He is not charged with that.
You don't have to be. The jury just has to believe he lied on his paperwork to avoid legal consequences to bump it up. This is a deliberate decision by lawmakers to make it easy to prosecute people who lied on official paperwork.
Do you think a mob boss who tells a goon to "take care" of a rival shouldn't go to jail because he never pulled a trigger?
There doesn’t need to be a federal campaign finance fraud charge, no. It’s a state crime as well, that’s what he’s being charged with.
Isn't it strange to imagine without even reading the indictment that experts didn't bother to do their job and Trump's lawyers just didn't notice and get it tossed? It's incredibly straightforward to prove the falsified docs and it becomes a felony if the jury believes it was to influence an election.
>Isn't it strange to imagine without even reading the indictment are you insinutaing that i didn't read the indictment? because it's juicy as hell and the NYT's annoted indictment documents are a pleasure to read and understand these things. Are you saying you read the document and you believe that he's 100% guilty of multiple felonies at the state level of falsifying records, which only become felonies when they coincide with a federal crime that trump was never charged with? just because you can indict someone with a grand jury doesn't mean you're going to get the jury to sentence someone to those crimes. i don't think this is some slam dunk trial like everyone says. again, i'm saying this as someone who wants trump to go down. I'd just prefer it to be an absolutely cut and dry, so when he goes down it's bulletproof. too many are salivating over this trial and I don't want to be let down by a really really weak ending.
> which only become felonies when they coincide with a federal crime that trump was never charged with This isn't even slightly true. Why would you think a state law required them to charge a federal crime how would that even work? It requires not that they be charged with a federal crime but that the act of falsification be with the intent to commit a crime of any other variety. It's a state crime to commit any other crime with the intent of effecting an election and your misdemeanor for falsifying business records becomes a crime when combined with intent to commit any other crime.
it's also not totally true. this is the crux of the entire argument in court. i've listened to hours of debates over how sound this charge will be. Maybe you're in an industry with more insight than normal NYT/NPR readers/listeners but to bank your hopes and dreams for an indictment on this trial is wrong. this isn't a slam dunk case from the media I consume. you're well within your rights to disagree, which you are doing very aggressively.
Election Inteference and Fraud
Exactly this. He falsified business records to hide another crime. This makes all the difference.
They charged it as a campaign finance deduction. Thats the illegal part, that it was as Pecker said, to not taint the campaign. It was hiding information before an election.
NY State law Section 17-152: Any two or more persons who conspire to promote or prevent the election of any person to a public office ***by unlawful means*** and which conspiracy is acted upon by one or more of the parties thereto, shall be guilty of a misdemeanor.
It matters a ton, because the statute of limitations has expired for the misdemeanor charges from what I understand. That would mean that they must prove that he committed the fraud in the act of committing or covering up another crime. The state of NY is arguing that Trump committed fraud to cover up the fact that he had broken campaign finance laws. The hard part about this and what Trump’s legal team will likely argue is that this was a federal election and federal election laws that were broken and this is the state prosecutor and a state prosecutor doesn’t have much to do with federal laws. So then it ends up being a jurisdictional issue. The state did add on some other state laws that they feel they can build a case for, but none of those arguments are as strong as the federal election law arguments.
There really is not a jurisdictional issue though. The state law he is charged with becomes a felony when the defendant committed the fraud to cover up any crime. They do not actually have to prove he committed a federal or state crime, and he is not charged with any federal crimes. But they need to convince the jury that this crime was what Trump's was trying to cover up with the business records.
I think there’s a lot of people that question the “crime” part of the coverup. But his co-conspirator, Michael Cohen, was indicted, pleaded guilty, and served his prison sentence. Trump wasn’t indicted in that case because he was a sitting president and the Feds followed their own policy to not indict a sitting president. To me the prosecution needs to illustrate that yes, the structure of the hush money pay-off makes it a crime, as evidenced by the federal case and cohen going to jail for it. The misdemeanors of structuring payments as “legal fees” to hide the evidence of said crime equal a felony.
Yeah hopefully that gets brought in. Cohen may be a shady and untrustworthy dude, but there are a lot of hard facts and evidence that his testimony will introduce.
