Discussion:
Stormy Daniels Gave "Disastrous" Testimony In Trump Trial, CNN Legal Analyst Says
Add Reply
Ubiquitous
2024-05-12 08:30:46 UTC
Reply
Permalink
CNN legal analyst Elie Honig said adult film actress Stormy Daniels
gave “disastrous” responses during her appearance on Tuesday at former
President Donald Trump‘s New York City hush-money trial.

During a segment on CNN with other legal experts, Honig offered his
take on the testimony, which included Stormy Daniels discussing her
alleged 2006 hotel tryst with Trump that the former president has
denied. While he contended that Daniels was believable when it came to
the sex claim, Honig argued the cross-examination could spell trouble
for prosecutors.

“The cross-exam, boy, her responses were disastrous. I mean, ‘Do you
hate Donald Trump?’ ‘Yes.’ Of course she does. That’s a big deal. When
the witness hates the person whose liberty is at stake? That’s a big
damn deal.”



In the case brought by Manhattan DA Alvin Bragg, Trump faces 34 felony
counts of falsifying business records to allegedly cover up payments,
including to Daniels, in a bid to conceal damaging information as part
of a “catch-and-kill” scheme to influence the 2016 election. He has
pleaded not guilty. The trial began last month, and Daniels took the
stand on Tuesday.

CLICK HERE TO GET THE DAILYWIRE+ APP

During the cross-examination, Daniels said “yes” after being asked if
she hated Trump. When pressed on whether she wants Trump to go to jail,
Daniels said she wants “him to be held accountable” and “if he is found
guilty, absolutely.” She also faced questions about tweets suggesting
she does not want to pay $500,000 in legal fees to Trump after a failed
defamation lawsuit.

“The defense is going to say she’s willing to defy a court order,”
Honig said after raising these issues. “Why — she’s not willing to
respect an order of a judge, why is she going to respect this oath she
took? I thought it went quite poorly on cross-exam. At the end of
direct, I thought, OK, they got what they needed. But I think the cross
is making real inroads.”

Earlier, Honig said his impression was that Stormy Daniels had been
“plausible on her explanation of what happened in that hotel room” in
2006. “It’s hard for me to believe that a juror heard that and thought,
this is entirely made up,” he said, adding that although there “may
well be some embellishments,” he thought it was “quite clear they had
sex in 2006 in that hotel room.”
--
Democrats and the liberal media hate President Trump more than they
love this country.
NoBody
2024-05-14 11:25:19 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Ubiquitous
CNN legal analyst Elie Honig said adult film actress Stormy Daniels
gave “disastrous” responses during her appearance on Tuesday at former
President Donald Trump‘s New York City hush-money trial.
During a segment on CNN with other legal experts, Honig offered his
take on the testimony, which included Stormy Daniels discussing her
alleged 2006 hotel tryst with Trump that the former president has
denied. While he contended that Daniels was believable when it came to
the sex claim, Honig argued the cross-examination could spell trouble
for prosecutors.
“The cross-exam, boy, her responses were disastrous. I mean, ‘Do you
hate Donald Trump?’ ‘Yes.’ Of course she does. That’s a big deal. When
the witness hates the person whose liberty is at stake? That’s a big
damn deal.”
http://youtu.be/mchsOA2RDus
In the case brought by Manhattan DA Alvin Bragg, Trump faces 34 felony
counts of falsifying business records to allegedly cover up payments,
including to Daniels, in a bid to conceal damaging information as part
of a “catch-and-kill” scheme to influence the 2016 election. He has
pleaded not guilty. The trial began last month, and Daniels took the
stand on Tuesday.
CLICK HERE TO GET THE DAILYWIRE+ APP
During the cross-examination, Daniels said “yes” after being asked if
she hated Trump. When pressed on whether she wants Trump to go to jail,
Daniels said she wants “him to be held accountable” and “if he is found
guilty, absolutely.” She also faced questions about tweets suggesting
she does not want to pay $500,000 in legal fees to Trump after a failed
defamation lawsuit.
“The defense is going to say she’s willing to defy a court order,”
Honig said after raising these issues. “Why — she’s not willing to
respect an order of a judge, why is she going to respect this oath she
took? I thought it went quite poorly on cross-exam. At the end of
direct, I thought, OK, they got what they needed. But I think the cross
is making real inroads.”
Earlier, Honig said his impression was that Stormy Daniels had been
“plausible on her explanation of what happened in that hotel room” in
2006. “It’s hard for me to believe that a juror heard that and thought,
this is entirely made up,” he said, adding that although there “may
well be some embellishments,” he thought it was “quite clear they had
sex in 2006 in that hotel room.”
The prosecutors have yet to produce ANY evidence that Trump committed
any crime.
suzeeq
2024-05-14 14:20:48 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by NoBody
Post by Ubiquitous
CNN legal analyst Elie Honig said adult film actress Stormy Daniels
gave “disastrous” responses during her appearance on Tuesday at former
President Donald Trump‘s New York City hush-money trial.
During a segment on CNN with other legal experts, Honig offered his
take on the testimony, which included Stormy Daniels discussing her
alleged 2006 hotel tryst with Trump that the former president has
denied. While he contended that Daniels was believable when it came to
the sex claim, Honig argued the cross-examination could spell trouble
for prosecutors.
“The cross-exam, boy, her responses were disastrous. I mean, ‘Do you
hate Donald Trump?’ ‘Yes.’ Of course she does. That’s a big deal. When
the witness hates the person whose liberty is at stake? That’s a big
damn deal.”
http://youtu.be/mchsOA2RDus
In the case brought by Manhattan DA Alvin Bragg, Trump faces 34 felony
counts of falsifying business records to allegedly cover up payments,
including to Daniels, in a bid to conceal damaging information as part
of a “catch-and-kill” scheme to influence the 2016 election. He has
pleaded not guilty. The trial began last month, and Daniels took the
stand on Tuesday.
CLICK HERE TO GET THE DAILYWIRE+ APP
During the cross-examination, Daniels said “yes” after being asked if
she hated Trump. When pressed on whether she wants Trump to go to jail,
Daniels said she wants “him to be held accountable” and “if he is found
guilty, absolutely.” She also faced questions about tweets suggesting
she does not want to pay $500,000 in legal fees to Trump after a failed
defamation lawsuit.
“The defense is going to say she’s willing to defy a court order,”
Honig said after raising these issues. “Why — she’s not willing to
respect an order of a judge, why is she going to respect this oath she
took? I thought it went quite poorly on cross-exam. At the end of
direct, I thought, OK, they got what they needed. But I think the cross
is making real inroads.”
Earlier, Honig said his impression was that Stormy Daniels had been
“plausible on her explanation of what happened in that hotel room” in
2006. “It’s hard for me to believe that a juror heard that and thought,
this is entirely made up,” he said, adding that although there “may
well be some embellishments,” he thought it was “quite clear they had
sex in 2006 in that hotel room.”
The prosecutors have yet to produce ANY evidence that Trump committed
any crime.
He's charged with covering up payments to her for killing her story to
interfere with his 2016 campaign. That's the crime and they have proved
it with other witnesses.
Adam H. Kerman
2024-05-14 15:35:30 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Crosspost to newsgroups Ubi doesn't read cut
The article that Ubi the shithead plagarized is this:

Stormy Daniels Gave 'Disastrous' Testimony In Trump Trial, CNN Legal
Analyst Says
By Daniel Chaitin
The Daily Wire
May 8, 2024
https://www.dailywire.com/news/stormy-daniels-gave-disastrous-testimony-in-trump-trial-cnn-legal-analyst-says
Post by suzeeq
Post by NoBody
. . .
The prosecutors have yet to produce ANY evidence that Trump committed
any crime.
He's charged with covering up payments to her for killing her story to
interfere with his 2016 campaign. That's the crime and they have proved
it with other witnesses.
Just a moment. You need to explain this in full.

She was looking for a payout. She approached people close to Trump
seeking money and wanted to speed the process along by threating to sell
her story to someone else if she didn't receive her payout.

That's extortion. No one has yet explained why her actions couldn't have
been prosecuted under state law.

Trump's first instinct was to treat her like he treated subcontractors
on developments: Stall the payment or not pay at all. At first he wanted
to wait till after the election, for if he lost, nothing she was selling
would be of value. He was advised to spend the money to make problem go
away.

None of this is criminal.

I'm not even sure if paying extortion is a criminal act on the part of
the victim.

The payment to her was a crime, not because buying rights so she won't
publish what she claimed was her story is a crime, but because keeping
it from being published was of some benefit to Trump as a candidate and
it wasn't disclosed as required in federal law. This is what Michael
Cohen was convicted of, but Trump was not prosecuted for this.

What Trump is being prosecuted for is ordering that the payment to
reimburse Cohen be written from one of the companies Trump controlled
and taken as a business expense of that company.

The coverup was illegal in and of itself but if there was an underlying
crime being covered up, it was extortion committed by her. There was no
underlying crime committed by Trump to cover up.
BTR1701
2024-05-14 16:43:00 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Adam H. Kerman
Crosspost to newsgroups Ubi doesn't read cut
Stormy Daniels Gave 'Disastrous' Testimony In Trump Trial, CNN Legal
Analyst Says
By Daniel Chaitin
The Daily Wire
May 8, 2024
https://www.dailywire.com/news/stormy-daniels-gave-disastrous-testimony-in-tru
mp-trial-cnn-legal-analyst-says
Post by suzeeq
Post by NoBody
. . .
The prosecutors have yet to produce ANY evidence that Trump committed
any crime.
He's charged with covering up payments to her for killing her story to
interfere with his 2016 campaign. That's the crime and they have proved
it with other witnesses.
Just a moment. You need to explain this in full.
She was looking for a payout. She approached people close to Trump
seeking money and wanted to speed the process along by threating to sell
her story to someone else if she didn't receive her payout.
That's extortion. No one has yet explained why her actions couldn't have
been prosecuted under state law.
Trump's first instinct was to treat her like he treated subcontractors
on developments: Stall the payment or not pay at all. At first he wanted
to wait till after the election, for if he lost, nothing she was selling
would be of value. He was advised to spend the money to make problem go
away.
None of this is criminal.
I'm not even sure if paying extortion is a criminal act on the part of
the victim.
The payment to her was a crime, not because buying rights so she won't
publish what she claimed was her story is a crime, but because keeping
it from being published was of some benefit to Trump as a candidate and
it wasn't disclosed as required in federal law.
If that's the standard, then Democrats have all broken that law by not
disclosing MSNBC and CNN, which are a lot more than just some benefit to
Democrats as candidates.
Post by Adam H. Kerman
What Trump is being prosecuted for is ordering that the payment to
reimburse Cohen be written from one of the companies Trump controlled
and taken as a business expense of that company.
They're saying it boils down to Trump notating the payment to Cohen as
"legal expenses", which is falsifying a business record. This in a city
that's a violent hellhole where thugs are making a sport out of walking
up to random women and punching them so hard, the bones in their faces
are shattered. And when caught, they're released on no bail almost
immediately. Alvin Bragg won't aggressively prosecute *that* but Trump
putting a vague term in the memo line on a check to Cohen is apparently
worth spending millions of dollars of prosecution resources.

But don't say this is weaponizing the courts against political
opponents. That means you're a conspiracy theorist!

