*** Official Trump Hush Money Trial Thread ***

601,205 Views | 6807 Replies | Last: 1 day ago by Stat Monitor Repairman
MagnumLoad
How long do you want to ignore this user?
aggiehawg said:

BTW, the jury's focus on the FECA stuff presents an appellate issue that the appellate divion won't be able to sidestep as that is a jurisdictional issue.

True. However, the appeal won't be heard until after the election most likely. This is a lawless court, and SCOTUS is feckless, and the DOJ is a corrupt arm of the democrat party. We are basically down to defend your own wire.
I hate tu. It's in my blood.
CoppellAg93
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Marvin said:

aggiehawg said:

Quote:

The 12-person jury is leaving the courtroom to continue deliberations in Donald Trump's hush money trial.
So we are back to the waiting game.

My guess is that it won't be for long.
I'll be shocked if they're not done this afternoon.
4stringAg
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
aggiehawg said:

Quote:

We're moving on to another request from the jury: for the court reporters to re-read former National Enquirer publisher David Pecker's testimony about a meeting at Trump Tower in 2015.
The first part of that testimony being read back in court includes Pecker recalling the timing of the meeting, which he said was held in August, and that Donald Trump, Trump's fixer Michael Cohen and longtime aide Hope Hicks were present.
The reporters go on to read a portion of Pecker's testimony where he says that he expected there to be women coming forward to sell stories about Trump during his presidential campaign both because Trump was a well-known eligible bachelor and because it's common when people run for public office in general.
In the testimony, Pecker recalls saying he would notify Cohen if he was aware of any such stories on the market.
Jurors then hear the portion of Pecker's testimony where he says he believed it could be "mutually beneficial" for the National Enquirer and for Trump for the magazine to write positive stories about Trump and write negative stories about his opponent.
Pecker then responds to questions about helping Cohen potentially purchase stories with the intent of not running them for Trump, and about how that specifically would benefit Trump's campaign.


If you tie their request of the Pecker testimony with the instructions about inferences, I can kind of see where they might be going. Using the bolded paragraph, they could infer that Trump approved of these "catch and kill" ideas even though the transaction was between Cohen and Pecker.

I don't think catch and kill is illegal and there was an established pattern testified by Pecker of promoting Trump positive stories before he even ran for office but not sure the jury will care about that. They'll use it as "proof" of a conspiracy to withhold info from the voting public.

Again, a clown show sham court trial.
aggiehawg
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Notably, the Enron cases were in federal court which do allow jury instructions to be n the deliberation room.
WestTexAg12
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
4stringAg said:

aggiehawg said:

Quote:

We're moving on to another request from the jury: for the court reporters to re-read former National Enquirer publisher David Pecker's testimony about a meeting at Trump Tower in 2015.
The first part of that testimony being read back in court includes Pecker recalling the timing of the meeting, which he said was held in August, and that Donald Trump, Trump's fixer Michael Cohen and longtime aide Hope Hicks were present.
The reporters go on to read a portion of Pecker's testimony where he says that he expected there to be women coming forward to sell stories about Trump during his presidential campaign both because Trump was a well-known eligible bachelor and because it's common when people run for public office in general.
In the testimony, Pecker recalls saying he would notify Cohen if he was aware of any such stories on the market.
Jurors then hear the portion of Pecker's testimony where he says he believed it could be "mutually beneficial" for the National Enquirer and for Trump for the magazine to write positive stories about Trump and write negative stories about his opponent.
Pecker then responds to questions about helping Cohen potentially purchase stories with the intent of not running them for Trump, and about how that specifically would benefit Trump's campaign.


If you tie their request of the Pecker testimony with the instructions about inferences, I can kind of see where they might be going. Using the bolded paragraph, they could infer that Trump approved of these "catch and kill" ideas even though the transaction was between Cohen and Pecker.

I don't think catch and kill is illegal and there was an established pattern testified by Pecker of promoting Trump positive stories before he even ran for office but not sure the jury will care about that. They'll use it as "proof" of a conspiracy to withhold info from the voting public.

Again, a clown show sham court trial.


I believe at some point during the trial it was mentioned to the jury that catch and kill is not illegal.
JobSecurity
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
This is exactly it. And how inferring that trump knew or approved of the "fraudulent" document
aggiehawg
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
MagnumLoad said:

aggiehawg said:

BTW, the jury's focus on the FECA stuff presents an appellate issue that the appellate divion won't be able to sidestep as that is a jurisdictional issue.

True. However, the appeal won't be heard until after the election most likely. This is a lawless court, and SCOTUS is feckless, and the DOJ is a corrupt arm of the democrat party. We are basically down to defend your own wire.
Agree but by raising a jurisdictional issue that appeal can be expedited.
MarkTwain
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Real simple question

Did Trump enter business ledger about these payments made by check to Cohen?

Answer is No and in fact the prosecution called the lady as their witness who actually those entries into the Trump Org business ledger and she explained never once did Trump instruct her on how to classify the payments. She simply followed long time company protocol.

With Cohen constantly recording his client and reporters amongst others did he once produce an audio recording of Trump telling him how to handle these NDA transactions?

No in fact the only recording that has Trump on it involving the NDAs had Trump asking how should it be handled and Cohen saying "Don't worry boss I got this I'll handle the financing" Trump immediately says "Financing? No cash by check." Cohen says don't worry I got this, I'll handle everything.

Cohen then goes out and establishes a bogus LLC and get a HELOC on his own property.

Where's Trump's wrongdoing?

This entire thing is garbage
“Never argue with stupid people, they will drag you down to their level and then beat you with experience" - Mark Twain
MagnumLoad
How long do you want to ignore this user?
4stringAg said:

aggiehawg said:

Quote:

We're moving on to another request from the jury: for the court reporters to re-read former National Enquirer publisher David Pecker's testimony about a meeting at Trump Tower in 2015.
The first part of that testimony being read back in court includes Pecker recalling the timing of the meeting, which he said was held in August, and that Donald Trump, Trump's fixer Michael Cohen and longtime aide Hope Hicks were present.
The reporters go on to read a portion of Pecker's testimony where he says that he expected there to be women coming forward to sell stories about Trump during his presidential campaign both because Trump was a well-known eligible bachelor and because it's common when people run for public office in general.
In the testimony, Pecker recalls saying he would notify Cohen if he was aware of any such stories on the market.
Jurors then hear the portion of Pecker's testimony where he says he believed it could be "mutually beneficial" for the National Enquirer and for Trump for the magazine to write positive stories about Trump and write negative stories about his opponent.
Pecker then responds to questions about helping Cohen potentially purchase stories with the intent of not running them for Trump, and about how that specifically would benefit Trump's campaign.


If you tie their request of the Pecker testimony with the instructions about inferences, I can kind of see where they might be going. Using the bolded paragraph, they could infer that Trump approved of these "catch and kill" ideas even though the transaction was between Cohen and Pecker.

I don't think catch and kill is illegal and there was an established pattern testified by Pecker of promoting Trump positive stories before he even ran for office but not sure the jury will care about that. They'll use it as "proof" of a conspiracy to withhold info from the

Again, a clown show sham court trial.


Not sure that has anything to do with the accounting issue
I hate tu. It's in my blood.
MagnumLoad
How long do you want to ignore this user?
aggiehawg said:

MagnumLoad said:

aggiehawg said:

BTW, the jury's focus on the FECA stuff presents an appellate issue that the appellate divion won't be able to sidestep as that is a jurisdictional issue.

True. However, the appeal won't be heard until after the election most likely. This is a lawless court, and SCOTUS is feckless, and the DOJ is a corrupt arm of the democrat party. We are basically down to defend your own wire.
Agree but by raising a jurisdictional issue that appeal can be expedited.

Oh, hopefully. Better would be NG or hung
I hate tu. It's in my blood.
aggiehawg
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Quote:

A new NPR/PBS NewsHour/Marist poll is the latest to suggest that any verdict in Donald Trump's hush money trial is unlikely to have a major effect on voters' choices come November.
Quote:

Overall, 67% of registered voters say a guilty verdict in the trial would not make a difference to their vote, while 76% say the same about a not guilty verdict.
Those figures are similar to other recent polling on the topic, including a May Quinnipiac poll which found that 65% of registered voters said that if Trump were convicted it would be unlikely to change their position on the presidential race.
Most notably in the new polls, just a small share of people who support Trump say that a guilty verdict would dissuade them from supporting him.
Quote:

In the Marist poll, just 7% of those who say they would vote for Trump in the presidential race say a guilty verdict would make them less likely to back him, and in Quinnipiac's data, only 6% of current Trump supporters say they would be less likely to back Trump if he were convicted.
A CNN poll conducted in April as the trial's jury was being selected found that only 24% of registered voters who support Trump said they might even reconsider their support if Trump were convicted of a crime.
Questions like this do not always align with the reality of how voters behave and often overstate the potential for movement, as many poll respondents use them as opportunities to express opinions they already hold.
For example, 24% of people who already support Trump in both the Marist and Quinnipiac polls say a conviction would make them MORE likely to support Trump, meaning that while a conviction might strengthen their loyalty for Trump, it wouldn't change their vote.
Likewise, although almost 30% of Democrats in each poll say they would be less likely to back Trump if convicted, less than 10% currently do support Trump in the presidential race, meaning most of those who say they would be "less likely" to vote for Trump did not support him in the first place.
CoppellAg93
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
richardag
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Casual Cynic said:

The jury is probably confused about the campaign violation accusations by the government. Would have been nice to hear from an expert.
Exactly. The prosecution AND THE JUDGE have used the word salad approach that allows for any kind of interpretation. By not allowing expert testimony, that most certainly would have negated all their convoluted bull****, the jury is left with nonsensical bull***** The "judge" also restricted the defense from certain topics.

Completely corrupt, dishonest, amoral and unethical.

If you are a conservative get the hell out of New York as soon as possible.
Among the latter, under pretence of governing they have divided their nations into two classes, wolves and sheep.”
Thomas Jefferson, Letter to Edward Carrington, January 16, 1787
aggiehawg
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Appears to me this jury has glossed over the threshhold question and that is

Is a ledger entry regarding and invoice from a lawyer's office designated as "services rendered" with that entry being categorized as a "Legal Expense" a false business record?
Stat Monitor Repairman
How long do you want to ignore this user?
MagnumLoad said:

aggiehawg said:

BTW, the jury's focus on the FECA stuff presents an appellate issue that the appellate divion won't be able to sidestep as that is a jurisdictional issue.
True. However, the appeal won't be heard until after the election most likely. This is a lawless court, and SCOTUS is feckless, and the DOJ is a corrupt arm of the democrat party. We are basically down to defend your own wire.
Agreed. We seeing the three branches of government merged into one.

Executive branch has completely dominated the judicial branch.

And based on the amount of sudden resignations in congress over the past few years, and the complete impotence we seeing from congress, wouldn't be surprised if there were only a handful that weren't compromised in some way.
fredfredunderscorefred
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
aggiehawg said:

Appears to me this jury has glossed over the threshhold question and that is

Is a ledger entry regarding and invoice from a lawyer's office designated as "services rendered" with that entry being categorized as a "Legal Expense" a false business record?


And is it "intent to defraud" if that is written in private books and presented to absolutely nobody
MouthBQ98
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
As loose as the prosecution and judge are interpreting these laws, a LOT of lawyers and politicians and political candidates in New York should be seriously concerned about selective prosecution.
Im Gipper
How long do you want to ignore this user?
MouthBQ98 said:

As loose as the prosecution and judge are interpreting these laws, a LOT of lawyers and politicians and political candidates in New York should be seriously concerned about selective prosecution.
LOL.

Unless their last name is Trump, the state and DAs

AREN'T
GOING
TO
DO
A
DAMN
THING

I'm Gipper
Hungry Ojos
How long do you want to ignore this user?
So where are all you at after all of this? For 46 years on this Earth, I have NEVER even entertained lawfare against political enemies. But this has changed everything. They are not going to stop until the right does something to make them. I say it's all fair game now. They should have to sleep in the bed they made. I hope Trump makes all of their lives as ridiculously miserable as they have made his, once he wins back the presidency. I just don't care anymore.
aggiehawg
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Quote:

And is it "intent to defraud" if that is written in private books and presented to absolutely nobody
Exactly. Further, when Cohen creates invoices that do not separate out fees and cost reimbursements, is issued 1099s on the basis of his submitted invoices having the net effect of overstating his income on his own tax returns, is the overinflation of his income a false tax filing? Meaning the 1099s?
MarkTwain
How long do you want to ignore this user?
FACT Trump hasn't made an entry in a Trump Org business ledger in decades perhaps ever.

Who did? DEBORAH TARASOFF who was the Trump Organization's accounts payable supervisor who testified about processing the payments to Cohen, including receiving checks that Trump had signed at the White House. And under cross, she acknowledged permission to cut Cohen's checks came NOT from Trump himself, but from Weisselberg and McConney.

NEITHER Weisselberg and McConney testified that Trump order them to classify payments to Cohen one way or another.


Cohen wrote his own invoices and submitted them to be paid to the accounts payables like every other vendor and received no special instructions or treatment according to Tarasoff


All the rest of this crap is noise
“Never argue with stupid people, they will drag you down to their level and then beat you with experience" - Mark Twain
Tramp96
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Foreverconservative said:

FACT Trump hasn't made an entry in a Trump Org business ledger in decades perhaps ever.