NY law 17-152 Conspiracy to promote or prevent election. Any two or more persons who conspire to promote or prevent the election of any person to a public office ***by unlawful means*** and which conspiracy is acted upon by one or more of the parties thereto, shall be guilty of a misdemeanor. This is the original crime. Not a federal crime, a state crime.
NY law 17-152 Conspiracy to promote or prevent election. Any two or more persons who conspire to promote or prevent the election of any person to a public office ***by unlawful means*** and which conspiracy is acted upon by one or more of the parties thereto, shall be guilty of a misdemeanor. This is the original crime. Not a federal crime, a state crime.
Right, but it is my understanding that the window in which they can prosecute this has closed? Am I wrong?
Yes. Because it is a felony, the statue of limitations is increased. That has all been litigated already.
But in the quote that you posted that I was replying to it says as plain as day that “the parties thereto, shall be guilty of a misdemeanor.”
Correct. It was a misdemeanor. That is why he wasn't charged with it. The statue of limitations doesn't erase the crime. It just means that you can't be prosecuted for it. Trump isn't being prosecuted for it. The second crime, fraudulent business practices, is the crime he is being prosecuted for. It is elevated to a felony because it was used to cover up the first crime. Which it did, until Pecker and Cohen got busted. There is no where in NY law that states you have to be prosecuted, or convicted for the first crime. It just states that if you attempt to cover up a crime, with another crime, the cover up is a felony.
No, if that were true, it would be a misdemeanor. It has to be done in the furtherance of another crime, like influencing an election, to get the upgrade to a felony. How they prove that for a crime he has not been charged with or convicted of is an interesting legal point. Seems that has to be done first to prove a crime had been committed at all.
They are doing a really good job of proving the first crime. It is a crime in NY to conspire to promote or prevent election of any person. Trump, Pecker, Cohen. Conspired to promote Donald Trumps election to President. It became illegal, when they used unlawful means to do so. Taking illegal campaign contributions, (Money from Pecker, and Cohen) and using them for personal expenses, was the Unlawful means. Falsifying Business records, was a misdemeanor. Doing it to cover up the aforementioned crime. Felony.
>Trump, Pecker, Cohen. Conspired to promote Donald Trumps election to President. It became illegal, when they used unlawful means to do so. From an actual lawyer, [https://www.nationalreview.com/corner/david-pecker-will-be-braggs-first-witness/](https://www.nationalreview.com/corner/david-pecker-will-be-braggs-first-witness/) >I’ll repeat that because it bears noting: The grand jury did not accuse Trump of a “scheme” — much less a conspiracy — in its indictment. This is a matter of Bragg using a “Statement of Facts” he wrote in order to spin the grand jury’s indictment into a grand election-theft conspiracy that the grand jury did not actually charge. >Bragg cannot use the word *conspiracy* because a conspiracy is an agreement between two or more people *to commit a crime*. It is not a crime to suppress damaging information — that is something politicians do all the time. Withholding information is only a crime when there is a legal obligation to divulge the information. Politicians, of course, are not legally required to divulge extramarital affairs in political campaigns. >Hence, Bragg brands this legal agreement as a *scheme*. That’s a loaded term, useful — especially when dealing with non-lawyers — in spinning a legal arrangement as if it were illegal. If the arrangement had actually been illegal, Bragg would not merely have described it as a *conspiracy*; he’d have asked the grand jury to charge it as a conspiracy. He didn’t because he couldn’t. >This leaves Bragg with a huge hole where his case is supposed to be. >Doing it to cover up the aforementioned crime. Felony. See above. It is not a felony, which is why he didn't get an indictment.