Trump should have just written "reimbursement" on the memo line. That
would have been completely truthful and yet in no way revealing.
Post by Adam H. Kerman
The coverup was illegal in and of itself but if there was an underlying
crime being covered up, it was extortion committed by her. There was no
underlying crime committed by Trump to cover up.
Adam H. Kerman
2024-05-14 17:52:17 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by BTR1701
Post by Adam H. Kerman
Crosspost to newsgroups Ubi doesn't read cut
Stormy Daniels Gave 'Disastrous' Testimony In Trump Trial, CNN Legal
Analyst Says
By Daniel Chaitin
The Daily Wire
May 8, 2024
https://www.dailywire.com/news/stormy-daniels-gave-disastrous-testimony-in-trump-trial-cnn-legal-analyst-says
Post by suzeeq
Post by NoBody
. . .
The prosecutors have yet to produce ANY evidence that Trump committed
any crime.
He's charged with covering up payments to her for killing her story to
interfere with his 2016 campaign. That's the crime and they have proved
it with other witnesses.
Just a moment. You need to explain this in full.
She was looking for a payout. She approached people close to Trump
seeking money and wanted to speed the process along by threating to sell
her story to someone else if she didn't receive her payout.
That's extortion. No one has yet explained why her actions couldn't have
been prosecuted under state law.
Trump's first instinct was to treat her like he treated subcontractors
on developments: Stall the payment or not pay at all. At first he wanted
to wait till after the election, for if he lost, nothing she was selling
would be of value. He was advised to spend the money to make problem go
away.
None of this is criminal.
I'm not even sure if paying extortion is a criminal act on the part of
the victim.
The payment to her was a crime, not because buying rights so she won't
publish what she claimed was her story is a crime, but because keeping
it from being published was of some benefit to Trump as a candidate and
it wasn't disclosed as required in federal law.
If that's the standard, then Democrats have all broken that law by not
disclosing MSNBC and CNN, which are a lot more than just some benefit to
Democrats as candidates.
This is the standard and the bright line simply is not there. It just
almost never gets prosecuted.
Post by BTR1701
Post by Adam H. Kerman
What Trump is being prosecuted for is ordering that the payment to
reimburse Cohen be written from one of the companies Trump controlled
and taken as a business expense of that company.
They're saying it boils down to Trump notating the payment to Cohen as
"legal expenses", which is falsifying a business record. This in a city
that's a violent hellhole where thugs are making a sport out of walking
up to random women and punching them so hard, the bones in their faces
are shattered. And when caught, they're released on no bail almost
immediately. Alvin Bragg won't aggressively prosecute *that* but Trump
putting a vague term in the memo line on a check to Cohen is apparently
worth spending millions of dollars of prosecution resources.
But don't say this is weaponizing the courts against political
opponents. That means you're a conspiracy theorist!
I wouldn't compare it to Bragg's failure to enforce criminal law in
which there are real world victims suffering actual harm. Just look at
years and years of failure to prosecute Trump himself under this law, in
which he committed harm against real people. This law is designed to
prosecute bad actors like Trump, who took monies from clients to pay
subcontractors but never paid the subcontractors.
Post by BTR1701
Trump should have just written "reimbursement" on the memo line. That
would have been completely truthful and yet in no way revealing.
I don't see how that keeps the payment from having been made in violation
of the law. It simply wasn't a business expense of that business, so
that's the violation.
Post by BTR1701
Post by Adam H. Kerman
The coverup was illegal in and of itself but if there was an underlying
crime being covered up, it was extortion committed by her. There was no
underlying crime committed by Trump to cover up.
trotsky
2024-05-14 20:32:25 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by BTR1701
Post by Adam H. Kerman
Crosspost to newsgroups Ubi doesn't read cut
Stormy Daniels Gave 'Disastrous' Testimony In Trump Trial, CNN Legal
Analyst Says
By Daniel Chaitin
The Daily Wire
May 8, 2024
https://www.dailywire.com/news/stormy-daniels-gave-disastrous-testimony-in-tru
mp-trial-cnn-legal-analyst-says
Post by suzeeq
Post by NoBody
. . .
The prosecutors have yet to produce ANY evidence that Trump committed
any crime.
He's charged with covering up payments to her for killing her story to
interfere with his 2016 campaign. That's the crime and they have proved
it with other witnesses.
Just a moment. You need to explain this in full.
She was looking for a payout. She approached people close to Trump
seeking money and wanted to speed the process along by threating to sell
her story to someone else if she didn't receive her payout.
That's extortion. No one has yet explained why her actions couldn't have
been prosecuted under state law.
Trump's first instinct was to treat her like he treated subcontractors
on developments: Stall the payment or not pay at all. At first he wanted
to wait till after the election, for if he lost, nothing she was selling
would be of value. He was advised to spend the money to make problem go
away.
None of this is criminal.
I'm not even sure if paying extortion is a criminal act on the part of
the victim.
The payment to her was a crime, not because buying rights so she won't
publish what she claimed was her story is a crime, but because keeping
it from being published was of some benefit to Trump as a candidate and
it wasn't disclosed as required in federal law.
If that's the standard, then Democrats have all broken that law by not
disclosing MSNBC and CNN, which are a lot more than just some benefit to
Democrats as candidates.
Do you know any lawyers that can act on this fake fact?
Post by BTR1701
Post by Adam H. Kerman
What Trump is being prosecuted for is ordering that the payment to
reimburse Cohen be written from one of the companies Trump controlled
and taken as a business expense of that company.
They're saying it boils down to Trump notating the payment to Cohen as
"legal expenses", which is falsifying a business record. This in a city
that's a violent hellhole where thugs are making a sport out of walking
up to random women and punching them so hard, the bones in their faces
are shattered. And when caught, they're released on no bail almost
immediately. Alvin Bragg won't aggressively prosecute *that* but Trump
putting a vague term in the memo line on a check to Cohen is apparently
worth spending millions of dollars of prosecution resources.
But don't say this is weaponizing the courts against political
opponents. That means you're a conspiracy theorist!
Trump should have just written "reimbursement" on the memo line. That
would have been completely truthful and yet in no way revealing.
Post by Adam H. Kerman
The coverup was illegal in and of itself but if there was an underlying
crime being covered up, it was extortion committed by her. There was no
underlying crime committed by Trump to cover up.
FPP
2024-05-18 07:59:44 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by BTR1701
Post by Adam H. Kerman
Crosspost to newsgroups Ubi doesn't read cut
Stormy Daniels Gave 'Disastrous' Testimony In Trump Trial, CNN Legal
Analyst Says
By Daniel Chaitin
The Daily Wire
May 8, 2024
https://www.dailywire.com/news/stormy-daniels-gave-disastrous-testimony-in-tru
mp-trial-cnn-legal-analyst-says
Post by suzeeq
Post by NoBody
. . .
The prosecutors have yet to produce ANY evidence that Trump committed
any crime.
He's charged with covering up payments to her for killing her story to
interfere with his 2016 campaign. That's the crime and they have proved
it with other witnesses.
Just a moment. You need to explain this in full.
She was looking for a payout. She approached people close to Trump
seeking money and wanted to speed the process along by threating to sell
her story to someone else if she didn't receive her payout.
That's extortion. No one has yet explained why her actions couldn't have
been prosecuted under state law.
Trump's first instinct was to treat her like he treated subcontractors
on developments: Stall the payment or not pay at all. At first he wanted
to wait till after the election, for if he lost, nothing she was selling
would be of value. He was advised to spend the money to make problem go
away.
None of this is criminal.
I'm not even sure if paying extortion is a criminal act on the part of
the victim.
The payment to her was a crime, not because buying rights so she won't
publish what she claimed was her story is a crime, but because keeping
it from being published was of some benefit to Trump as a candidate and
it wasn't disclosed as required in federal law.
If that's the standard, then Democrats have all broken that law by not
disclosing MSNBC and CNN, which are a lot more than just some benefit to
Democrats as candidates.
Post by Adam H. Kerman
What Trump is being prosecuted for is ordering that the payment to
reimburse Cohen be written from one of the companies Trump controlled
and taken as a business expense of that company.
They're saying it boils down to Trump notating the payment to Cohen as
"legal expenses", which is falsifying a business record. This in a city
that's a violent hellhole where thugs are making a sport out of walking
up to random women and punching them so hard, the bones in their faces
are shattered. And when caught, they're released on no bail almost
immediately. Alvin Bragg won't aggressively prosecute *that* but Trump
putting a vague term in the memo line on a check to Cohen is apparently
worth spending millions of dollars of prosecution resources.
But don't say this is weaponizing the courts against political
opponents. That means you're a conspiracy theorist!
Trump should have just written "reimbursement" on the memo line. That
would have been completely truthful and yet in no way revealing.
Post by Adam H. Kerman
The coverup was illegal in and of itself but if there was an underlying
crime being covered up, it was extortion committed by her. There was no
underlying crime committed by Trump to cover up.
Nope. Ask John Edwards. Some lawyer you are!
--
"Thou shalt not make a machine in the likeness of a man’s mind." - OC
Bible 25B.G.
Loading Image...

