Robert, I can easily see enough doubt in the minds of jurors based on the stuff that people like us discuss here...
but are any of the charges based on if sex happened, or if she extorted him, or any of the other stuff that makes for splashy headlines?

Originally I thought it would be a dryer trial based on corporate money maneuvers...no?

frankj1 wrote:

She did nothing illegal.

Trump did nothing illegal either- until he wrote reimbursement checks for the payoff allegedly with corporate funds to hide the expense as a legitimate business expenses, when they were not. Then, it is alleged to have been done to influence the election. The prosecution must prove both.

It's a simple document case with Trump on tape agreeing to the payoff plus Weisselberg's handwritten note of the payoff plan from his corporate file. Trump signed the checks, which is undisputed. Hope Hicks testified on its effect on campaign strategy. Part of the defense will be that Cohen went rogue. The jury gets to decide.

Stormy would not have had to be on the stand for more than a few minutes had Trump never denied the affair, which required the prosecution to prove it by getting into gratuitous, salacious details.

My professional GUESS is that one of the lawyers on the jury will be the Foreperson and that there will be a hung-jury.

rfenst wrote:

She did nothing illegal.

Trump did nothing illegal either- until he wrote reimbursement checks for the payoff allegedly with corporate funds to hide the expense as a legitimate business expenses, when they were not. Then, it is alleged to have been done to influence the election. The prosecution must prove both.

It's a simple document case with Trump on tape agreeing to the payoff plus Weisselberg's handwritten note of the payoff plan from his corporate file. Trump signed the checks, which is undisputed. Hope Hicks testified on its effect on campaign strategy. Part of the defense will be that Cohen went rogue. The jury gets to decide.

Stormy would not have had to be on the stand for more than a few minutes had Trump never denied the affair, which required the prosecution to prove it by getting into gratuitous, salacious details.

My professional GUESS is that one of the lawyers on the jury will be the Foreperson and that there will be a hung-jury.

rfenst wrote:

When did extortion become legal? When did perjury become legal? Inquiring minds want to know.

I’ve heard that Cohn taped multiple conversations with Trump. I’ve also heard that Trump paid off Stormy Daniels. But I’ve yet to hear a tape where he said to pay off Stormy Daniels. If so it would be in evidence and it is not. In fact the entire case is built on what Cohen said that Trump supposedly said to him.

In fact if there was a tape where Trump told Cohen to pay her off you can bet the left-wing media would be playing it in endless loops. But this has not happened.

Abrignac wrote:

what I asked Robert and what he answered sort of made me think I was reading the trial correctly...and that almost 98.2% of comments and opinions have nothing to do with the charges he is facing...something like 34 individual fiscal maneuvers used to transfer money to Cohen.

no charges about sex, no charges about buying silence. pretty much just the way the reimbursement was aLLeGedly handled through the business.

am I close, Robert.

frankj1 wrote:

what I asked Robert and what he answered sort of made me think I was reading the trial correctly...and that almost 98.2% of comments and opinions have nothing to do with the charges he is facing...something like 34 individual fiscal maneuvers used to transfer money to Cohen.

no charges about sex, no charges about buying silence. pretty much just the way the reimbursement was aLLeGedly handled through the business.

am I close, Robert.

frankj1 wrote:

Epic beatdown.

https://jonathanturley.org/2024/05/17/getting-played-the-demolition-of-cohen-on-cross-examination-reveals-the-grift-to-a-new-york-jury/#more-219046 [/i][/color]

DrMaddVibe wrote:

Which begs the question, “If it wasn’t about sex, then why did the prosecutor question her about it?” Because Trump denied it ever occurred.

The trial is about Trump allegedly booking payoffs as business expenses. In essence the prosecution alleges that Trump enlisted Cohen to pay Stormy off to buy her silence. Nothing illegal about that.Trump then took a tax deduction for the payments to Cohen and booked then as legal expenses. Nothing illegal about paying your lawyer and deducting those expenses against income. Wrong. He should have done it with after-tax dollars, but instead tried to scam it all to geta full tax deduction....

Abrignac wrote:

Which begs the question, “If it wasn’t about sex, then why did the prosecutor question her about it?” Because Trump denied it ever occurred.

The trial is about Trump allegedly booking payoffs as business expenses. In essence the prosecution alleges that Trump enlisted Cohen to pay Stormy off to buy her silence. Nothing illegal about that.Trump then took a tax deduction for the payments to Cohen and booked then as legal expenses. Nothing illegal about paying your lawyer and deducting those expenses against income. Wrong. He should have done it with after-tax dollars, but instead tried to scam it all to geta full tax deduction....

Abrignac wrote:

Because Trump denied it ever occurred.

The charges have NOTHING to do with whether they had sex or not. It doesn’t matter whether they had sex or not. What matters is whether or not he made payments to hide an alleged affair from his wife or to effect the outcome of the election. The case hinges on the reason for the payments.

Wrong. He should have done it with after-tax dollars, but instead tried to scam it all to geta full tax deduction....

Maybe, maybe not. If Trump didn’t direct Cohen to pay her off then it’s perfectly legal to deduct what one believes to be legitimate business expenses such as retainer payments to a lawyer.

But, does that really matter since he isn’t charged with filing a false tax return? If so the indictment would be a single charge since the only crime would have been the filing of one tax return. Instead he’s charged with 34 instances of trying to affect the outcome of an election. One charge for each payment of each invoice sent him.

About those payments. Why didn’t Bragg charge Trump with filing a false tax return?

Because in New York criminal tax fraud is a class A misdemeanor. (https://law.justia.com/codes/new-york/2021/tax/article-37/part-2/1802/).

Class A misdemeanor have a 2 year statute of limitations. (https://www.nysenate.gov/legislation/laws/CPL/30.10)

The last payment was made in December of 2017. Trump was indicted on 3/4/2023 which was well past the statute of limitations for the class A misdemeanors. (https://d3i6fh83elv35t.cloudfront.net/static/2023/04/Donald-J.-Trump-SOF.pdf)

He didn’t charge him with filing a false return because it was well past the statute of limitations.

So then it has to be about influencing the election.

According to the indictment the DA alleges Trump took an active role in the arrangement of payments but the indictment doesn’t offer any facts to back up those allegations. At trial the only evidence offered that such occurred was by a convicted liar. There is nothing to corroborate those claims.

So what we really have is a bunch of smoke and mirrors about what may have happened but no solid evidence that any of it happened.

Then we are left wondering why the case was even brought. Normally in a situation such as this the state would simply disallow the deduction and send the filer and updated tax bill. If the bill went unpaid then the collection process would begin. But this didn’t happen. Instead a candidate who campaigned on putting Trump in jail was elected and he conjured up the most ridiculous case one could think of to charge Trump with.

wrote:

Truly!

And doesn’t the court bear some responsibility for not hearing a case that doesn’t have a clear path to justice? Not a particular verdict but enough evidence to present to a jury? And I understand they can call witnesses they think will help make their case…but Cohen doesn’t seem to be a reliable witness based on his recent history. Is Bragg simply trying to deliver on a campaign promise and relying on the court to carry water for him?

jeebling wrote: