Im Gipper said:

---

Quote:

---

How was Trump supposed to legally expense it? Was he supposed to expense it as "Hush money- Stormy Daniels" to be in compliance with New York law?

---

Funny, but not quite.

He was supposed to categorize it as "Payment for Non-Disclosure Agreement" or "Settlement" or something similar, not as a payment for Cohen's legal fees.

At best that should be misdemeanor and would be against anyone else. Tying this to federal statute to make it a felony is absurd on several levels.

---

Correct and the time has past to bring those charges unless you bring some crazy felony charge. There are also charges related to Trump working with the National Enquirer to craft stories that would help him or hurt Hillary. I find this hilarious because this is a typical day for the democrats and 99% of the media.

NEW: While arguing for the admission of tweets and social media posts evocative of Trump’s pressure campaign on witnesses, the DA’s office drops this: “Shortly, we will be seeking an order to show cause why Defendant should not be held in contempt” for violating the gag order.

— Lisa Rubin (@lawofruby) April 15, 2024

aggiehawg said:

---

The Edwards case is interesting due to the fact that there was a very direct connection between Bunny Mellon as an Edwards donor, actually did pay Rielle over a million dollars in support for her and the baby during the course of the campaign. Jury acquitted him anyway. And the FEC did fine the Edwards campaign over it.

None of those facts are present here. Both the FEC and DOJ thoroughly reviewed these facts and found no violation. So if the predicate "crime" upon which the felony charges rest is not there, then there is no crime on these facts.

The second problem is the credibility of a serial perjurer as the star witness, in Michael Cohen. Even Stormy has prior inconcistent statements on whether an affair happened or not. Then there's Avenatti who has some harsh words about both Cohen and Stormy and that he doesn't think Trump can get a fair trial in Manhattan.

---

Whats the underlying crime? Hush money? Done all the time. That's not a crime. "Catch and kill" (or whatever the enquirer phrase is)? Done all the time. Not a crime.
At most, the fact that they set it up this way would be the "crime" and some FEC type "crime" (or violation).

It's almost like a situation where someone is using the word to define itself. "You entered this in your books wrong which is a crime and you entered it in your books this way to cover up that very crime". There's a reason everyone that looked at this (since 2017!) said nope. But sure "nobody is above the law and if it was any one of us blah blah blah"

No Spin Ag said:

---

Old McDonald said:

---

one thing we can all agree on: trump cheated on his pregnant wife with a p*** star

---

And the party of "family values" sees nothing wrong with it. Then again, even if he shot someone on fifth Avenue he wouldn't lose one of them, so what's the big deal about this.

---

Because he's still better than Biden.

As AH said, these charges seem quite weak. BUT - it is a New York jury that could have a strong TDS bent

The classified papers trial is the one in which Trump faces the greatest danger. He had papers with the correct markings stored illegally. He was no longer President, so he no longer possessed the power to change those classifications. And there was no record of him doing so while he was president, either.

Back to the trial - judge is making several rulings in Trump's favor against highly prejudicial evidence.

Kraft Punk said:

---

I always wondered what it'd be like to live in Germany during the 1930's

---

Hans Litten had some big testicles.

No Spin Ag said:

---

Old McDonald said:

---

one thing we can all agree on: trump cheated on his pregnant wife with a p*** star

---

And the party of "family values" sees nothing wrong with it. Then again, even if he shot someone on fifth Avenue he wouldn't lose one of them, so what's the big deal about this.

---

How ironic, considering your man's "family values" consist of perpetually not-recognizing his own grand-daughter for 4 years and showering with his niece. But hey, that's ok with your side.

Now arguing Trump violated the gag order by calling Cohen and Daniels "sleezebags" online this weekend.

What is the punishment for violating a gag order? A fine?

fc2112 said:

---

Now arguing Trump violated the gag order by calling Cohen and Daniels "sleezebags" online this weekend.

What is the punishment for violating a gag order? A fine?

---

Where are you seeing that information?

fc2112 said:

---

Now arguing Trump violated the gag order by calling Cohen and Daniels "sleezebags" online this weekend.

What is the punishment for violating a gag order? A fine?