Gracie, age 6.
Loading Image...
trotsky
2024-05-18 09:55:36 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by BTR1701
Post by Adam H. Kerman
Crosspost to newsgroups Ubi doesn't read cut
Stormy Daniels Gave 'Disastrous' Testimony In Trump Trial, CNN Legal
Analyst Says
By Daniel Chaitin
The Daily Wire
May 8, 2024
https://www.dailywire.com/news/stormy-daniels-gave-disastrous-testimony-in-tru
mp-trial-cnn-legal-analyst-says
Post by suzeeq
Post by NoBody
. . .
The prosecutors have yet to produce ANY evidence that Trump committed
any crime.
He's charged with covering up payments to her for killing her story to
interfere with his 2016 campaign. That's the crime and they have proved
it with other witnesses.
Just a moment. You need to explain this in full.
She was looking for a payout. She approached people close to Trump
seeking money and wanted to speed the process along by threating to sell
her story to someone else if she didn't receive her payout.
That's extortion. No one has yet explained why her actions couldn't have
been prosecuted under state law.
Trump's first instinct was to treat her like he treated subcontractors
on developments: Stall the payment or not pay at all. At first he wanted
to wait till after the election, for if he lost, nothing she was selling
would be of value. He was advised to spend the money to make problem go
away.
None of this is criminal.
I'm not even sure if paying extortion is a criminal act on the part of
the victim.
The payment to her was a crime, not because buying rights so she won't
publish what she claimed was her story is a crime, but because keeping
it from being published was of some benefit to Trump as a candidate and
it wasn't disclosed as required in federal law.
If that's the standard, then Democrats have all broken that law by not
disclosing MSNBC and CNN, which are a lot more than just some benefit to
Democrats as candidates.
Post by Adam H. Kerman
What Trump is being prosecuted for is ordering that the payment to
reimburse Cohen be written from one of the companies Trump controlled
and taken as a business expense of that company.
They're saying it boils down to Trump notating the payment to Cohen as
"legal expenses", which is falsifying a business record. This in a city
that's a violent hellhole where thugs are making a sport out of walking
up to random women and punching them so hard, the bones in their faces
are shattered. And when caught, they're released on no bail almost
immediately. Alvin Bragg won't aggressively prosecute *that* but Trump
putting a vague term in the memo line on a check to Cohen is apparently
worth spending millions of dollars of prosecution resources.
But don't say this is weaponizing the courts against political
opponents. That means you're a conspiracy theorist!
Trump should have just written "reimbursement" on the memo line. That
would have been completely truthful and yet in no way revealing.
Post by Adam H. Kerman
The coverup was illegal in and of itself but if there was an underlying
crime being covered up, it was extortion committed by her. There was no
underlying crime committed by Trump to cover up.
Nope.  Ask John Edwards.  Some lawyer you are!
I don't believe he ever was a lawyer because he's too stupid to pass the
bar. Also, he's fully indoctrinated by white supremacists, most likely
Oath Keepers, so he's completely unable to keep from spewing propaganda.
I can't even remember if there was ever a time where I found his posts
worth considering, but either way he hasn't been the same since that
time he literally drove off a cliff.
BTR1701
2024-05-18 18:24:00 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by BTR1701
Post by Adam H. Kerman
Crosspost to newsgroups Ubi doesn't read cut
Stormy Daniels Gave 'Disastrous' Testimony In Trump Trial, CNN Legal
Analyst Says
By Daniel Chaitin
The Daily Wire
May 8, 2024
https://www.dailywire.com/news/stormy-daniels-gave-disastrous-testimony-in-
tru
mp-trial-cnn-legal-analyst-says
Post by suzeeq
Post by NoBody
. . .
The prosecutors have yet to produce ANY evidence that Trump committed
any crime.
He's charged with covering up payments to her for killing her story to
interfere with his 2016 campaign. That's the crime and they have proved
it with other witnesses.
Just a moment. You need to explain this in full.
She was looking for a payout. She approached people close to Trump
seeking money and wanted to speed the process along by threating to sell
her story to someone else if she didn't receive her payout.
That's extortion. No one has yet explained why her actions couldn't have
been prosecuted under state law.
Trump's first instinct was to treat her like he treated subcontractors
on developments: Stall the payment or not pay at all. At first he wanted
to wait till after the election, for if he lost, nothing she was selling
would be of value. He was advised to spend the money to make problem go
away.
None of this is criminal.
I'm not even sure if paying extortion is a criminal act on the part of
the victim.
The payment to her was a crime, not because buying rights so she won't
publish what she claimed was her story is a crime, but because keeping
it from being published was of some benefit to Trump as a candidate and
it wasn't disclosed as required in federal law.
If that's the standard, then Democrats have all broken that law by not
disclosing MSNBC and CNN, which are a lot more than just some benefit to
Democrats as candidates.
Post by Adam H. Kerman
What Trump is being prosecuted for is ordering that the payment to
reimburse Cohen be written from one of the companies Trump controlled
and taken as a business expense of that company.
They're saying it boils down to Trump notating the payment to Cohen as
"legal expenses", which is falsifying a business record. This in a city
that's a violent hellhole where thugs are making a sport out of walking
up to random women and punching them so hard, the bones in their faces
are shattered. And when caught, they're released on no bail almost
immediately. Alvin Bragg won't aggressively prosecute *that* but Trump
putting a vague term in the memo line on a check to Cohen is apparently
worth spending millions of dollars of prosecution resources.
But don't say this is weaponizing the courts against political
opponents. That means you're a conspiracy theorist!
Trump should have just written "reimbursement" on the memo line. That
would have been completely truthful and yet in no way revealing.
Post by Adam H. Kerman
The coverup was illegal in and of itself but if there was an underlying
crime being covered up, it was extortion committed by her. There was no
underlying crime committed by Trump to cover up.
Nope. Ask John Edwards. Some lawyer you are!
I didn't write that, genius. You're responding to Kerman who has never
claimed to be a lawyer.
FPP
2024-05-20 13:33:56 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by BTR1701
Post by BTR1701
Post by Adam H. Kerman
Crosspost to newsgroups Ubi doesn't read cut
Stormy Daniels Gave 'Disastrous' Testimony In Trump Trial, CNN Legal
Analyst Says
By Daniel Chaitin
The Daily Wire
May 8, 2024
https://www.dailywire.com/news/stormy-daniels-gave-disastrous-testimony-in-
tru
mp-trial-cnn-legal-analyst-says
Post by suzeeq
Post by NoBody
. . .
The prosecutors have yet to produce ANY evidence that Trump committed
any crime.
He's charged with covering up payments to her for killing her story to
interfere with his 2016 campaign. That's the crime and they have proved
it with other witnesses.
Just a moment. You need to explain this in full.
She was looking for a payout. She approached people close to Trump
seeking money and wanted to speed the process along by threating to sell
her story to someone else if she didn't receive her payout.
That's extortion. No one has yet explained why her actions couldn't have
been prosecuted under state law.
Trump's first instinct was to treat her like he treated subcontractors
on developments: Stall the payment or not pay at all. At first he wanted
to wait till after the election, for if he lost, nothing she was selling
would be of value. He was advised to spend the money to make problem go
away.
None of this is criminal.
I'm not even sure if paying extortion is a criminal act on the part of
the victim.
The payment to her was a crime, not because buying rights so she won't
publish what she claimed was her story is a crime, but because keeping
it from being published was of some benefit to Trump as a candidate and
it wasn't disclosed as required in federal law.
If that's the standard, then Democrats have all broken that law by not
disclosing MSNBC and CNN, which are a lot more than just some benefit to
Democrats as candidates.
Post by Adam H. Kerman
What Trump is being prosecuted for is ordering that the payment to
reimburse Cohen be written from one of the companies Trump controlled
and taken as a business expense of that company.
They're saying it boils down to Trump notating the payment to Cohen as
"legal expenses", which is falsifying a business record. This in a city
that's a violent hellhole where thugs are making a sport out of walking
up to random women and punching them so hard, the bones in their faces
are shattered. And when caught, they're released on no bail almost
immediately. Alvin Bragg won't aggressively prosecute *that* but Trump
putting a vague term in the memo line on a check to Cohen is apparently
worth spending millions of dollars of prosecution resources.
But don't say this is weaponizing the courts against political
opponents. That means you're a conspiracy theorist!
Trump should have just written "reimbursement" on the memo line. That
would have been completely truthful and yet in no way revealing.
Post by Adam H. Kerman
The coverup was illegal in and of itself but if there was an underlying
crime being covered up, it was extortion committed by her. There was no
underlying crime committed by Trump to cover up.
Nope. Ask John Edwards. Some lawyer you are!
I didn't write that, genius. You're responding to Kerman who has never
claimed to be a lawyer.
And, yet, he's a better one than you!
--
"Thou shalt not make a machine in the likeness of a man’s mind." - OC
Bible 25B.G.
https://www.dropbox.com/s/ek8kap93bmk0q5w/D%20U%20N%20E%20Part%20II.jpg?dl=0

