If you and I were on the jury.

[jomar]

…

Ironically, if Donald Trump had just written a personal check for $130k to Daniels in 2016, he wouldn’t be in trouble now.

Yes, he created his problem. Wonder why he didn’t just cut a check, wasn’t like Melania was checking bank records and the NDA would have covered Stormy not releasing a copy of the check. But thank goodness he’s as self-destructive as he is.

 

[ll74]

Well I commend you in that after 66 postings, you’re the first Trump hater who actually advances an argument against my contention in this thread. As to your point, don’t you think labeling the hush money payment as a campaign contribution is a stretch? I believe Hope Hicks testified at the trial that Trump was more concerned about embarrassment to his wife and family if the allegation by the porn star would become public knowledge. You also have to give weight to the fact that the Federal Election Commission who has the sole discretion to prosecute violations of federal campaign laws looked into the matter in 2018 and determine not to prosecute.
.

I think the jury dismissed that argument. Probably because Melania already knew about the affairs. But that's just my perception. I mean, if you married a guy who's publicly been known to have fidelity issues with two previous wives...it's not a stretch to believe he would do it again.

 

[KeithD]

Yes, he created his problem. Wonder why he didn’t just cut a check, wasn’t like Melania was checking bank records and the NDA would have covered Stormy not releasing a copy of the check. But thank goodness he’s as self-destructive as he is.

Beyond that, if he'd handled Cohen better, none of this would have come to light (including the company case the Trumps lost). Employee management is yet another ability Trump is piss poor at.

 

[Bn2f]

Typical deflection.

If Hunter Biden wasn't running then why so much effort to suppress the laptop. Do you think the laptop could have had negative ramifications against Biden's campaign. Just saying. Perhaps you should ask Blinken and the 51 intel agents why they were so concerned.

Deflection? I don’t think you read what you post. Here is the deflection: If Donald Trump wasn’t trying to hide campaign contribution fraud, then why so much effort to suppress the payment to Cohen and Daniels?

 

[jomar]

That analysis seems to be the go-to for the right. I've been looking for a response analysis from other legal experts, but haven't found one yet. (Granted, this hasn't been a priority...just interested to see a discussion)

Perhaps there's a podcast out there or on its way on that. My personal opinion is that the verdict will be overturned on appeal at some level.

A Politico podcast on the trial and appeal avenues.

https://www.politico.com/news/magaz...is-lawyers-blew-the-hush-money-trial-00161018

And BBC

https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c288wpj1glyo

 

[BabyBoomer50s]

Hmmmm...okay, if you believe this, then do you also believe Judge Aileen Cannon should recuse herself from the trial she is overseeing because she has "run the trial in a partisan manner"? What is good for one is good for all.

Comshaw

If you read my posts, you would see that I did not call on Merchan to be taken off the case. I haven’t called for any judge to be taken off any cases.

The case Cannon is presiding over hasn’t even gone to trial yet. We can evaluate her conduct after the proceedings have been completed and a verdict has been reached. Trump will have his day in court with due process, despite the wishes of partisans who want the trial date to be determined by the election calendar.

 

[Comshaw]

If you read my posts, you would see that I did not call on Merchan to be taken off the case. I haven’t called for any judge to be taken off any cases.

The case Cannon is presiding over hasn’t even gone to trial yet. We can evaluate her conduct after the proceedings have been completed and a verdict has been reached. Trump will have his day in court with due process, despite the wishes of partisans who want the trial date to be determined by the election calendar.

In other words: 1) you refuse to answer the question in the vein it was asked, or 2) you are attempting a feint to draw attention away from your aim of discrediting the judge.
So let me clarify my question so there is no confusion:
You accused Judge Merchan of partisan behavior and stated it is clearly apparent he was so. Comparing the two do you also recognize the partisan behavior of Judge Cannon (which is also clearly apparent)? If not why not? A straight forward question.

Comshaw

 

[icanhelp1]

Deflection? I don’t think you read what you post. Here is the deflection: If Donald Trump wasn’t trying to hide campaign contribution fraud, then why so much effort to suppress the payment to Cohen and Daniels?

Perhaps brush up on your reading comprehension skills; this article explains why your comment is incorrect and incomplete.

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/...trump-violates-this-important-legal-doctrine/

This rule, known as the “primary jurisdiction doctrine,” says that a court should stay or dismiss a claim when it implicates issues within the special competence of a federal administrative agency. In this case, federal campaign finance violations are within the special competence of the FEC, not the Manhattan DA. Thus, the right thing to do is for Bragg to defer to the federal government on statutes it enforces.

The Supreme Court, in first articulating the primary jurisdiction doctrine in 1950, was concerned about state courts invading the authority of the federal government. If a state court instructs a jury about a federal enforcement scheme that was never actually enforced, it not only undermines congressional authority, but also deprives a defendant of the right to have the federal government adjudicate whether a federal statute was violated. Bragg is doing exactly that by circumventing the FEC to go after Trump.

As such, Judge Juan Merchan of the Manhattan Criminal Court should immediately stay the Bragg prosecution and toss this question back to the FEC: Did Trump engage in unlawful contributions?

If the FEC were to decide that no campaign finance violation occurred, the Manhattan Criminal Court would have to order the Bragg indictment dismissed, for there would be no underlying crime. If the FEC were to determine that Trump did commit campaign finance violations, then it would be up to the Department of Justice to determine whether to indict him in federal court. Only after exhausting the federal process could Bragg get his bite at the apple.

 

[BabyBoomer50s]

Pay attention. You asked me if Cannon should recuse herself. I said she should not recuse herself and pointed out that the trial hasnt even begun.

 

[Rightguide]

I challenge all you Trump Haters to imagine if you and I were on the jury of the Trump hush money trial, how you would have persuaded me to convict vis à vis to my efforts to convince you to acquit. Assuming I had residence, I admit I probably would have been denied entry, but because I have virtually no social media presence the prosecutor might have inadvertently allowed me in.

Now the case revolves around a hush money payment to porn star Stormy Daniels who alleged that she and Trump had a one night stand way back in 2006. I can think we can all agree that consensual sex with a porn star is not a crime. Now after the Hollywood access tape became public knowledge in Oct 2016 Ms Daniels apparently threatened to expose their 2006 tryst. As a result, Trump’s lawyer at the time, Michael Cohen, paid $130,000 out of his own funds to Ms Daniels after signing a non disclosure agreement (NDA) to not reveal the purposes of why she received these monies.

Executing an NDA is not illegal, instead its rather ubiquitous amongst prominent persons to avoid public embarrassment or humiliation. In fact the reason Ms Daniels owes Trump $500,000 is by court order that found she had violated that NDA.

Now Cohen alleges that in a telephone conversation with himself, Trump and the chief officer of the Trump organization agreed to pay off Daniels in order for her to keep quiet. As a result of that agreement Cohen out of his own funds paid the $130,000 to Daniels by taking out a second mortgage on his house.

First of all, Cohen was testifying as a result of immunity granted by the prosecutor to provide this story. One thing that strikes me about this story is that since Cohen was Trump’s lawyer by testifying, he was violating attorney-client privilege. Of course, since he has already been disbarred no further punishment will visit upon him. But it is horrifying to contemplate that the prosecution allowed this testimony in. No longer can lawyers in the United States or at least in the state of New York assure absolute confidentiality to their clients. Doing away with the safety net of the attorney-client privilege will surely wreak havoc on the judicial system. And that I submit is an inevitable negative consequence as a result of this trial.

Anyway, the point is can you believe Cohen’s veracity? Even setting aside that he is acknowledged to be a perjurer and during cross examination Cohen had to admit he had misspoken on another issue during his direct examination, there are two crucial points that makes Cohen’s testimony suspicious. Trump’s senior officer alleged to be in on the call was not asked to testify. One can infer that person’s testimony would not be so helpful to the prosecution or might even cast doubt that such telephone conversation occurred.

The other point is why did Cohen pay the money out of his own personal funds? I believe any other lawyer in that position, would have asked for Trump to shoot over the money into his trust fund in order to pay the porn star. It strikes me that it was more of a hassle to obtain a second mortgage to pay of Daniels than it would have simply been to ask Trump for the money. It certainly casts doubts on Cohen story or even that the telephone conversation transpired as he alleged.

Now the prosecution maintains the recording of the payment in the Trump organization ledger was a false entry. That apparently is a New York crime, a misdemeanor already barred by the statute of limitations. But even so how in the hell did Trump falsify his business records? Cohen presented a bill from which he got reimbursed as legal expenses. How else could the payment be described in the accounts of the Trump organization other than a legal expense?

Does this mean in the description of the check should there have been the notation “Hush money payment to Stormy Daniels”. Should Cohen in rendering his bill have contained lurid details of the expenses he had incurred to justify the bill? The only reasonable conclusion is that it was a legitimate expense not an illegal one.

Even if you believe beyond a reasonable doubt that Trump’s business records were falsified, the prosecution still has to prove that this expired crime was committed in conjunction with a felony crime. And what was the felony crime? During the trial the prosecutor did not specify the felony they believed Trump committed until their final summation in which they offered three crimes that Trump might have committed.

