aggiehawg said:

---

Quote:

---

Would it possible, even prudent, for Trump's attorneys to be drafting a writ of mandamus to submit while the evidentiary portion of the trial was ongoing? Are they allowed to submit before a possible conviction?

However, I'm going to assume that the appeals court would just ignore it.

---

What is possible in theory is one thing.

What is practical is another.

What I expect is that Trump's attorneys renew their motions for mistrial at several points in the coming days. Both Stormy and Cohen's testimony will become very problematical for Merchan to navigate, or navigate cleanly at least.

---

Was just about to ask you this. Grassy knoll theory.

Trumps teams are not a bunch of dumb arses and I'm certain they have their own surprises. If they blow up Stormy's story (which cant be to difficult) then blow up Cohen (another easy one), perhaps the plan is to smear Trump (which has been done) and then save face for Merchan by declaring a mistrial. At some point, this is going to get ugly and it will open the door for many to get the same hammer.

Is it constitutional for a state court located in the most liberal county in the United States to conduct a felony trial involving a US presidential candidate 180-days before the presidential election?

Not when you're as biased as he is.

aggiehawg said:

---

TXAggie2011 said:

---

And remember, this case already went up to federal Court when Trump was trying to get it removed in 2023. Federal court kicked it back down and didn't have a problem with FECA being used as a predicate crime.

https://caselaw.findlaw.com/court/us-dis-crt-sd-new-yor/114642260.html

---

Which then means Merchan's in limine order excluding Trump's federal election law experts is clear error, no? Judge is not allowing him to present a defense on that? How does that square with the 6th Amendment?

---

Don't bring in that pesky Bill of Rights. That is antiquated. The Left is enlightened.
"We must save democracy. We must have the most secure election ever."

aggiehawg said:

---

TXAggie2011 said:

---

And remember, this case already went up to federal Court when Trump was trying to get it removed in 2023. Federal court kicked it back down and didn't have a problem with FECA being used as a predicate crime.

https://caselaw.findlaw.com/court/us-dis-crt-sd-new-yor/114642260.html

---

Which then means Merchan's in limine order excluding Trump's federal election law experts is clear error, no? Judge is not allowing him to present a defense on that? How does that square with the 6th Amendment?

---

Bradley Smith is allowed to testify. The Court said he wouldn't be allowed to testify on matters of law to the jury (same thing happened in federal court) and that he lacked personal knowledge about the facts of this case so he would need to be limited to testifying about only certain things in a general and more "as background" fashion.

TXAggie2011 said:

---

Rockdoc said:

---

TXAggie2011 said:

---

No, but I was curious how many times and hours he'd spend asking the same question.

---

Then answer

---

Yes

---

Interesting answer.

Do you then think it's a travesty of justice that Hillary Clinton was NOT charged.

(The question is rhetorical. I already know your answer. And you should perhaps reflect over what a dangerous individual that makes you. I'm sure you won't understand what I'm talking about, but hopefully, one day you will.)

Ag with kids said:

---

TXAggie2011 said:

---

aggiehawg said:

---

Even CNN's legal analyst believes Stormy's testimony yesterday was a disaster.

---

Stormy Daniels' testimony and credibility probably doesn't really matter, though. So disastrous to what?

There are several media members who have been going to the trial every day who thought she didn't need to get on the stand at all. She was there to (1) say they had sex to explain what Trump was worried about and (2) to say Trump didn't express a need at the time to "cover it up."

That's tangentially important. But no one disagrees Trump wanted to "cover it up" and no one disagrees the story would hurt his reputation and was a concern to the campaign.

She didn't and can't testify about how the Trump Organization handled the incident internally and in public documentary evidence which is what this is about.

They had her testify to add color to the idea this could hurt his election chances, but I also think she didn't even have to testify at all.

---

Her main purpose was to impeach Trump's character to the jury...

---

In Texas the prosecution cannot introduce evidence for the mere purpose of proving bad character. Evidence which proves bad character which is incidental to proving an actual element of the crime directly charged is permitted. A person has the right to know what crime he is charged with and to be confronted only with evidence which proves that crime. No other bad character evidence is allowed.

Another exception would apply if the defendant puts on any evidence of good character. He then is deemed to have "opened the door" to bad character evidence put on by the prosecutor.

Has there been any evidence presented of specific intent and an overt act in furtherance of the underlying crime?

We got evidence of Pert Plus, Old Spice and Trump raw dogging a hooker but that dog don't hunt.

They talking 2-3 more weeks of this bs, show us the money.

It's also telling that we in the middle of a jury trial and prosecution is still struggling with their legal theory of the case.

this sham trial is so unbelievable it shocks the conscience, and we are only now seeing some folks come around to that fact.

Quote:

---

Bradley Smith is allowed to testify. The Court said he wouldn't be allowed to testify on matters of law to the jury (same thing happened in federal court) and that he lacked personal knowledge about the facts of this case so he would need to be limited to testifying about only certain things.

---

Which leads me to this question. Who is going to testify as to facts that would consitute a violation of federal election law? Cohen? A. he's disbarred. B. he cannot draw a legal conclusion. C. he was Trump's legal advisor at the time.