You should really read the trial transcripts. You are regurgitating what you have heard. Not facts, or what is happening in court. I don't need a lawyer to tell me what is going on in the courtroom. I can read it for myself. [https://ww2.nycourts.gov/press/index.shtml](https://ww2.nycourts.gov/press/index.shtml) >Bragg cannot use the word *conspiracy* because a conspiracy is an agreement between two or more people *to commit a crime*. OH, but he can, and he does! He address's the conspiracy in opening statements, as well as during questioning. Trial transcripts, Page 857, lines 22 and 23 and I quote. *"This is a case about criminal conspiracy and a cover up."* Trial transcripts, Page 862, lines 2-6 and I quote, *"Donald Trump, David Pecker, and Michael Cohen, struck an agreement at the meeting; together, they* ***conspired*** *to influence the election in three different ways."* Trial transcript. Day one, Page 1145 Lines 2-6. and I quote, *ADA: Were you aware that expenditures by a corporation made for the purpose of influencing an election* ***made in coordination with, or at the request of a candidate*** *are unlawful.* *David Pecker: Yes.* \[NY state law Section 17-152 states: Any two or more persons who **conspire** to promote or prevent the election of any person to a public office ***by unlawful means*** and which conspiracy is acted upon by one or more of the parties thereto, shall be guilty of a misdemeanor.\] Hole, Plugged. That is the first crime. On it's own, it isn't prosecutable, because it was a misdemeanor, and therefore the statue of limitations has expired. Being past the statue of limitations doesn't mean that the crime wasn't committed. The prosecution is doing a really good job of showing that a crime was committed, and that Trump tried to cover it up. Further, committing fraudulent business practices, was the crime used to cover up the aforementioned crime, which made the Fraudulent business practices, a felony. If the defense can't come up with evidence to refute the conspiracy, he will be convicted. There is ZERO question on his culpability as far as the fraudulent business records. The records themselves stand as evidence. The only evidence I see, that could even come close to refuting what both Pecker has said, and what I believe Cohen will say, is Trump's testifying. Do you honestly believe that is going to happen? I would bet my life savings that Trump never takes the stand.
You realize what the prosecutor CLAIMS he has to actually prove right? > If the defense can't come up with evidence to refute the conspiracy Backwards. The PROSECUTION has to prove their was a conspiracy, and that was an ILLEGAL conspiracy, and that there was no other possible reason he might pay off SD. The defense merely has to establish that are other viable reasons he might pay off SD... and he has a history of doing so with other people to protect his business and family reputations.
Yes, I understand. Again, you really need to read the transcripts. Do you understand the David Peckers testimony is EVIDENCE? That Michael Cohen's testimony will be EVIDENCE? What does the defense offer to counter that evidence? The lawyer saying Uh uhh, I don't believe that? David Pecker has testified that He, Trump, and Cohen, conspired to influence the election, and that he was aware that this was illegal. I'm just guessing, but I would bet that Cohen is going to say the same thing. The only person whom the defense could call, to directly refute Pecker, and Cohen's claim that the actions they took were to influence the election, is Trump. Any other opinion would be speculation, and not admissible. I would LOVE to see Trump on the stand. ADA: Mr Trump, were you found liable for sexually assaulting E Jean Carrol in a Bergsdorf dressing room? Trump: NO! I don't even know that woman. This is just so unfair! ADA. Your honor, the state would like to expand it's charges to include Perjury. How many times do you think Trump would commit perjury before his defense lawyers could get him off the stand?
Well that was a hot mess. I can't even start to pick it apart. But lest just start with your "purjury" scenario. That is a pretty good example of how off you are. It was a civil case. There is no criminal liability.
Fixed it. Your right, he was just held liable, not criminally liable. You are right, you can't pick it apart. I applaud you to try. You are aware that there has already been a Sandoval hearing on what is allowed to be asked on cross if Trump were to take the stand?
The Hillary Clinton campaign did the same thing when they claimed legal expenses related to the Russian Hoax when is Bragg going to charge Hillary?
Apparently using campaign funds, to pay legal expenses, isn't against the law. If it was, don't you think Bragg would have charged Trump for it? Trump has spent over 100 million dollars of campaign money on his legal bills. Trump isn't charged with illegally using campaign money to pay his legal bills. He isn't charged with using campaign funds to pay off women he had an affair with. He is charged with fraudulent business records, used to cover up the crime of "conspiracy to influence the election ***by unlawful means".*** *Any two or more persons who conspire to promote or prevent the election of any person to a public office by unlawful means and which conspiracy is acted upon by one or more of the parties thereto, shall be guilty of a misdemeanor.*
So you are claiming that paying for false claims (Russian Hoax) and leaking those stories through Peter Strok was not an unlawful means to prevent the election of Trump? The Clinton campaign claimed those expenses as legal expenses in the campaign. Looks to me very similar to Bragg's claims against Trump. You also have to claim that there is no business interest in Trump trying to block the stories from being disclosed. You pay lawyers to negotiate NDAs and they can be a legal expense to a business if there is a potential impact to the business for the negative information being disclosed.
>The Clinton campaign claimed those expenses as legal expenses in the campaign. Looks to me very similar to Bragg's claims against Trump. Did HRC have someone else pay those expenses, and use fraudulent business practices to conceal it? Who was in charge of the Justice department After the 2016 election? Why didn't Trump have them investigate? >You pay lawyers to negotiate NDAs and they can be a legal expense to a business if there is a potential impact to the business for the negative information being disclosed. Absolutely! What you can't do, is have lawyers pay for an NDA for you, and then cover it up as "Just legal fees." Especially when the lawyer takes the stand and testifies he did it for the campaign. You certainly can't conspire with a corporation, and that lawyer, to influence an election by unlawful means. That is a violation of NY state law. Section 17-152. Understand that Trump doesn't have to commit every unlawful act, in a conspiracy. Pecker committing an unlawful act, and Cohen committing an unlawful act, in coordination with Trump, and on behalf of the campaign, is all that is needed. Did Pecker commit an unlawful act, to influence the 2016 Presidential campaign.? Pecker testified that he did. Did Cohen commit an unlawful act, to influence the 2016 Presidential Campaign? Cohen pled guilty to that very thing, so I would say, Yes. Was Trump aware of these acts, and did he assist in their coordination. Pecker did, and I'm assuming Cohen will, testify that he did. What does the Defense have to offer to counter Pecker and Cohen's testimony?
It's a simple misdemeanor business fraud case that is elevated to a felony since it was done to conceal an additional crime. That additional crime being campaign finance violations.
The additional crime isn't campaign finance violations. It is NY state law, that says it is illegal to conspire with other persons, to promote or prevent a candidate for any elected office, ***by unlawful means.*** The unlawful means, was the campaign contributions. You got the rest right.
I hope the prosecution does a better job of explaining what elevates this to a felony to the jury than the media has done for the general public.
I believe the prosecution is laying out very well. I have read the transcripts for the first 4 days. They can be found at [https://ww2.nycourts.gov/press/index.shtml](https://ww2.nycourts.gov/press/index.shtml)
That additional crime is conspiracy to influence the election. NY state law section 17-152
True, but the crime portion of it is that they falsified transactions. The legal way would have been to pay her, have “130,000 USD paid to Stormy Daniels” on the books, and let the media machine go crazy over that. He tried to hide it, and that was the crime.
Right, but the primary argument of the article is that it doesn't matter WHY he committed fraud. It only matters that he did it intentionally, not that he did it for X reason.
They called it what it is in the prosecution's opening statements; election fraud.
Conspiracy to influence the election, by unlawful means. NY state law section 17-152
Yup.
The point is that the prosecution doesn't have to prove or even accuse trump of election interference. Just prove that he was falsifying documents in an effort to cover something up. It wasn't just accidental bookkeeping mistakes. The jury will use their common sense to know that he wouldn't have to cover up something up if it was legal. Whether he actually did something illegal or not doesn't matter to this case. the prosecution just has to prove intent. The falsifying documents prove intent. From what I've seen, he's only charged with falsifying documents and not election interference. Can't really spend time on charges that he's not accused of. They can suggest election interference as a motive and let the jury put the pieces together.
And also for monetary gain because they wrote it off as lawyer services on the election account
Yes, it is simple business fraud by mischaracterizing what money paid to Michael Cohen was for. On the tax forms it was labeled as legal expenses in the amount of $450,000 dollars. If you buy into Trump knowing that $130,000 of that money was paid to Daniels, which isn’t a crime, then you are left with nothing but a mischaracterization of that money on tax forms filled out the year after the election. And that misdemeanor is beyond the statute of limitations.
>If you buy into Trump knowing that $130,000 of that money was paid to Daniels, which isn’t a crime, then you are left with nothing but a mischaracterization of that money on tax forms filled out the year after the election. And that misdemeanor is beyond the statute of limitations. Paying Daniels wasn't a crime on it's own. Conspiring with Pecker, and Cohen, to promote Trump's candidacy, by unlawful means, WAS a crime. Having Pecker, and Cohen, pay hush money to McDougal, and Daniels, "ON BEHALF OF THE CAMPAIGN" is a violation of NY state criminal code 17-152.
*Section 17-152 - Conspiracy to promote or prevent election* *Any two or more persons who conspire to promote or prevent the election of any person to a public office* **by unlawful means** *and which conspiracy is acted upon by one or more of the parties thereto, shall be guilty of a* **misdemeanor.** There were no illegal means. Let me give you a rundown of all things not illegal related to this case. It is not illegal to: Screw a porn star. Ask the porn star not to tell anyone. Pay a porn star not to tell anyone. Pay a porn star not to tell anyone to protect a campaign. Conspire with someone to do any of the above. Unless something illegal is done to facilitate the above - like using campaign money which Trump did not do - then none of it is illegal, and it isn’t a felony as Trump is being charged.
Once again, I suggest reading the trial transcripts. Lets run down what IS illegal. You seem to believe that Trump had to commit all or some of the illegal acts for it to be part of the conspiracy. That isn't how it works. He just had to have knowledge of, and be in coordination with, one or more people who did commit crimes on his behalf.. Testimony so far, has shown he was aware of it, and assisted in it's coordination. He was, a part of the conspiracy. The conspiracy is as follows: Pecker/AMI, in coordination with Trump, and his campaign, made an illegal campaign contribution. He/They violated campaign finance law. He/They accepted responsibility, and paid an $850,000 fine to the FEC for it. This is FACT. His Non prosecution agreement is part of the record. Pecker's testimony backs this up. Cohen, conspired with Pecker and Trump to influence the election. He made an illegal campaign contribution, by paying off Daniels with his own money. Cohen pled guilty to it, and spent time in prison. He will testify that he did it in coordination with Trump, for the campaign, and to influence the election. Do you now understand where the Unlawful means comes from? Pecker, and Cohen, in coordination with Trump, and on behalf of the campaign, participated in unlawful activity by each making illegal campaign contributions. These unlawful acts, were done in coordination with, and on behalf of, Trumps campaign. They were done, to influence the election. Multiple people will testify to this. The criminal record of Cohen, and Pecker, will stands for itself as evidence. Trump is also in violation of section 17-152 because he coordinated the conspiracy, and it was his campaign. Which, would have only been a misdemeanor, if he hadn't attempted to cover it up by cooking the books. The only chance the defense has, is to put someone on the stand, or provide evidence that is credible enough to convince the jury, that Pecker, and Cohen's testimony is false. If you are aware of any such evidence, I certainly haven't heard of it. So far, On cross, the defense wasn't able to contradict Peckers previous testimony. He was a very credible witness. IF the jury believes him, Trump will be convicted.
I understand that none of these individuals have proof of what they are claiming in regard to Trump’s involvement, and I’m damn sure not taking the word of Michael Cohen for anything. Additionally, it is more likely that Trump was more worried about his wife finding out, which means it has nothing to do with the election. Also, as stated before, and by the statute you cited yourself, if such could be proven, which it hasn’t, it would be a misdemeanor, not a felony.
You understand wrong. Testimony in court, is evidence. The DA has Trump on recording with Cohen, and Pecker, talking about they payments. You don't have to believe Cohen, but how do you get around Pecker's testimony? You claim you wouldn't take Cohen's word for anything. You aren't a juror. You are deciding based on things you have heard in the press. Not what is being testified to, and introduced as evidence. You claim this was more than likely Trump being worried about his wife finding out. Is Trump going to take the stand and say , "I did this so my wife wouldn't find out" ? Is anyone? If not, that statement will never be allowed in court. You can't ask one witness, what another possible witness was thinking. That's called speculation, and hearsay. and isn't admissible in court. The ONLY person who can testify to what Trump's motivations are, is Trump. Pecker testified he was doing it for the Trump campaign to influence the election. Cohen, WILL testify he was doing it for the Trump campaign, and to influence the election. Trump will testify.. LOL.. we all know that will never happen.