---

Damn, punishing for telling the truth now. True Kangaroo Kourt.

Quote:

---

Judge Juan Merchan is rereading his prior order where he says that the prosecution cannot tie Michael Cohen's guilty plea to Donald Trump. He did allow testimony of Cohen's guilty plea with the proper foundation, saying he doesn't agree with Trump's attorney Todd Blanche that his ruling was "confusing."
Merchan said he can still revisit the prior ruling, but he doesn't know what's going to happen at trial.

Merchan said he does not want a jury to think that because Cohen pleaded guilty to campaign finance violations that therefore Trump is guilty of that and he added the prosecution has said they are not going to argue that.

Some context: Trump's attorneys and the district attorney's office are debating what can be told the jury about Cohen's crimes. It's a key question because Cohen's credibility is going to be one of the biggest issues for the jury in this case.

---

CNN has a live blog I guess.

LINK

Yes, CNN has someone in the courtroom. But a post of theirs was misleading. They are going to claim gag order violation - haven't done it yet.

A Trump criminal trial that starts on tax day just hits right.

Quote:

---

Judge Juan Merchan is now discussing the time limits lawyers will have to question potential jurors.

The judge said that, normally, he gives lawyers 15 minutes for the first round of questions and then 10 minutes for subsequent rounds but he noted this is not a normal case and asked what the lawyers want.

Trump attorney Todd Blanche said 30 minutes for first round and 20 minutes for subsequent rounds, and the DA's office said they agree. Merchan agreed, too.

---

doubledog said:

---

Old McDonald said:

---

one thing we can all agree on: trump cheated on his pregnant wife with a p*** star

---

Yes he did... But that was/is between Trump and his wife, none of our business. But go ahead and point out the obvious.

---

really?

Trump promised to be faithful and obey his wives didn't he?

so now the most important promise one gives is not relevant to the voting public?

no voter should take into account that a candidate boldly lies over and over again? or hires pr@stitutes while his wife is pregnant.

what EXACTLY should a voter be allowed to take into account that is "our business"?

Don't vote for him

Anyone else find it humerous that those who said Bill Clinton's issues were "just about sex" as opposed to the brazen lying to a grand jury are getting the vapors over Trump's actions?

Quote:

---

Here's what evidence is NOT allowed:

• Infamous "Access Hollywood" tape will not be shown to jurors: Judge Juan Merchan reaffirmed his decision to prohibit prosecutors from showing the infamous "Access Hollywood" tape to the jury. Merchan said he still believes the video itself, in which Donald Trump brags about groping women, "should not come in" because it's so prejudicial.
• Sexual assault allegations against Trump that surfaced after release of "Access Hollywood" tape are not allowed: Merchan also said he will not allow prosecutors to introduce the sexual assault allegations against Trump that surfaced after the tape was made public. "They are very prejudicial, and at this point, given what we know today, it was just a rumor," Merchan said. The judge will allow the tapes in which Trump denies the allegations at rallies.
• E. Jean Carroll deposition is not allowed to be used as evidence: Merchan also denied prosecutors' request to show the deposition from E. Jean Carroll, who accused Trump of sexual assault, because it would be "building in a trial into a trial."

---

Quote:

---

Prosecutors are introducing a motion to sanction Donald Trump for his social media posts they allege violate the judge's gag order.

Prosecutor Chris Conroy told the judge they are seeking permission to hold Trump in contempt for violating the gag order and sanction Trump $1,000 for each of the three posts that violate the order.
Conroy also said that prosecutors want the judge to take down the three posts and to remind the defendant that "further violations could result in jail time."

They also note they want to include his post from this morning, too.

He said it was posted at 9:12 a.m. this morning and it is "entirely possible that it was done while in this courthouse."

---

LMCane said:

---

doubledog said:

---

Old McDonald said:

---

one thing we can all agree on: trump cheated on his pregnant wife with a p*** star

---

Yes he did... But that was/is between Trump and his wife, none of our business. But go ahead and point out the obvious.

---

really?