Who did? DEBORAH TARASOFF who was the Trump Organization's accounts payable supervisor who testified about processing the payments to Cohen, including receiving checks that Trump had signed at the White House. And under cross, she acknowledged permission to cut Cohen's checks came NOT from Trump himself, but from Weisselberg and McConney.

NEITHER Weisselberg and McConney testified that Trump order them to classify payments to Cohen one way or another.


Cohen wrote his own invoices and submitted them to be paid to the accounts payables like every other vendor and received no special instructions or treatment according to Tarasoff


All the rest of this crap is noise

Fact? Fact?

This is New York. They don't need no stinkin' facts to convict someone. Just feels. Feels >>>>> Facts
CyclingAg82
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Hungry Ojos said:

So where are all you at after all of this? For 46 years on this Earth, I have NEVER even entertained lawfare against political enemies. But this has changed everything. They are not going to stop until the right does something to make them. I say it's all fair game now. They should have to sleep in the bed they made. I hope Trump makes all of their lives as ridiculously miserable as they have made his, once he wins back the presidency. I just don't care anymore.
Too many R's believe in the Marques of Queensbury rules. They will hold hearings, make accusations, bluster but at the end of the day they do nothing (Lerner and Holder come to mind). They are wusses.

The d's are dirty evil and will use their system to exact revenge on their opponents.
VegasAg86
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
fredfredunderscorefred said:

aggiehawg said:

Appears to me this jury has glossed over the threshhold question and that is

Is a ledger entry regarding and invoice from a lawyer's office designated as "services rendered" with that entry being categorized as a "Legal Expense" a false business record?


And is it "intent to defraud" if that is written in private books and presented to absolutely nobody
It really is this simple. It's a travesty this was filed, let alone made it to the jury.
MarkTwain
How long do you want to ignore this user?
CyclingAg82 said:

Hungry Ojos said:

So where are all you at after all of this? For 46 years on this Earth, I have NEVER even entertained lawfare against political enemies. But this has changed everything. They are not going to stop until the right does something to make them. I say it's all fair game now. They should have to sleep in the bed they made. I hope Trump makes all of their lives as ridiculously miserable as they have made his, once he wins back the presidency. I just don't care anymore.
Too many R's believe in the Marques of Queensbury rules. They will hold hearings, make accusations, bluster but at the end of the day they do nothing (Lerner and Holder come to mind). They are wusses.

The d's are dirty evil and will use their system to exact revenge on their opponents.


PERFECT ANALOGY
“Never argue with stupid people, they will drag you down to their level and then beat you with experience" - Mark Twain
hunter2012
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
What's sad to me is that so many of America's problems are not even that unique to history, look at countries across time and it should be dang obvious the hazards for our society that we run headlong into. Debt, border security, and complexity of the law have real world examples that play out time and again.



The point here being that there are so many laws on the books that one cannot live through life without committing a felony at some point. The reason being that then government and government backers can pick and choose those that they want in prison and make "special consideration" for allies.
aggiehawg
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Quote:

Noted attorney Alan Dershowitz said on Wednesday that it is possible New York Judge Juan Merchan is not dismissing alternate jurors in order to deal with a holdout that will not convict former President Donald Trump.

Merchan issued instructions to the jury of seven men and five women Wednesday, pointing them to some of the key evidence in the case prior to the panel beginning its deliberations. Dershowitz admitted he was speculating during Wednesday's episode of "The Dershow" about Merchan's reason for keeping the alternates available, but said he had seen a judge in an unrelated case make a similar move.
Quote:

"I admit this is highly, highly speculative, but there… I know a case on this, so that I'm not making it up: The judge said he's not going to dismiss the alternate jurors until there's an absolute verdict," Dershowitz said. "One possible reason for that, again, I want to emphasize that I'm speculating, one possible reason for this might be following, it is quite cynical: Let's assume that the jurors come back and say, 'Sorry we're, uh, we're deadlocked. We have one juror who just won't give in. Well, there are eleven of us who think he's guilty.' By the way, the jurors don't say what they think, they just say there's a deadlock, but if they come back that way, the inference will be that the jury is, that is, is locked eleven to one in favor of conviction.'"
Quote:

