45th President Of The United States, Donald Trump (Vol. 14)

[paulguitar]

EddieSteadyGo said:

I think he probably did have an affair with her. But this case will now depend on whether the prosecution can prove that beyond reasonable doubt, and I don't think that was likely to be the original focus of their case.

It wasn't 'an affair'. He stuck his teeny mushroom in her for 30 seconds.

[cookie1600]

EddieSteadyGo said:

I'm not saying what is right or wrong. I'm just saying, based on his lawyers opening statements, what it seems his defence is going to be.

Then they are trying for the ultimate clutching of straws.

It doesn't matter if the story was 'Donny Trump ate my Hamster', it's the suppressing or killing of the story (true or false) then asking her to sign an NDA for money, followed by covering up the payments that counts. From what has been posted here, I think they may just have enough evidence for the cover up and a paper trial (and tapes) with witnesses to prove it.

My fear if it comes to a guilty decision by the jury, is that he will get away with just another fine.

[RustyMX5]

I was under the impression that it was about the falsification of the record of the payments to avoid making it look bad for trump in the run up to the 2016 election.

[EddieSteadyGo]

cookie1600 said:

Then they are trying for the ultimate clutching of straws.

It doesn't matter if the story was 'Donny Trump ate my Hamster', it's the suppressing or killing of the story (true or false) then asking her to sign an NDA for money, followed by covering up the payments that counts. From what has been posted here, I think they may just have enough evidence for the cover up and a paper trial (and tapes) with witnesses to prove it.

My fear if it comes to a guilty decision by the jury, is that he will get away with just another fine.

Let's see. From what I've read, it's a plausible defence. It's certainly a lot of more nuanced and the outcome is a lot less certain that the way you describe it.

[DanL]

I suppose we’ll find out in the next few weeks what the defence is, and how it pans out… He doesn’t seem massively confident that it’s going to go his way based on his posts though!

[Bonefish Blues]

EddieSteadyGo said:

cookie1600 said:

Then they are trying for the ultimate clutching of straws.

It doesn't matter if the story was 'Donny Trump ate my Hamster', it's the suppressing or killing of the story (true or false) then asking her to sign an NDA for money, followed by covering up the payments that counts. From what has been posted here, I think they may just have enough evidence for the cover up and a paper trial (and tapes) with witnesses to prove it.

My fear if it comes to a guilty decision by the jury, is that he will get away with just another fine.

Let's see. From what I've read, it's a plausible defence. It's certainly a lot of more nuanced and the outcome is a lot less certain that the way you describe it.

Why does whether it was or wasn't 'an affair' make any difference to the criminal suppression of something that could have been electorally damaging via false accounting - I'm being thick, are there some references you can post?

[silentbrown]

cookie1600 said:

EddieSteadyGo said:

I'm not saying what is right or wrong. I'm just saying, based on his lawyers opening statements, what it seems his defence is going to be.

Then they are trying for the ultimate clutching of straws.

It doesn't matter if the story was 'Donny Trump ate my Hamster', it's the suppressing or killing of the story (true or false) then asking her to sign an NDA for money, followed by covering up the payments that counts.

EddieSteadyGo may be right on this: Remember what Trump is charged with, and WHY it's a felony, not a misdemeanour.

"To convict the former president, prosecutors must show that he not only falsified or caused business records to be entered falsely, which would be a misdemeanour, but that he did so to conceal another crime, making the charges felonies."

Prosecutors have been somewhat cagey about exactly what the concealed crime was. He doesn't have to be convicted for the crime he's alleged to be concealing.

[Bonefish Blues]

silentbrown said:

cookie1600 said:

EddieSteadyGo said:

I'm not saying what is right or wrong. I'm just saying, based on his lawyers opening statements, what it seems his defence is going to be.

Then they are trying for the ultimate clutching of straws.

It doesn't matter if the story was 'Donny Trump ate my Hamster', it's the suppressing or killing of the story (true or false) then asking her to sign an NDA for money, followed by covering up the payments that counts.

EddieSteadyGo may be right on this: Remember what Trump is charged with, and WHY it's a felony, not a misdemeanour.

"To convict the former president, prosecutors must show that he not only falsified or caused business records to be entered falsely, which would be a misdemeanour, but that he did so to conceal another crime, making the charges felonies."

Prosecutors have been somewhat cagey about exactly what the concealed crime was. He doesn't have to be convicted for the crime he's alleged to be concealing.

An affair is not a crime either though?

[14]

The payment to Stormy Daniels wasn’t illegal, nor was having an affair with her. What is illegal is to cover up the payment as a legal expense. That is what Trump is on trial for.