The Judge in his jury instructions compounded the confusion. In that the jury could pick any one of the three crimes and they don’t have to be unanimous in any one of them so long as each jury member believed beyond a reasonable doubt, he committed one of these crimes. In other words four jury members could conclude Trump committed crime “A” and believe he did not commit crime “B” or “C”. Then four other jury members can conclude he committed crimes “B” but not crimes “A” or “C”. And thus the other four members of the jury can conclude he committed crime “C” but not crimes “A” or “B”. That surely flies in the face of unanimous requirement for conviction of a crime.

The three crimes? Well first it was suggested, it could have been a tax violation for submitting a false improper deduction. As I pointed out earlier it was a legitimate deduction and IRS would have recouped the taxable amount of this money as it would have been taxed against Cohen’s income.

The second possible crime was violation of federal campaign finance laws. Aside from the obvious fact that this is a state court that has no jurisdiction in determining federal crimes, which was blithely ignored by this trial judge, he denied the defense a witness who was a former head of the Federal Elections Commission who would have testified that there was no violation of campaign financing laws by the Trump organization. The Commission had looked into the matter in 2018 and decided against prosecution.

The third possible crime is alleged election interference in depriving the voters the knowledge of this hush money payment. That has to be the most laughable allegation of all. If the exposure of the access Hollywood tapes did not sink Trump’s candidacy, then this peccadillo surely would not have moved the needle. Besides Trump lost New York by a wide margin so by definition it did not affect the outcome and this supposed crime did occur in New York after all.

So OK Trump haters. Tell me what crime did Trump commit?

It doesn't matter, TDS trump's all logic and law favoring innocence.

 

[Bn2f]

Perhaps brush up on your reading comprehension skills; this article explains why your comment is incorrect and incomplete.

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/...trump-violates-this-important-legal-doctrine/

I refuse to read. Have you not seen a pattern in my posts? Gladys, you and your dipshit Pips keep singing the played out song that this is a travesty while I’m looking at the done and over guilty verdict.

In other words, I’m already on that midnight train to fanni in Georgia. Woop-woop.

 

[icanhelp1]

I refuse to read. Have you not seen a pattern in my posts? Gladys, you and your dipshit Pips keep singing the played out song that this is a travesty while I’m looking at the done and over guilty verdict.

You must be a gold star student in the Adrina school of deflection. Congrats!

 

[Philthy_Phil]

Well now, the Mirriam Webster dictionary defines ‘ad hominem’ as: “marked by or being an attack on an opponent's character rather than by an answer to the contentions made”. You called me and I quote “you are a dumbshit trumptard.” Incidentally you need not worry that I was offended by your witty response. As I said I’m comforted by Pres Lincoln famous quote. Mind you I’m curious how you do define ‘ad hominem’? A hint for you, even if as you say you were making a true statement in that by universal consensus, I am truly a “dumbshit trumptard” it is still an ad hominem attack on my character as you don’t address the points I was making in my opening post. In this discourse between you and I, reminds me of a t-shirt my daughter possessed” “I love to engage in a battle of wits with you, but you seem to be unarmed”.

An ad hominem attack is based upon a fallacious belief. Make no mistake, you are a dumb shit trumptard.

 

[Lazaran]

I said he’s a Biden donor who ran the trial in a partisan manner.

BabyBoobs might want to read this:

https://www.nytimes.com/2024/06/02/opinion/trump-trial-juan-merchan.html

And this:

https://apnews.com/article/fact-check-trump-trial-jury-unanimous-verdict-679053515836





BabyBoobs

 

[Bn2f]

You must be a gold star student in the Adrina school of deflection. Congrats!

I respect Adrina. I thank you humbly for any comparisons to her. Lord knows she’s far more patient with you than I am and embarrasses you with facts rather than my insults that roll off your treasonous back.

 

[adrina]

It's hilarious that those who cite Washington Examiner, Turley, Newsmax etc complain about partisan news.

 

[icanhelp1]

I refuse to read. Have you not seen a pattern in my posts? Gladys, you and your dipshit Pips keep singing the played out song that this is a travesty while I’m looking at the done and over guilty verdict.

In other words, I’m already on that midnight train to fanni in Georgia. Woop-woop.

Fair enough, you have a constitutional right to remain ignorant!

 

[adrina]

Fair enough, you have a constitutional right to remain ignorant!

You've already got that covered.

 

[Lazaran]

It's hilarious that those who cite Washington Examiner, Turley, Newsmax etc complain about partisan news.

BabyBoobs, etc, regularly cite Jonathan Turley, because Turley was ONCE a quasi "liberal" law professor.

BabyBoob, etc, know damn well that Turley has long since become a right wing shill.

Just more gaslighting from BabyBoobs, etc.

Ironically, BabyBoobs, etc, like to claim that Turley is a "liberal", based on their say so, but here is what ACTUAL "liberals" think of Turley:

https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2022/11/what-happened-to-jonathan-turley-really.html







BabyBoobs

 

[Comshaw]

Pay attention. You asked me if Cannon should recuse herself. I said she should not recuse herself and pointed out that the trial hasnt even begun.