"So the judge hears from the jurors and the judge hears that they're eleven to one and then the judge says, 'Well is that other juror, the twelfth juror, is he negotiating? Is he involved in the conversations?' And the foreman to the jury says 'No, he's refusing, he's sitting there with his arms folded, saying, 'Guy's innocent, sorry, guy's innocent, I'm not going to listen to you. The guy's innocent, there's no case here, the guy's innocent,'" Dershowitz continued. "If I were on the jury, that's what I'd be doing, and then the judge has the power, rarely, rarely, exercised, but he has the power, I've seen it done, to say 'Well, if this juror won't deliberate, then he's violating his oath, and I'm going to substitute one of the alternate jurors for that juror,' and then immediately, they come back with a twelve to nothing verdict of conviction."
Quote:

"I'm not saying that that's going to happen, I'm not saying that's even in the judge's mind, but knowing this judge and seeing him in action, particularly having seen him in action on the day I was in the court when they cleared everybody but I was allowed to stay, why, I still don't know, and I saw the real Judge Merchan," Dershowitz said. "Um, that's not beyond the realm of possibility, so anything's possible. This judge wants Donald Trump convicted."
LINK
jrdaustin
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
CyclingAg82 said:

Hungry Ojos said:

So where are all you at after all of this? For 46 years on this Earth, I have NEVER even entertained lawfare against political enemies. But this has changed everything. They are not going to stop until the right does something to make them. I say it's all fair game now. They should have to sleep in the bed they made. I hope Trump makes all of their lives as ridiculously miserable as they have made his, once he wins back the presidency. I just don't care anymore.
Too many R's believe in the Marques of Queensbury rules. They will hold hearings, make accusations, bluster but at the end of the day they do nothing (Lerner and Holder come to mind). They are wusses.

The d's are dirty evil and will use their system to exact revenge on their opponents.
This. Democrats have changed the rules twice now.

First, they've redefined impeachment down to excerpts from phone calls and public speeches in order to attack their target.

Now, they've redefined criminality to threaten decades of jail time against a political opponent for how their records are recorded in their private books.

Republicans will have no choice but to play by their rules. Otherwise, these strategies will continue unabated.
Gyles Marrett
How long do you want to ignore this user?
I wonder how much of a liberal bubble these jurors live in….bc if I knew a conviction would pretty much have a 100% chance of being overturned on appeal, I wouldn't even be wasting my time trying to get talked into a guilty verdict. I'd sit there eating the food and snacks they bring in while everyone ran their mouths about finding him guilty while remaining a no. Why out in that work knowing it will be undone…
agracer
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Please education me on this.

If they come back with a guilty verdict, does Trump go right to jail? Or does he stay out until the sentencing phase?

Sentencing phase, does that happen later?

If it's later, what it Trump does not show up b/c the Secret Service won't let him b/c going to jail is a very high risk environment for a candidate under SS protection and they cannot protect him there?
Stat Monitor Repairman
How long do you want to ignore this user?
jrdaustin said:

CyclingAg82 said:

Hungry Ojos said:

So where are all you at after all of this? For 46 years on this Earth, I have NEVER even entertained lawfare against political enemies. But this has changed everything. They are not going to stop until the right does something to make them. I say it's all fair game now. They should have to sleep in the bed they made. I hope Trump makes all of their lives as ridiculously miserable as they have made his, once he wins back the presidency. I just don't care anymore.
Too many R's believe in the Marques of Queensbury rules. They will hold hearings, make accusations, bluster but at the end of the day they do nothing (Lerner and Holder come to mind). They are wusses.

The d's are dirty evil and will use their system to exact revenge on their opponents.
This. Democrats have changed the rules twice now.

First, they've redefined impeachment down to excerpts from phone calls and public speeches in order to attack their target.

Now, they've redefined criminality to threaten decades of jail time against a political opponent for how their records are recorded in their private books.

Republicans will have no choice but to play by their rules. Otherwise, these strategies will continue unabated.
Hell, let's not forget the use of FISA against political opponents and wiretapping campaign headquarters.
Who?mikejones!
How long do you want to ignore this user?
They'll have to go him house arrest, if there's any jail time.
aggiehawg
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Quote:

Will Scharf, an attorney for former President Donald Trump, said that Trump's team is prepared to appeal a jury verdict if Trump is convicted.
"If there were to be a conviction here, which we believe would be a gravely unjust verdict, we would speedily appeal to the New York Appellate division, potentially to the New York Court of Appeals as well. And we'll take that step if we get there," Scharf told CNN's Jake Tapper.
"But so far, we think that appears to be a highly unlikely outcome here," Scharf added.
Hungry Ojos
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Sounds pretty confident.
hunter2012
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
is he being optimistic or is that just lawyer-speak?
First Page Last Page
Page 158 of 195
 
×
subscribe Verify your student status
See Subscription Benefits
Trial only available to users who have never subscribed or participated in a previous trial.