Gracie, age 6.
https://www.dropbox.com/s/0es3xolxka455iw/BetterThingsToDo.jpg?dl=0
FPP
2024-05-18 08:06:11 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by BTR1701
Post by Adam H. Kerman
Crosspost to newsgroups Ubi doesn't read cut
Stormy Daniels Gave 'Disastrous' Testimony In Trump Trial, CNN Legal
Analyst Says
By Daniel Chaitin
The Daily Wire
May 8, 2024
https://www.dailywire.com/news/stormy-daniels-gave-disastrous-testimony-in-tru
mp-trial-cnn-legal-analyst-says
Post by suzeeq
Post by NoBody
. . .
The prosecutors have yet to produce ANY evidence that Trump committed
any crime.
He's charged with covering up payments to her for killing her story to
interfere with his 2016 campaign. That's the crime and they have proved
it with other witnesses.
Just a moment. You need to explain this in full.
She was looking for a payout. She approached people close to Trump
seeking money and wanted to speed the process along by threating to sell
her story to someone else if she didn't receive her payout.
That's extortion. No one has yet explained why her actions couldn't have
been prosecuted under state law.
Trump's first instinct was to treat her like he treated subcontractors
on developments: Stall the payment or not pay at all. At first he wanted
to wait till after the election, for if he lost, nothing she was selling
would be of value. He was advised to spend the money to make problem go
away.
None of this is criminal.
I'm not even sure if paying extortion is a criminal act on the part of
the victim.
The payment to her was a crime, not because buying rights so she won't
publish what she claimed was her story is a crime, but because keeping
it from being published was of some benefit to Trump as a candidate and
it wasn't disclosed as required in federal law.
If that's the standard, then Democrats have all broken that law by not
disclosing MSNBC and CNN, which are a lot more than just some benefit to
Democrats as candidates.
Post by Adam H. Kerman
What Trump is being prosecuted for is ordering that the payment to
reimburse Cohen be written from one of the companies Trump controlled
and taken as a business expense of that company.
They're saying it boils down to Trump notating the payment to Cohen as
"legal expenses", which is falsifying a business record. This in a city
that's a violent hellhole...
<MAGA Bullshit snipped>

You're excusing crime, lawyer. He used his lawyer to make a campaign
contribution and didn't report it.
CRIME.

He disguised it as legal expenses, when it was a reimbursement.
CRIME.

Crime, crime, crime... 34 felony counts of falsifying financial records
are CRIMES.

They taught you that crimes are illegal in the Funny Farm Law School you
attended, right?
--
"Thou shalt not make a machine in the likeness of a man’s mind." - OC
Bible 25B.G.
https://www.dropbox.com/s/ek8kap93bmk0q5w/D%20U%20N%20E%20Part%20II.jpg?dl=0

Gracie, age 6.
https://www.dropbox.com/s/0es3xolxka455iw/BetterThingsToDo.jpg?dl=0
BTR1701
2024-05-18 18:22:42 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by FPP
Post by BTR1701
Post by Adam H. Kerman
Crosspost to newsgroups Ubi doesn't read cut
Stormy Daniels Gave 'Disastrous' Testimony In Trump Trial, CNN Legal
Analyst Says
By Daniel Chaitin
The Daily Wire
May 8, 2024
https://www.dailywire.com/news/stormy-daniels-gave-disastrous-testimony-in-
tru
mp-trial-cnn-legal-analyst-says
Post by suzeeq
Post by NoBody
. . .
The prosecutors have yet to produce ANY evidence that Trump committed
any crime.
He's charged with covering up payments to her for killing her story to
interfere with his 2016 campaign. That's the crime and they have proved
it with other witnesses.
Just a moment. You need to explain this in full.
She was looking for a payout. She approached people close to Trump
seeking money and wanted to speed the process along by threating to sell
her story to someone else if she didn't receive her payout.
That's extortion. No one has yet explained why her actions couldn't have
been prosecuted under state law.
Trump's first instinct was to treat her like he treated subcontractors
on developments: Stall the payment or not pay at all. At first he wanted
to wait till after the election, for if he lost, nothing she was selling
would be of value. He was advised to spend the money to make problem go
away.
None of this is criminal.
I'm not even sure if paying extortion is a criminal act on the part of
the victim.
The payment to her was a crime, not because buying rights so she won't
publish what she claimed was her story is a crime, but because keeping
it from being published was of some benefit to Trump as a candidate and
it wasn't disclosed as required in federal law.
If that's the standard, then Democrats have all broken that law by not
disclosing MSNBC and CNN, which are a lot more than just some benefit to
Democrats as candidates.
Post by Adam H. Kerman
What Trump is being prosecuted for is ordering that the payment to
reimburse Cohen be written from one of the companies Trump controlled
and taken as a business expense of that company.
They're saying it boils down to Trump notating the payment to Cohen as
"legal expenses", which is falsifying a business record. This in a city
that's a violent hellhole...
<MAGA Bullshit snipped>
Inconvenient evidence of Bragg's prosecutorial hypocrisy snipped for
Post by FPP
where thugs are making a sport out of walking up to random women and
punching them so hard, the bones in their faces are shattered. And when
caught, they're released on no bail almost immediately. Alvin Bragg won't
aggressively prosecute *that* but Trump putting a vague term in the memo
line on a check to Cohen is apparently worth spending millions of dollars
of prosecution resources.
But don't say this is weaponizing the courts against political
opponents. That means you're a conspiracy theorist!
Trump should have just written "reimbursement" on the memo line. That
would have been completely truthful and yet in no way revealing.
trotsky
2024-05-19 08:58:50 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by BTR1701
Post by FPP
Post by BTR1701
Post by Adam H. Kerman
Crosspost to newsgroups Ubi doesn't read cut
Stormy Daniels Gave 'Disastrous' Testimony In Trump Trial, CNN Legal
Analyst Says
By Daniel Chaitin
The Daily Wire
May 8, 2024
https://www.dailywire.com/news/stormy-daniels-gave-disastrous-testimony-in-
tru
mp-trial-cnn-legal-analyst-says
Post by suzeeq
Post by NoBody
. . .
The prosecutors have yet to produce ANY evidence that Trump committed
any crime.
He's charged with covering up payments to her for killing her story to
interfere with his 2016 campaign. That's the crime and they have proved
it with other witnesses.
Just a moment. You need to explain this in full.
She was looking for a payout. She approached people close to Trump
seeking money and wanted to speed the process along by threating to sell
her story to someone else if she didn't receive her payout.
That's extortion. No one has yet explained why her actions couldn't have
been prosecuted under state law.
Trump's first instinct was to treat her like he treated subcontractors
on developments: Stall the payment or not pay at all. At first he wanted
to wait till after the election, for if he lost, nothing she was selling
would be of value. He was advised to spend the money to make problem go
away.
None of this is criminal.
I'm not even sure if paying extortion is a criminal act on the part of
the victim.
The payment to her was a crime, not because buying rights so she won't
publish what she claimed was her story is a crime, but because keeping
it from being published was of some benefit to Trump as a candidate and
it wasn't disclosed as required in federal law.
If that's the standard, then Democrats have all broken that law by not
disclosing MSNBC and CNN, which are a lot more than just some benefit to
Democrats as candidates.
Post by Adam H. Kerman
What Trump is being prosecuted for is ordering that the payment to
reimburse Cohen be written from one of the companies Trump controlled
and taken as a business expense of that company.
They're saying it boils down to Trump notating the payment to Cohen as
"legal expenses", which is falsifying a business record. This in a city
that's a violent hellhole...
<MAGA Bullshit snipped>
Inconvenient evidence of Bragg's prosecutorial hypocrisy snipped for
Post by FPP
where thugs are making a sport out of walking up to random women and
punching them so hard, the bones in their faces are shattered. And when
caught, they're released on no bail almost immediately.
LOL! If bail is permitted, is there a time frame that's supposed to
instituted? Specious, Trump like "logic."


