No he doesn’t. He just wants to claim he did what Mother Theresa wouldn’t have been able to do, beat charges related to paying a porn star hush money for a campaign benefit.
Agree. Do they cancel the testimony of the guy who actually input the charge as “Legal fees” in the ledger? Again, they have to prove he did this to cover up a crime he knew he committed. Which any moron would have hid it under “construction costs” or somewhere way less obvious than the man who made the actual payment.
How do you hide repayments to his lawyer as construction costs? Hiding them as legal fees is the logical place you would place them under.
Because if you’re knowingly breaking the law, you’re not showing a $110,000 payment to the guy who helped you break the law. You’re arguing that he lied and broke the law doing so, but “wouldn’t lie that much!”
How else do you disguise it? Cohen took a second mortgage out to pay off Stormy. He has to get his money back somehow. Claiming it's for legal purposes is the most logical way to do it. Anything else looks immediately fishy.
No clue. But does that make him less believable than Cohen, who admitted to stealing and lying under oath before? It’s a complete shit show.
Cohen's word isn't worth anything. But his documents and tapes are. And they make things incredibly difficult for Don.
It doesn’t matter if he knowingly or unknowingly broke the law. If you break the law you break the law. It’s not the laws fault you’re too stupid to cover it up properly or not.
This is part of the reason why I think Trump is screwed. He personally approved of these payments which were claimed to have been for legal fees. Clearly Don knew he was doing something wrong otherwise he would have claimed that they were for their actual purpose.
It’s a known fact he has skated by for decades doing shady shit with money. He is finally being held accountable. Even as silly as it seems for maga land.
You crushed it. The trial wasn't even on TV and I gaurentee most people who are certain of anything in this thread got their info from a source that aligns with their political beliefs.
No. Probably not. It's not a violent crime etc.
A statement that completely ignores the fact they stood to gain by making the payments for Trump. Either by currying favor or financially.
Idk, it all depends on how the jury interprets the statute. Do they feel what happened fits it.
Shocking that as a lawyer yourself you don't understand why the prosecution led with David Pecker, and followed on with lots of Trump friendly witnesses like Hope Hicks. It wasn't Cohen and Daniels, it was all of the other witnesses and the texts and emails that make Cohen and Daniels credible.
It does matter here since he’s being charged with fraud with the intent to cover up a crime. He would have had to know he was breaking the law to purposely cover it up. The prosecution’s problem is it’s not illegal to pay hush money to someone. So he had to prove that Trump knew he broke a NY Campaign law and then covered it up.
1. The instructions, as I understand them, allow an offramp to vote not guilty on the charges related to the checks Trump did not sign. FWIW, MSNBC talking lawyer said that a verdict that contains a mix of guilty and not guilty is better for government during the appeals process. It shows the jury was thoughtful and was not swayed unfairly.
Mother Theresa? She'd beat them charges easy. She's dead.
Read up: https://www.politico.com/news/2024/04/15/trump-hush-money-case-history-001521721. I have no doubt trump knowingly paid stormy Daniels to be quiet about their sexy time...(no pukeface emoji).
2. This all seems like a real stretch, and I see why the feds passed it up.
3. The fact that the Judge and the Prosecutor stated their intention to get Trump shortly before any of this was brought up makes it feel more than a little slimy. This feels like an attack on a former president by a couple people in power with a political agenda, and that's not a good precedent to set.
I voted "guilty," but I don't think that's what's best for anyone involved.
You need to slow down. The election isn't until November. Your other handles should do the same.
Correct as to mixed verdicts; i have no idea as to the instructions since, as noted, I'm not paying much attention to the details of all of this.
The fact that Biden Admin has already announced he will hold a press conference about the verdict tells me they already know he will be found guilty.
nypost.com
oh okBiden plans to address Trump ‘hush money’ verdict from the White House: report
Biden will deliver remarks regardless of whether the 77-year-old former president is convicted or acquitted or the jury cannot agree on a verdict.
I doubt old Donnie knows that gospel ditty, but thanks for sharing it. My dad listened to gospel music quite a bit and I've been exposed to a number of groups over the years but I'd never heard of the O'Neal Twins until today.