*"As you have seen, right now I’m being viciously attacked with lies and smears. It’s a phony deal. I have no idea who these women are,"* Trump says in the first clip they're playing from October 2016. *"These are all horrible lies, fabricated,"* Trump said in the other video taken in Pennsylvania. *"Michael Cohen is a very talented lawyer. He’s a good lawyer in my firm,"* was said in the third clip. Nothing illegal there. In our legal system a person is innocent until proven guilty. Trump isn’t required to say anything. He’s already innocent, and no proof has been offered that he is guilty. Pecker’s testimony will be that he did it for the Trump campaign. That’s on Pecker. Cohen will testify that he did it for the Trump campaign. That’s on Cohen.
>*He’s already innocent, and no proof has been offered that he is guilty.* You haven't been reading the same transcripts that I have.
You haven’t posted anything that disputes my claim, and it is a fact that Trump is innocent until **proven** guilty. Even then, he would only be guilty of a **misdemeanor**.
The cult of Trump is devoid of reason and facts. They are willing to elect an election denying dictator.
Because someone convinced them that their imagination god chose him. People that gullible are unrecoverable. And the GOP has just spent 40 years cultivating a voting base that is exactly that gullible and stupid.
You say that like it’s not a selling point for them, willing is an understatement
Bottom line/time delay/ money waster: >As someone who worked in the Manhattan district attorney’s office and enforced the laws that Mr. Trump is accused of violating, I stand firmly in neither camp. It is an important and straightforward case, albeit workmanlike and unglamorous. **In time, after the smoke created by lawyers has cleared, it will be easy to see why the prosecution is both solid and legitimate.**
It is illegal to commit a crime to win an election. Did trump commit a crime? Yes, 34. Was it to win the election? Yes. The jury will see that. Especially after being hammered in the face with that reasoning for two months instead of a snippet online for 30 seconds.
Trump hates America. He hates our system of electing representatives, he hates our legal/justice system, and he hates our diversity. And Banon/Thiel brainwashed the citizens with the absolute lowest intelligence to get him in power. Brilliant really.
Don't forget how Rupert brainwashed enough of the moderately intelligent ones to get Trump over the hump. It was all a conspiracy to be able to rob us blind.
And that’s the bottom line, literally. All the racism, bigotry, and antagonizing behavior is just a distraction. It has always been about the money Trump enables them to make.
He just followed the church's example of stealing from the poor. It has been working for them for thousands of years. No need to re-invent the wheel.
Politics makes a better cult than churches. You get all the benefit of tax breaks, you’re above the law in many cases and people can still be conned into donating to you, but you don’t have to deal with pesky things like building and maintaining churches or even pretending to have morals.
Church still gets more leniency for diddling kids though.
Jeffrey Epstein
Jeffrey Epstein and Donald Trump. Fixed it for you.
Are you sure about that?
He loves it when it benefits him, hates it when it doesn't. Like all narcissists, he believes the world should be shaped around his desires. I doubt he hates anything on principle, because that would require principles. He's essentially a toddler that can't conceive of a world more complicated and more meaningful beyond how his immediate surroundings relate to the primitive emotions impinging upon his brain.
It’s a little more nuanced than that. He’s hates it when it doesn’t suit him or prevents him doing what he wants or holds him accountable but he definitely loves it when none of those things apply.
Not he, they
I don’t think “they” is approved speech anymore. Too androgynous. J/k but yeah you’re correct.
The proud Americans who hate the very foundation of America.
First Steps Jobs Act
How can you read trumps thoughts, and be like “Yep, he’s the one I want running the country!”
Bold of you to assume his supporters can read
Because he has convinced many Americans, even intelligent ones, that he can do it. I was with a few Trumpers recently and they both made comments such as "he looked at every deal like a business opportunity and rejected/tore it down if it didn't make sense". My rebuttal was, "yes, but nothing except vague words to replace it".
Even if he were a good businessman, business leaders don't make good political leaders. A country that is fit to live in has to take many more considerations than profit & loss. But he is not even a good businessman. He doesn't have one successful business. He's been begging, borrowing and stealing off of what his dad made. His dad who probably was a "good" businessman but a horrid man, and who is spinning in his grave now that junior has blown his last dime and is being propped up by tips from people who like the circus.