So Cohen will get on the stand and say Trump did these things pursuant to his own counsel? LOL.

agAngeldad said:

---

aggiehawg said:

---

Quote:

---

Would it possible, even prudent, for Trump's attorneys to be drafting a writ of mandamus to submit while the evidentiary portion of the trial was ongoing? Are they allowed to submit before a possible conviction?

However, I'm going to assume that the appeals court would just ignore it.

---

What is possible in theory is one thing.

What is practical is another.

What I expect is that Trump's attorneys renew their motions for mistrial at several points in the coming days. Both Stormy and Cohen's testimony will become very problematical for Merchan to navigate, or navigate cleanly at least.

---

Was just about to ask you this. Grassy knoll theory.

Trumps teams are not a bunch of dumb arses and I'm certain they have their own surprises. If they blow up Stormy's story (which cant be to difficult) then blow up Cohen (another easy one), perhaps the plan is to smear Trump (which has been done) and then save face for Merchan by declaring a mistrial. At some point, this is going to get ugly and it will open the door for many to get the same hammer.

---

your statement about a mistrial is somewhere in the realm of accurate. The judge and his courtroom staff interact with the jurors regularly. Believe it or not, judges usually have a good sense of where they think a jury is going long before they're charged. To be sure, they are wrong sometimes. But they usually have a good idea.

All of that to say if the judge's read on the jury is a potential acquittal, this judge will grant a mistrial.

Quote:

---

your statement about a mistrial is somewhere in the realm of accurate. The judge and his courtroom staff interact with the jurors regularly. Believe it or not, judges usually have a good sense of where they think a jury is going long before they're charged. To be sure, they are wrong sometimes. But they usually have a good idea.

All of that to say if the judge's read on the jury is a potential acquittal, this judge will grant a mistrial.

---

Acquittal or hung jury with those two lawyers on the jury. A hung jury is more likely in my view, between the two.

aggiehawg said:

---

Quote:

---

Bradley Smith is allowed to testify. The Court said he wouldn't be allowed to testify on matters of law to the jury (same thing happened in federal court) and that he lacked personal knowledge about the facts of this case so he would need to be limited to testifying about only certain things.

---

Which leads me to this question. Who is going to testify as to facts that would consitute a violation of federal election law? Cohen? A. he's disbarred. B. he cannot draw a legal conclusion. C. he was Trump's legal advisor at the time.

So Cohen will get on the stand and say Trump did these things pursuant to his own counsel? LOL.

---

Hawg, how is an alleged federal charge tried in a state court which has no federal jurisdiction? I've never seen that.

Bryanisbest said:

---

aggiehawg said:

---

Quote:

---

Bradley Smith is allowed to testify. The Court said he wouldn't be allowed to testify on matters of law to the jury (same thing happened in federal court) and that he lacked personal knowledge about the facts of this case so he would need to be limited to testifying about only certain things.

---

Which leads me to this question. Who is going to testify as to facts that would consitute a violation of federal election law? Cohen? A. he's disbarred. B. he cannot draw a legal conclusion. C. he was Trump's legal advisor at the time.

So Cohen will get on the stand and say Trump did these things pursuant to his own counsel? LOL.

---

Hawg, how is an alleged federal charge tried in a state court which has no federal jurisdiction? I've never seen that.

---

I believe it was already stated on this thread that a federal judge is allowing NY to use federal law as a predicate for this trial.

Bryanisbest said:

---

aggiehawg said:

---

Quote:

---

Bradley Smith is allowed to testify. The Court said he wouldn't be allowed to testify on matters of law to the jury (same thing happened in federal court) and that he lacked personal knowledge about the facts of this case so he would need to be limited to testifying about only certain things.

---

Which leads me to this question. Who is going to testify as to facts that would consitute a violation of federal election law? Cohen? A. he's disbarred. B. he cannot draw a legal conclusion. C. he was Trump's legal advisor at the time.

So Cohen will get on the stand and say Trump did these things pursuant to his own counsel? LOL.

---

Hawg, how is an alleged federal charge tried in a state court which has no federal jurisdiction? I've never seen that.

---

There is no federal charge.

You're also not carrying the part about where the judge is refusing to acknowledge what the Supreme Court in New York just ruled in reference to the Weinstein case which would apply here as well

TXAggie2011 said:

---

Bryanisbest said:

---

aggiehawg said:

---

Quote:

---

Bradley Smith is allowed to testify. The Court said he wouldn't be allowed to testify on matters of law to the jury (same thing happened in federal court) and that he lacked personal knowledge about the facts of this case so he would need to be limited to testifying about only certain things.

---

Which leads me to this question. Who is going to testify as to facts that would consitute a violation of federal election law? Cohen? A. he's disbarred. B. he cannot draw a legal conclusion. C. he was Trump's legal advisor at the time.

So Cohen will get on the stand and say Trump did these things pursuant to his own counsel? LOL.

---

Hawg, how is an alleged federal charge tried in a state court which has no federal jurisdiction? I've never seen that.

---

There is no federal charge.

---

A violation of "federal election law" is not a federal charge?