Alvin Bragg won't
Post by BTR1701
Post by FPP
aggressively prosecute *that* but Trump putting a vague term in the memo
line on a check to Cohen is apparently worth spending millions of dollars
of prosecution resources.
But don't say this is weaponizing the courts against political
opponents. That means you're a conspiracy theorist!
Trump should have just written "reimbursement" on the memo line. That
would have been completely truthful and yet in no way revealing.
FPP
2024-05-20 13:32:22 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by BTR1701
Post by FPP
Post by BTR1701
Post by Adam H. Kerman
Crosspost to newsgroups Ubi doesn't read cut
Stormy Daniels Gave 'Disastrous' Testimony In Trump Trial, CNN Legal
Analyst Says
By Daniel Chaitin
The Daily Wire
May 8, 2024
https://www.dailywire.com/news/stormy-daniels-gave-disastrous-testimony-in-
tru
mp-trial-cnn-legal-analyst-says
Post by suzeeq
Post by NoBody
. . .
The prosecutors have yet to produce ANY evidence that Trump committed
any crime.
He's charged with covering up payments to her for killing her story to
interfere with his 2016 campaign. That's the crime and they have proved
it with other witnesses.
Just a moment. You need to explain this in full.
She was looking for a payout. She approached people close to Trump
seeking money and wanted to speed the process along by threating to sell
her story to someone else if she didn't receive her payout.
That's extortion. No one has yet explained why her actions couldn't have
been prosecuted under state law.
Trump's first instinct was to treat her like he treated subcontractors
on developments: Stall the payment or not pay at all. At first he wanted
to wait till after the election, for if he lost, nothing she was selling
would be of value. He was advised to spend the money to make problem go
away.
None of this is criminal.
I'm not even sure if paying extortion is a criminal act on the part of
the victim.
The payment to her was a crime, not because buying rights so she won't
publish what she claimed was her story is a crime, but because keeping
it from being published was of some benefit to Trump as a candidate and
it wasn't disclosed as required in federal law.
If that's the standard, then Democrats have all broken that law by not
disclosing MSNBC and CNN, which are a lot more than just some benefit to
Democrats as candidates.
Post by Adam H. Kerman
What Trump is being prosecuted for is ordering that the payment to
reimburse Cohen be written from one of the companies Trump controlled
and taken as a business expense of that company.
They're saying it boils down to Trump notating the payment to Cohen as
"legal expenses", which is falsifying a business record. This in a city
that's a violent hellhole...
<MAGA Bullshit snipped>
Inconvenient evidence of Bragg's prosecutorial hypocrisy snipped for
Post by FPP
where thugs are making a sport out of walking up to random women and
punching them so hard, the bones in their faces are shattered. And when
caught, they're released on no bail almost immediately. Alvin Bragg won't
aggressively prosecute *that* but Trump putting a vague term in the memo
line on a check to Cohen is apparently worth spending millions of dollars
of prosecution resources.
But don't say this is weaponizing the courts against political
opponents. That means you're a conspiracy theorist!
Trump should have just written "reimbursement" on the memo line. That
would have been completely truthful and yet in no way revealing.
Yeah, sure. A rich white rapist gets prosecuted, and it's Alvin Bragg's
fault.
--
"Thou shalt not make a machine in the likeness of a man’s mind." - OC
Bible 25B.G.
https://www.dropbox.com/s/ek8kap93bmk0q5w/D%20U%20N%20E%20Part%20II.jpg?dl=0

Gracie, age 6.
https://www.dropbox.com/s/0es3xolxka455iw/BetterThingsToDo.jpg?dl=0
FPP
2024-05-20 13:33:32 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by BTR1701
Post by FPP
Post by BTR1701
Post by Adam H. Kerman
Crosspost to newsgroups Ubi doesn't read cut
Stormy Daniels Gave 'Disastrous' Testimony In Trump Trial, CNN Legal
Analyst Says
By Daniel Chaitin
The Daily Wire
May 8, 2024
https://www.dailywire.com/news/stormy-daniels-gave-disastrous-testimony-in-
tru
mp-trial-cnn-legal-analyst-says
Post by suzeeq
Post by NoBody
. . .
The prosecutors have yet to produce ANY evidence that Trump committed
any crime.
He's charged with covering up payments to her for killing her story to
interfere with his 2016 campaign. That's the crime and they have proved
it with other witnesses.
Just a moment. You need to explain this in full.
She was looking for a payout. She approached people close to Trump
seeking money and wanted to speed the process along by threating to sell
her story to someone else if she didn't receive her payout.
That's extortion. No one has yet explained why her actions couldn't have
been prosecuted under state law.
Trump's first instinct was to treat her like he treated subcontractors
on developments: Stall the payment or not pay at all. At first he wanted
to wait till after the election, for if he lost, nothing she was selling
would be of value. He was advised to spend the money to make problem go
away.
None of this is criminal.
I'm not even sure if paying extortion is a criminal act on the part of
the victim.
The payment to her was a crime, not because buying rights so she won't
publish what she claimed was her story is a crime, but because keeping
it from being published was of some benefit to Trump as a candidate and
it wasn't disclosed as required in federal law.
If that's the standard, then Democrats have all broken that law by not
disclosing MSNBC and CNN, which are a lot more than just some benefit to
Democrats as candidates.
Post by Adam H. Kerman
What Trump is being prosecuted for is ordering that the payment to
reimburse Cohen be written from one of the companies Trump controlled
and taken as a business expense of that company.
They're saying it boils down to Trump notating the payment to Cohen as
"legal expenses", which is falsifying a business record. This in a city
that's a violent hellhole...
<MAGA Bullshit snipped>
Inconvenient evidence of Bragg's prosecutorial hypocrisy snipped for
Post by FPP
where thugs are making a sport out of walking up to random women and
punching them so hard, the bones in their faces are shattered. And when
caught, they're released on no bail almost immediately. Alvin Bragg won't
aggressively prosecute *that* but Trump putting a vague term in the memo
line on a check to Cohen is apparently worth spending millions of dollars
of prosecution resources.
But don't say this is weaponizing the courts against political
opponents. That means you're a conspiracy theorist!
Trump should have just written "reimbursement" on the memo line. That
would have been completely truthful and yet in no way revealing.
So how do you refute the fact that if a black man violated his gag order
10 times, he'd be sitting in Rikers?
--
"Thou shalt not make a machine in the likeness of a man’s mind." - OC
Bible 25B.G.
https://www.dropbox.com/s/ek8kap93bmk0q5w/D%20U%20N%20E%20Part%20II.jpg?dl=0