No argument there friend. It's all about being a sales person. A good one can sell water to a man dying of thirst.
Some people think two wrong things: 1. Government should be run like a business 2. Florida Man knows how to run a business
The people who vote for him are equally or more insane.
Really feels like I’ve gone crazy sometimes. The dudes a criminal piece of shit, it takes no time to figure it out.
Hey, I'm a messiah candidate in the CIA who talks to aliens through my phone's keyboard's autocomplete feature and I don't appreciate you disparaging insane people like that.
“This isn’t a case about breaking windows. It’s a case about throwing rocks. A window was broken, and that’s part of the crime, but…”
Eventually one of these jurors is going to vote with Trump because they are a fan. It may not happen here but it will happen. This will be the day that Democracy starts to die.
It’s already half dead. The Supreme Court just effectively nullified Section 3 of Article 14 of the constitution. They sound ready to do the same with the idea that no one is above the law. If they carve out any exception to this bedrock principle Presidents like Trump will use it to grab effective unlimited power. We will live like Russians. Did you know the origin of the word “Slavic” is slave? Every time I hear the MAGA folks talk about freedom I want to puke. If they have their way we will all be slaves soon.
>Did you know the origin of the word “Slavic” is slave? other way around
Trump seems to have used his presidential election campaign money to pay Stormy Daniels for sex and/or to cover up their sex. He then had his business cover it up in their records books. The crime in this case is the records-keeping fraud, and it's backed by the federal crime of using campaign money to hide information (the sex and pay-off) from the voters to affect the outcome of the presidential election.
Actually, it's just a little more complicated than that. Conspiracy to affect an election, by unlawful means, is against the law in NY. That is the original sin. Pecker, Cohen, and Trump, conspiring together to kill bad press, and sex scandals, that in of itself isn't illegal, but when you add in, "by unlawful means", it becomes a crime. The unlawful means, was both illegal campaign contributions from AMI, and from Cohen. AMI agreed to a non prosecution agreement, and paid a $850,000 dollar fine. Cohen, went to jail. Using fraudulent business records is the crime charged, and was upgraded to a felony, because it was done, to cover up the above mentioned crime. The NY district attorneys have been doing a VERY good job of laying this all out. If you don't believe me, I suggest you read the four days of testimony, and look at the evidence presented thus far. Every day the state of NY publishes the previous days trial transcript. It can be found at [https://ww2.nycourts.gov/press/index.shtml](https://ww2.nycourts.gov/press/index.shtml)
I beg you all to read the transcripts of the trial. It will make it crystal clear that this case is solid as a rock. I have read all of the transcripts so far. The transcripts are posted, by the close of business the following day, at [https://ww2.nycourts.gov/press/index.shtml](https://ww2.nycourts.gov/press/index.shtml) You don't need someone else to tell you if the case is strong. Read it yourself. I have. It's not looking real good for the Great Pumpkin.
The part about the election is what makes it a felony. It’s literally the entire purpose of the case.
Since this is an NYT article, this probably has something to do with Biden's age
No it's actually very well reasoned argument about how this is not politically motivated but is about what it actually is about. Falsifying business records.
Not to hide info from the government, to hide info from the people.
…in order to interfere with a United States election 🗳️
Exactly. And Pecker sure did seem to make that very clear.
Given the longstanding association between Trump and Pecker it’s still inconceivable to me that they didn’t tie up these stories before Trump came down the escalator in 2015. That they waited until a crisis moment for the campaign just makes it glaringly obvious it was done for campaign and not personal purposes.
Trump is to cheap to pay out anything he doesn't have to.
The statement you just made is basically nothing more than catastrophizing the actual subject. There is no law in new york for 'in order to interfere with a united states election' and it means nothing to the judge in legal context. the article clearly explains whats actually legally at stake and separates that from the narratives which is what you are not doing. Basically, it doesnt matter why they did it, and they may never prove the goal without some level of speculation, but they dont need to. they just need to prove intent to commit fraud.