[minimoog]

silentbrown said:

Prosecutors have been somewhat cagey about exactly what the concealed crime was. He doesn't have to be convicted for the crime he's alleged to be concealing.

The other crime is campaign finance related.

[LordLoveLength]

Stormy! She’s smart and funny. Hope she gets the chance to take him apart.

[Bonefish Blues]

14 said:

The payment to Stormy Daniels wasn’t illegal, nor was having an affair with her. What is illegal is to cover up the payment as a legal expense. That is what Trump is on trial for.

That I do know, remarkably - that was a misdemeanour, and it became a felony because of the election influence

It was being said that the crime was to cover another crime, as it were, so I was seeking to understand what this first crime might be.

[Bonefish Blues]

minimoog said:

silentbrown said:

Prosecutors have been somewhat cagey about exactly what the concealed crime was. He doesn't have to be convicted for the crime he's alleged to be concealing.

The other crime is campaign finance related.

Ah, that's helpful.

So why are we down the rabbit hole of whether it was or wasn't an actual affair?

[captain_cynic]

Bonefish Blues said:

minimoog said:

silentbrown said:

Prosecutors have been somewhat cagey about exactly what the concealed crime was. He doesn't have to be convicted for the crime he's alleged to be concealing.

The other crime is campaign finance related.

Ah, that's helpful.

So why are we down the rabbit hole of whether it was or wasn't an actual affair?

We're at the "I did it but it wasn't a crime" part of the Trump defence strategy.

[Bonefish Blues]

captain_cynic said:

Bonefish Blues said:

minimoog said:

silentbrown said:

Prosecutors have been somewhat cagey about exactly what the concealed crime was. He doesn't have to be convicted for the crime he's alleged to be concealing.

The other crime is campaign finance related.

Ah, that's helpful.

So why are we down the rabbit hole of whether it was or wasn't an actual affair?

We're at the "I did it but it wasn't a crime" part of the Trump defence strategy.

How is whether it was or wasn't actually an affair germane to campaign finance?

I'm not trying to be awkward, I'm just not understanding what the angle is here.

[captain_cynic]

Bonefish Blues said:

captain_cynic said:

Bonefish Blues said:

minimoog said:

silentbrown said:

Prosecutors have been somewhat cagey about exactly what the concealed crime was. He doesn't have to be convicted for the crime he's alleged to be concealing.

The other crime is campaign finance related.

Ah, that's helpful.

So why are we down the rabbit hole of whether it was or wasn't an actual affair?

We're at the "I did it but it wasn't a crime" part of the Trump defence strategy.

How is whether it was or wasn't actually an affair germane to campaign finance?

I'm not trying to be awkward, I'm just not understanding what the angle is here.

It's just obsfucation. Trying to get trumpettes wound up about "it wasn't an affair, and anyway that's not a crime" whilst distracting people from the actual crimes of fraud and misuse of campaign funds.

[Bonefish Blues]

captain_cynic said:

Bonefish Blues said:

captain_cynic said:

Bonefish Blues said:

minimoog said:

silentbrown said:

Prosecutors have been somewhat cagey about exactly what the concealed crime was. He doesn't have to be convicted for the crime he's alleged to be concealing.

The other crime is campaign finance related.

Ah, that's helpful.

So why are we down the rabbit hole of whether it was or wasn't an actual affair?

We're at the "I did it but it wasn't a crime" part of the Trump defence strategy.

How is whether it was or wasn't actually an affair germane to campaign finance?

I'm not trying to be awkward, I'm just not understanding what the angle is here.

It's just obsfucation. Trying to get trumpettes wound up about "it wasn't an affair, and anyway that's not a crime" whilst distracting people from the actual crimes of fraud and misuse of campaign funds.

Now I completely understand obfuscation as a (life) strategy by Trump

[ScotHill]

So are we still in the realm of 'if Trump had paid her in cash out of his personal billions then none of this would be happening'?

If that's what takes him down, for the sake of $130k, it'll be like Al Capone going down for tax evasion.

If Trump is found guilty what are the guidelines for sentencing?

[Crook]

There's a really good article linked to by CGT a few pages back: it's a long read but worth it.

There is a lot of evidence but the key witness is a know liar and has an axe to grind against the defendant.

If the defence can cast enough doubt on the veracity of Cohen's testimony then it's a long way from a slam dunk. Despite there being audio evidence, the post election comment re payment not being required to Stormy etc. they only need to establish that something other than what happened could have had happened AIUI.

[minimoog]

Crook said:

There's a really good article linked to by CGT a few pages back: it's a long read but worth it.

https://www.justsecurity.org/85581/the-manhattan-d...