Trump promised to be faithful and obey his wives didn't he?

so now the most important promise one gives is not relevant to the voting public?

no voter should take into account that a candidate boldly lies over and over again? or hires pr@stitutes while his wife is pregnant.

what EXACTLY should a voter be allowed to take into account that is "our business"?

---

Voters? Sure. Legal felony charges? LMAO

Quote:

---

Trump attorney Todd Blanche argued in court that the three Donald Trump social media posts that prosecutors are pointing to do not violate the gag order.

While the prosecutor was reading the posts, Trump could be seen leaning forward with his elbows resting on the defense table.

Blanche said the witnesses frequently make statements about Trump. "It's not as if President Trump is going off and targeting individuals. He's responding to salacious repeated .. attacks by these witnesses," the attorney argued.

The judge is yet to rule on the matter.

---

Court is in recess for lunch.

LMCane said:

---

doubledog said:

---

Old McDonald said:

---

one thing we can all agree on: trump cheated on his pregnant wife with a p*** star

---

Yes he did... But that was/is between Trump and his wife, none of our business. But go ahead and point out the obvious.

---

really?

Trump promised to be faithful and obey his wives didn't he?

so now the most important promise one gives is not relevant to the voting public?

no voter should take into account that a candidate boldly lies over and over again? or hires pr@stitutes while his wife is pregnant.

what EXACTLY should a voter be allowed to take into account that is "our business"?

---

So...you advocate returning the really bigley sinner (FJB) instead of DJT. How magnanimous of you.

LMCane said:

---

doubledog said:

---

Old McDonald said:

---

one thing we can all agree on: trump cheated on his pregnant wife with a p*** star

---

Yes he did... But that was/is between Trump and his wife, none of our business. But go ahead and point out the obvious.

---

really?

Trump promised to be faithful and obey his wives didn't he?

so now the most important promise one gives is not relevant to the voting public?

no voter should take into account that a candidate boldly lies over and over again? or hires pr@stitutes while his wife is pregnant.

what EXACTLY should a voter be allowed to take into account that is "our business"?

---

What exactly is your point?

That violating that "most important promise" should disqualify one from being president?

Then should it have disqualified James Garfield? Wodrow Wilson? Warren Harding? FDR? Eisenhower? John F. Kennedy? LBJ? Bill Clinton?

Interesting that you bring out your riteous indignation for Donald Trump, but fail to mention how disappointed you must be with so many prior presidents being morally impure? It's also interesting that you seek to focus on Trump's infidelity, but choose to ignore the allegation by Jill's ex that their relationship began as an affiar when Jill was still married, resulting in the breakup of that marriage.

But I guess Trump is the target today, so we'll just ignore the mountain of moral depravity that Joe's been engaged in for decades. Sound cool?

fc2112 said:

---

So of course the trial isn't about paying hush money - it's about using campaign money for hush money and falsifying records documenting that.

Can you imagine being in this jury pool? My employer pays us for jury duty so I'd be angling like a big dog to get on this jury so I could hang it.

---

So how exactly does the prosecution wanting to play the Access Hollywood tape tie into a financial crime?

There obviously must be some link there -- otherwise it's just the prosecution trying to assassinate his character.

Please explain what it is we're missing?

bobbranco said:

---

Science Denier said:

---

Old McDonald said:

---

one thing we can all agree on: trump cheated on his pregnant wife with a p*** star

---

So naturally charge him with a felony. Right?

---

Nope 34! GDamnit.

eta: corrected to the number of felonies charged
https://manhattanda.org/district-attorney-bragg-announces-34-count-felony-indictment-of-former-president-donald-j-trump/

---

So I read that whole thing. It's summed up at the end - he's accused of 34 counts of falsifying business records (to hide seedy things about his past). These are class E felonies. Which carry a $3000 fine. So, if found guilty, he will own $100,000?

What a colossal waste of time and resources.

Quote:

---

But I guess Trump is the target today, so we'll just ignore the mountain of moral depravity that Joe's been engaged in for decades. Sound cool?

---

Democrats do democrat things and democrats have no issue with it.

Alinsky demands that they hold Donald Trump to a (D)ifferent standard.

Science Denier said:

---

Old McDonald said:

---

one thing we can all agree on: trump cheated on his pregnant wife with a p*** star

---

So naturally charge him with a felony. Right?