If you would please reread and comprehend the content of my LAST post I believe I clarified the questions I was asking. Are you still confused about it or should I simplify it? To alleviate any undue stress on you having to go back and read the question again, let me restate it:

You accused Judge Merchan of partisan behavior and stated it is clearly apparent he was so. Comparing the two do you also recognize the partisan behavior of Judge Cannon? If not why not?

Comshaw

 

[adrina]

If you would please reread and comprehend the content of my LAST post I believe I clarified the questions I was asking. Are you still confused about it or should I simplify it? To alleviate any undue stress on you having to go back and read the question again, let me restate it:

You accused Judge Merchan of partisan behavior and stated it is clearly apparent he was so. Comparing the two do you also recognize the partisan behavior of Judge Cannon? If not why not?

Comshaw

Good luck getting an answer.

He can only spit out talking points via links. Not even rephrasing them.

 

[Lazaran]

If you would please reread and comprehend the content of my LAST post I believe I clarified the questions I was asking. Are you still confused about it or should I simplify it? To alleviate any undue stress on you having to go back and read the question again, let me restate it:

You accused Judge Merchan of partisan behavior and stated it is clearly apparent he was so. Comparing the two do you also recognize the partisan behavior of Judge Cannon? If not why not?

Comshaw

You may also want to show BabyBoobs this:

https://www.nytimes.com/2024/06/02/opinion/trump-trial-juan-merchan.html

And this:

https://www.nytimes.com/2024/05/18/opinion/judge-cannon-trump-documents-case.html







BabyBoobs

 

[icanhelp1]

Just because she was appointed by Trump doesn't make her a biased jurist. There is no known evidence that Judge Cannon had any outside personal relationship with Trump, no known contributions to the Trump campaign, unlike Judge Merchan who actually contributed to to the Biden campaign and who's daughter is a key fund raiser for democrat politicians like Adam Schiff who spent much of his time trying to impeach Trump. A trump conviction could positively impact campaign donations to the Biden campaign.

Appointing a special master was a rookie mistake which was quickly rebuked and corrected by two Trump appointed appellate judges in the 11th circuit.

A magistrate judge Bruce Reinhart has been assigned to assist in the case. His expertise as a trial attorney for the DOJ's public integrity section should keep the trial on the straight and narrow. Till the trial begins to formulate a case for bias is just a little premature and more fire! fire! hair on fire from the likes of Andrew Weissman perhaps the most politically corrupt and biased attorneys in history. In my opinion if Biden can walk for not only having possession of top secret documents but also failed to secure them, that alone should set a precedence. Richardson, Clinton, Pence and Biden all walked. imho

 

[domroger]

Well I commend you in that after 66 postings, you’re the first Trump hater who actually advances an argument against my contention in this thread. As to your point, don’t you think labeling the hush money payment as a campaign contribution is a stretch? I believe Hope Hicks testified at the trial that Trump was more concerned about embarrassment to his wife and family if the allegation by the porn star would become public knowledge. You also have to give weight to the fact that the Federal Election Commission who has the sole discretion to prosecute violations of federal campaign laws looked into the matter in 2018 and determine not to prosecute.

You’re also in error in suggesting that falsifying business records is a felony it is only a misdemeanor and time for prosecuting it had expired. That’s why the prosecution had to allege a different crime in conjunction with allegation of falsifying business records.

The time had not expired,it was extended because of COVID and the fact that the Orange Blossom Special had his ass parked in the White House.

 

[adrina]

Just because she was appointed by Trump doesn't make her a biased jurist. There is no know evidence that Judge Cannon had any outside personal relationship with Trump, no known contributions to the Trump campaign, unlike Judge Merchan who actually contributed to to the Biden campaign and who's daughter is a key fund raiser for democrat politicians like Adam Schiff who spent much of his time trying to impeach Trump. A trump conviction could positively impact campaign donations to the Biden campaign.

Appointing a special master was a rookie mistake which was quickly rebuked and corrected by two Trump appointed appellate judges in the 11th circuit.

A magistrate judge Bruce Reinhart has been assigned to assist in the case. His expertise as a trial attorney for the DOJ's public integrity section should keep the trial on the straight and narrow. Till the trial begins to formulate a case for bias is just a little premature and more fire! fire! hair on fire from the likes of Andrew Weissman perhaps the most politically corrupt and biased attorneys in history. In my opinion if Biden can walk for not only having possession of top secret documents but also failed to secure them, that alone should set a precedence. Richardson, Clinton, Pence and Biden all walked. imho

So, then what about Obama appointed judges?

You're so full of shit.

You complain about Merchan's alleged bias but don't see any in Cannon.

There's that beam in your eye.