Gracie, age 6.
https://www.dropbox.com/s/0es3xolxka455iw/BetterThingsToDo.jpg?dl=0
shawn
2024-05-14 17:10:15 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Tue, 14 May 2024 15:35:30 -0000 (UTC), "Adam H. Kerman"
Post by Adam H. Kerman
Crosspost to newsgroups Ubi doesn't read cut
Stormy Daniels Gave 'Disastrous' Testimony In Trump Trial, CNN Legal
Analyst Says
By Daniel Chaitin
The Daily Wire
May 8, 2024
https://www.dailywire.com/news/stormy-daniels-gave-disastrous-testimony-in-trump-trial-cnn-legal-analyst-says
Post by suzeeq
Post by NoBody
. . .
The prosecutors have yet to produce ANY evidence that Trump committed
any crime.
He's charged with covering up payments to her for killing her story to
interfere with his 2016 campaign. That's the crime and they have proved
it with other witnesses.
Just a moment. You need to explain this in full.
She was looking for a payout. She approached people close to Trump
seeking money and wanted to speed the process along by threating to sell
her story to someone else if she didn't receive her payout.
That's extortion. No one has yet explained why her actions couldn't have
been prosecuted under state law.
Because that's not how the story has been told. Instead it is Trump
approaching her through Cohen to keep the story a secret while he was
running for office. So if it was Trump's people approaching her then
she did nothing wrong. If it was as you said then she did something
wrong, but there may be a limitation on how long they had to charge
her for that crime.
Post by Adam H. Kerman
Trump's first instinct was to treat her like he treated subcontractors
on developments: Stall the payment or not pay at all. At first he wanted
to wait till after the election, for if he lost, nothing she was selling
would be of value. He was advised to spend the money to make problem go
away.
None of this is criminal.
My understanding is that his paying her off to keep the information
secret because he was running for office is exactly what he is being
charged with. Trump has had his people say he was paying her just to
protect his wife, but all the testimony from various people suggests
Trump only cared about keeping the information about the sex/affair
secret because he was running for office.
Post by Adam H. Kerman
I'm not even sure if paying extortion is a criminal act on the part of
the victim.
The payment to her was a crime, not because buying rights so she won't
publish what she claimed was her story is a crime, but because keeping
it from being published was of some benefit to Trump as a candidate and
it wasn't disclosed as required in federal law. This is what Michael
Cohen was convicted of, but Trump was not prosecuted for this.
It always seemed like Trump should have been tried for this back when
Cohen was convicted as there's no way for Cohen to be guilty and Trump
to be innocent given how much of a micro-manager Trump has been
reported to be.
Post by Adam H. Kerman
What Trump is being prosecuted for is ordering that the payment to
reimburse Cohen be written from one of the companies Trump controlled
and taken as a business expense of that company.
The coverup was illegal in and of itself but if there was an underlying
crime being covered up, it was extortion committed by her. There was no
underlying crime committed by Trump to cover up.
Again my understanding was that she didn't extort him and that Trump's
trying to hide the payment while running for office is the crime that
he committed.
Adam H. Kerman
2024-05-14 18:05:31 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by shawn
Post by Adam H. Kerman
Stormy Daniels Gave 'Disastrous' Testimony In Trump Trial, CNN Legal
Analyst Says
By Daniel Chaitin
The Daily Wire
May 8, 2024
https://www.dailywire.com/news/stormy-daniels-gave-disastrous-testimony-in-trump-trial-cnn-legal-analyst-says
Post by suzeeq
Post by NoBody
. . .
The prosecutors have yet to produce ANY evidence that Trump committed
any crime.
He's charged with covering up payments to her for killing her story to
interfere with his 2016 campaign. That's the crime and they have proved
it with other witnesses.
Just a moment. You need to explain this in full.
She was looking for a payout. She approached people close to Trump
seeking money and wanted to speed the process along by threating to sell
her story to someone else if she didn't receive her payout.
That's extortion. No one has yet explained why her actions couldn't have
been prosecuted under state law.
Because that's not how the story has been told.
Yes, it is. This is how it was presented to the jury.
Post by shawn
Instead it is Trump approaching her through Cohen to keep the story
a secret while he was running for office. So if it was Trump's people
approaching her then she did nothing wrong.
How can you plausibly believe this? Trump couldn't have possibly known.
She had a story to sell. She's the one who made the approach.
Post by shawn
If it was as you said then she did something wrong, but there may be a
limitation on how long they had to charge her for that crime.
It's not "as I said" but the case as presented to the jury. She
initiated the criminal conduct. We're talking about the same crime.
Post by shawn
Post by Adam H. Kerman
Trump's first instinct was to treat her like he treated subcontractors
on developments: Stall the payment or not pay at all. At first he wanted
to wait till after the election, for if he lost, nothing she was selling
would be of value. He was advised to spend the money to make problem go
away.
None of this is criminal.
My understanding is that his paying her off to keep the information
secret because he was running for office is exactly what he is being
charged with.
That's not a criminal act being committed by Trump. The criminal act was
committed by her in offering her story for sale then telling Trump's
intermediaries that she'd offer her story for sale elsewhere if she
didn't get paid.
Post by shawn
Trump has had his people say he was paying her just to protect his wife,
but all the testimony from various people suggests Trump only cared
about keeping the information about the sex/affair secret because he
was running for office.
That's Trump's defense at trial. He's permitted to defend himself. He
had to offer a reason that wasn't illegal for the coverup.
Post by shawn
Post by Adam H. Kerman
I'm not even sure if paying extortion is a criminal act on the part of
the victim.
The payment to her was a crime, not because buying rights so she won't
publish what she claimed was her story is a crime, but because keeping
it from being published was of some benefit to Trump as a candidate and
it wasn't disclosed as required in federal law. This is what Michael
Cohen was convicted of, but Trump was not prosecuted for this.
It always seemed like Trump should have been tried for this back when
Cohen was convicted as there's no way for Cohen to be guilty and Trump
to be innocent given how much of a micro-manager Trump has been
reported to be.
I just don't agree that this should have ever been tried.
Post by shawn
Post by Adam H. Kerman
What Trump is being prosecuted for is ordering that the payment to
reimburse Cohen be written from one of the companies Trump controlled
and taken as a business expense of that company.
The coverup was illegal in and of itself but if there was an underlying
crime being covered up, it was extortion committed by her. There was no
underlying crime committed by Trump to cover up.
Again my understanding was that she didn't extort him
You haven't explained your understanding here and why it's different
from the case the prosecution is putting to the jury.
Post by shawn
and that Trump's trying to hide the payment while running for office is
the crime that he committed.
No, that's not the charge as that's not a crime in state law. You
yourself just said that Trump should have been prosecuted for that along
with Michael Cohen but wasn't.