---

Thirty-four felonies, but who's counting?

Too bad Trump's not the faithful saint that FDR, JFK and Bill Clinton were/are. He might have the Democrats' support if he'd just dropped trow and asked Paula Jones to go to town on him.

Quote:

---

What a colossal waste of time and resources.

---

This is all about interfering with the election by causing a constant barrage of negative press and tying up Trump's time and resources to keep him from effectively campaigning. That's why the DOJ arranged all of these cases to hit this year instead of years ago. It isn't really about the potential paltry fines.

I don't care if people want to vote for Trump. There aren't good choices.

But I wish we could stop pretending that Trump isn't a scumbag as well. A lot of the Christian voters have felt the need to give the following excuses:

"God has always chosen flawed men. Look at David!"
"He is a baby Christian but is learning in his faith"
"Look at what Biden and Clinton did!"
"Stormy is lying. Trump is devoted to his wife"

The cognitive dissonance is silly. Just say you like his policies or find him funny. You don't need to bend over backwards to pretend he is any better morally than the dozens of politicians we have rightly criticized over the last few 20-30 years.

"no voter should take into account that a candidate boldly lies over and over again?"

Another thought on this question, LMCane. Let's see if you're man enough to honestly answer.

So we have two liars as candidates:

One who lies about something in his past that though not illegal, was definitely embarassing and potentially politcally damaging.

vs.

One who boldy lies daily in the performance of his public duties, and has his press secretary boldy lie daily to the American people about current events and decisions in order to attempt to gain political advantage. Oh, and this candidate is mentally compromised due to age.

Which candidate would LMCane choose? Man Up!

ENOUGH OF THE DERAIL PLEASE!!

aggiehawg said:

---

Quote:

---

Here's what evidence is NOT allowed:

• Infamous "Access Hollywood" tape will not be shown to jurors: Judge Juan Merchan reaffirmed his decision to prohibit prosecutors from showing the infamous "Access Hollywood" tape to the jury. Merchan said he still believes the video itself, in which Donald Trump brags about groping women, "should not come in" because it's so prejudicial.
• Sexual assault allegations against Trump that surfaced after release of "Access Hollywood" tape are not allowed: Merchan also said he will not allow prosecutors to introduce the sexual assault allegations against Trump that surfaced after the tape was made public. "They are very prejudicial, and at this point, given what we know today, it was just a rumor," Merchan said. The judge will allow the tapes in which Trump denies the allegations at rallies.
• E. Jean Carroll deposition is not allowed to be used as evidence: Merchan also denied prosecutors' request to show the deposition from E. Jean Carroll, who accused Trump of sexual assault, because it would be "building in a trial into a trial."

---

---

The fact the prosecution is even trying to bring that garbage into a case about financial record-keeping speaks VOLUMES about what's taking place here. It isn't a trial -- it's an eight-week exercise in character assassination brought to you by the Democrat Party.

Quote:

---

The classified papers trial is the one in which Trump faces the greatest danger.

---

I know, you are so right. I still can't believe that SOB stored them in cardboard boxes next to his Corvette, what an idiot!

Reality Check said:

---

fc2112 said:

---

So of course the trial isn't about paying hush money - it's about using campaign money for hush money and falsifying records documenting that.

Can you imagine being in this jury pool? My employer pays us for jury duty so I'd be angling like a big dog to get on this jury so I could hang it.

---

So how exactly does the prosecution wanting to play the Access Hollywood tape tie into a financial crime?

There obviously must be some link there -- otherwise it's just the prosecution trying to assassinate his character.

Please explain what it is we're missing?

---

Many cases are won and lost by emotion. Painting Trump as a sexist scumbag that deserves what's coming to him would be an effective strategy to get any impartial jurors that snuck onto the jury to look past the state's shortcomings on the legal side of things.

BoydCrowder13 said:

---

I don't care if people want to vote for Trump. There aren't good choices.

But I wish we could stop pretending that Trump isn't a scumbag as well. A lot of the Christian voters have felt the need to give the following excuses:

---

This is an election between a marxist regime and freedom. Period.