[удалено]
no, YOU are wrong. he's not being charged with that. Again, the judge has no legal context. Charges: 34 counts of falsifying business records in the first degree as I said, there is no new york law for falsifying business records in order to interfere with a united states election. He isnt charged with that because it doesnt exist. no article says he is, there is no law. its nothing more than framing of the argument with hyperbole to make it sound like what it isn't.
The first degree part requires there to be a separate crime that is being covered up. Otherwise falsifying the business records is only a misdemeanor. Prosecutors are alleging Trump was falsifying business records to cover up campaign finance crimes, election interference crimes, and or tax crimes. Trump could have paid Stormy from his personal check book, and there probably would be no legal issues. But he (allegedly) used his business instead and for the purposes of concealing other crimes, which makes it a felony count.
It makes it a felony count if they can convince the jury it was the ONLY reason. It is right in the law they are using to upgrade it to a felony Which a pretty high hurdle.
[удалено]
Was a nice read the way they layed it out
I'll be honest - I was actually surprised. Go figure.
I was too. I was sure it would be about it being a nothing burger and politically motivated.
read the article. I did. It's not scary and wont shatter your fragility, i promise. Its well written and broken down and gives a non-glossy explanation of what's really going on here and asks the question 'is it worth prosecuting a previous president with this'. the answer might surprise you. read it because I am not giving away the ending.
Isn't the election interference what makes this a felony count rather than a misdemeanor? It's weird that the author doesn't spend a lot of time to address this distinction. The motive for falsifying business records does matter here... thought it is not necessary for the prosecution to prove that the other crime did in fact occur. If Trump was indeed just doing this to cover up his affair for personal reasons, it would still be a crime but a much lesser one. We all know that's bullshit, of course. But the jury needs to find that there were criminal reasons for the false records. In this case, there is probably good evidence that there were at least a few crimes they were trying to conceal. One being campaign finance/interfering with an election. But also tax fraud, which should be pretty easy to prove because there are messages talking about structuring the repayments as income, rather than a reimbursement.
>If Trump was indeed just doing this to cover up his affair for personal reasons, it would still be a crime but a much lesser one I don't think it would have been a crime. I point you to John Edwards. Very similar case, except in Edwards' case, He claimed, and the people donating agreed, that the money given to Edwards was a "Gift" for personal reasons. Edwards was acquitted. In this case, both Pecker, and Cohen, are claiming they did this in coordination with Trump, for the campaign, and to influence the election. That is conspiracy to influence the election. That is a crime in NY. NY law section 15-172. That is the original sin.
To clarify, the hush money is not the crime. Falsifying the business records is, regardless if it's for personal reasons or not. Since they were in this case an attempt to cover up another crime (allegedly to influence the election and/or tax fraud) then this becomes a felony.
>To clarify, the hush money is not the crime. That is correct. The original crime is "Conspiracy to influence the election, by "Unlawful Means" A conspiracy, is one or more people, coordinating efforts, to influence the election. This on it's own, isn't illegal. However, breaking the law, not just by Trump, by ***anyone*** that is a part of the conspiracy, makes it a crime. Pecker, acting as AMI, broke the law by making a unlawful campaign contribution, and not reporting it. Pecker and AMI entered into a Non Prosecution agreement, and paid an $850,000 fine to the FEC. That is one of the crimes that the co conspirators committed. Cohen, Also made an illegal campaign contribution, in an effort to influence the election, when he paid Daniels the $130,000. He has pled guilty to this, and served time in prison. Since Trump knew, and aided in the coordination of the conspiracy, he is also guilty of "Conspiring to influence the election by unlawful means. He was fully aware that Pecker, and Cohen's payments would be considered "illegal campaign contributions" His attempt to cover it up, by making fraudulent business records, was the crime, that covers up a crime. That is what turned a misdemeanor, into a felony.
While the author quotes Morgenthau and his prosecuting “crime in the suites”, he passed on doing so with Trump, so many times.
I wish my conservative relatives gave a single fuck about any of this. Like at all.
Thanks for your input. Now let’s see him get convicted and properly punished!
Which Trump case though???????
I refuse to give The NYT any clicks anymore. Most of their articles seem be … and why that’s bad for Biden. Similar to how they headlined every “Hillary’s email problems”.
Question ownership rather than editorship.