That's the motive for the state crime but not the state crime itself.
FPP
2024-05-18 09:27:29 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by shawn
On Tue, 14 May 2024 15:35:30 -0000 (UTC), "Adam H. Kerman"
Post by Adam H. Kerman
Crosspost to newsgroups Ubi doesn't read cut
Stormy Daniels Gave 'Disastrous' Testimony In Trump Trial, CNN Legal
Analyst Says
By Daniel Chaitin
The Daily Wire
May 8, 2024
https://www.dailywire.com/news/stormy-daniels-gave-disastrous-testimony-in-trump-trial-cnn-legal-analyst-says
Post by suzeeq
Post by NoBody
. . .
The prosecutors have yet to produce ANY evidence that Trump committed
any crime.
He's charged with covering up payments to her for killing her story to
interfere with his 2016 campaign. That's the crime and they have proved
it with other witnesses.
Just a moment. You need to explain this in full.
She was looking for a payout. She approached people close to Trump
seeking money and wanted to speed the process along by threating to sell
her story to someone else if she didn't receive her payout.
That's extortion. No one has yet explained why her actions couldn't have
been prosecuted under state law.
Because that's not how the story has been told. Instead it is Trump
approaching her through Cohen to keep the story a secret while he was
running for office. So if it was Trump's people approaching her then
she did nothing wrong. If it was as you said then she did something
wrong, but there may be a limitation on how long they had to charge
her for that crime.
Post by Adam H. Kerman
Trump's first instinct was to treat her like he treated subcontractors
on developments: Stall the payment or not pay at all. At first he wanted
to wait till after the election, for if he lost, nothing she was selling
would be of value. He was advised to spend the money to make problem go
away.
None of this is criminal.
My understanding is that his paying her off to keep the information
secret because he was running for office is exactly what he is being
charged with. Trump has had his people say he was paying her just to
protect his wife, but all the testimony from various people suggests
Trump only cared about keeping the information about the sex/affair
secret because he was running for office.
Post by Adam H. Kerman
I'm not even sure if paying extortion is a criminal act on the part of
the victim.
The payment to her was a crime, not because buying rights so she won't
publish what she claimed was her story is a crime, but because keeping
it from being published was of some benefit to Trump as a candidate and
it wasn't disclosed as required in federal law. This is what Michael
Cohen was convicted of, but Trump was not prosecuted for this.
It always seemed like Trump should have been tried for this back when
Cohen was convicted as there's no way for Cohen to be guilty and Trump
to be innocent given how much of a micro-manager Trump has been
reported to be.
Post by Adam H. Kerman
What Trump is being prosecuted for is ordering that the payment to
reimburse Cohen be written from one of the companies Trump controlled
and taken as a business expense of that company.
The coverup was illegal in and of itself but if there was an underlying
crime being covered up, it was extortion committed by her. There was no
underlying crime committed by Trump to cover up.
Again my understanding was that she didn't extort him and that Trump's
trying to hide the payment while running for office is the crime that
he committed.
Falsifying 34 business records and it's considered making a contribution
to the campaign and hiding it.

He falsified records, and hid it to influence an election. Funny thing
is, he could have just paid her off and it would have been perfectly legal.

But he can't pass up the chance to crime for an extra buck-fifty.
--
"Thou shalt not make a machine in the likeness of a man’s mind." - OC
Bible 25B.G.
https://www.dropbox.com/s/ek8kap93bmk0q5w/D%20U%20N%20E%20Part%20II.jpg?dl=0

Gracie, age 6.
https://www.dropbox.com/s/0es3xolxka455iw/BetterThingsToDo.jpg?dl=0
Ubiquitous
2024-05-16 08:30:42 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by suzeeq
Post by NoBody
Post by Ubiquitous
CNN legal analyst Elie Honig said adult film actress Stormy Daniels
gave “disastrous” responses during her appearance on Tuesday at former
President Donald Trump‘s New York City hush-money trial.
During a segment on CNN with other legal experts, Honig offered his
take on the testimony, which included Stormy Daniels discussing her
alleged 2006 hotel tryst with Trump that the former president has
denied. While he contended that Daniels was believable when it came to
the sex claim, Honig argued the cross-examination could spell trouble
for prosecutors.
"The cross-exam, boy, her responses were disastrous. I mean, ‘Do you
hate Donald Trump?’ "Yes." Of course she does. That's a big deal. When
the witness hates the person whose liberty is at stake? That's a big
damn deal.”
http://youtu.be/mchsOA2RDus
In the case brought by Manhattan DA Alvin Bragg, Trump faces 34 felony
counts of falsifying business records to allegedly cover up payments,
including to Daniels, in a bid to conceal damaging information as part
of a “catch-and-kill” scheme to influence the 2016 election. He has
pleaded not guilty. The trial began last month, and Daniels took the
stand on Tuesday.
CLICK HERE TO GET THE DAILYWIRE+ APP
During the cross-examination, Daniels said “yes” after being asked if
she hated Trump. When pressed on whether she wants Trump to go to jail,
Daniels said she wants “him to be held accountable” and “if he is
found guilty, absolutely.” She also faced questions about tweets
suggesting she does not want to pay $500,000 in legal fees to Trump after
a failed defamation lawsuit.
“The defense is going to say she's willing to defy a court order,”
Honig said after raising these issues. “Why — she's not willing to
respect an order of a judge, why is she going to respect this oath she
took? I thought it went quite poorly on cross-exam. At the end of
direct, I thought, OK, they got what they needed. But I think the cross
is making real inroads.”
Earlier, Honig said his impression was that Stormy Daniels had been
“plausible on her explanation of what happened in that hotel room” in
2006. "It's hard for me to believe that a juror heard that and thought,
this is entirely made up,” he said, adding that although there “may
well be some embellishments,” he thought it was “quite clear they had
sex in 2006 in that hotel room.”
The prosecutors have yet to produce ANY evidence that Trump committed
any crime.
He's charged with covering up payments to her for killing her story to
interfere with his 2016 campaign. That's the crime and they have proved
it with other witnesses.
Were you recently, or ever kicked in the head by a mule?

There is no crime and if it there were, it's expiration date has long passed.
This is just another example of why America is becoming a banana republic.

--
Let's go Brandon!
Loading...