Bryanisbest said:

---

TXAggie2011 said:

---

Bryanisbest said:

---

aggiehawg said:

---

Quote:

---

Bradley Smith is allowed to testify. The Court said he wouldn't be allowed to testify on matters of law to the jury (same thing happened in federal court) and that he lacked personal knowledge about the facts of this case so he would need to be limited to testifying about only certain things.

---

Which leads me to this question. Who is going to testify as to facts that would consitute a violation of federal election law? Cohen? A. he's disbarred. B. he cannot draw a legal conclusion. C. he was Trump's legal advisor at the time.

So Cohen will get on the stand and say Trump did these things pursuant to his own counsel? LOL.

---

Hawg, how is an alleged federal charge tried in a state court which has no federal jurisdiction? I've never seen that.

---

There is no federal charge.

---

A violation of "federal election law" is not a federal charge?

---

Trump's not charged with violating a federal law, no.

The limits of using predicate federal crimes has been well litigated over the years as to this particular law and others.

I don't even think Trump's team has argued New York simply cannot use federal law as a predicate crime simply because it is federal. They tried to get the federal crime thrown aside for much nerdier and complex reasons.

Quote:

---

Hawg, how is an alleged federal charge tried in a state court which has no federal jurisdiction? I've never seen that.

---

He was not charged with a violation of federal election law within the four corners of the indictment that's how.

Can the prosecution bootstrap an amorphous federal allegation that it is out there into a state trial? That is where we are in Merchan's court. I suspect the NY Court of Appeals will not agree with his view, however.

The T's have not been crossed nor the I's dotted here, nor do I think the state can ever get there as it pertains to Trump directly. Trup was in the WH. Not in charge of his trust nor the Trump Org. He was not directing day to day operations at the time these invoices were booked into accounts payable, nor how they were classified as legal expenses, approved and checks cut in the year 2017.

Cohen was an outside lawyer, independent contractor and issued a 1099 at the end of the year on that basis, according to the former controller's testimony.

TXAggie2011 said:

---

Trump's not charged with violating a federal law, no.

---

Why didn't the feds charge him then? Instead of the state saying he made accounting errors. Maybe I'm missing something but this seems like they're just making stuff up.

I haven't followed this case, but have they produced forensic accounting evidence that Cohen did indeed pay Daniels 130K? Which common sense is he wouldn't have done that on his own without thinking he would get reimbursed. And they have produced the forensic accounting that Trump's organization did indeed reimburse Cohen as 'legal expenses'?

Which okay if proven is a legit misdemeanor. If I was sitting on the jury and the accounting evidence was there, then misdemeanor.

Where I'd have a hard time is raising this issue to a felony 'election interference' charge. Every politician probably since there have been politicians probably took some steps to try to keep something in their past from going public before an election. And they try to dig up dirt on their opponents. That is how elections roll. 'Election interference' with regards to where the invisible line might get crossed seems pretty gray area to me.

So, I get it. Trump is an unfaithful husband. He pays off women to keep things quiet. I get it. He's not a likeable guy in many ways nor what a woman might want in a husband other than he is rich. But 'election interference'...come on man.

Quote:

---

They tried to get the federal crime thrown aside for much nerdier and complex reasons.

---

Not remotely nerdy nor complex. One agency and the US Attorney's office have exclusive jurisdictions to impose fines or bring charges under federal election law. The FEC and in this locale, the US Attorney for the Southern District of New York.

Both investigated this issue and both declined to take any further action. Bragg cannot overrule them with some flim flam state charge.

Quote:

---

Where I'd have a hard time is raising this issue to a felony 'election interference' charge. Every politician probably since there have been politicians probably took some steps to try to keep something in their past from going public before an election. And they try to dig up dirt on their opponents. That is how elections roll. 'Election interference' with regards to where the invisible line might get crossed seems pretty gray area to me.

---

John Edwards was tried and not found guilty. And he did use a major campaign donor to pay hush money to his baby mama. Not his own money.

aggiehawg said:

---

Quote:

---

They tried to get the federal crime thrown aside for much nerdier and complex reasons.

---

Not remotely nerdy nor complex. One agency and the US Attorney's office have exclusive jurisdictions to impose fines or bring charges under federal election law. The FEC and in this locale, the US Attorney for the Southern District of New York.

Both investigated this issue and both declined to take any further action. Bragg cannot overrule them with some flim flam state charge.

---

As I understand it, Bragg doesn't have to charge Trump with anything else, just convince this jury that the accounting of the payment was done purposely to conceal some other crime.

That whole concept is a miscarriage of justice and any officer of the court should loathe it.

TXAggie2011 said:

---

And I think the conspiracy explanation above is pretty good. Lots of people get dinged for conspiracy to commit a crime even though they're not charged with that crime for some reason.

---

Is that like the get away driver even though he was never inside pulling the trigger or robbing the store?

aggiehawg said:

---

Quote:

---

your statement about a mistrial is somewhere in the realm of accurate. The judge and his courtroom staff interact with the jurors regularly. Believe it or not, judges usually have a good sense of where they think a jury is going long before they're charged. To be sure, they are wrong sometimes. But they usually have a good idea.

All of that to say if the judge's read on the jury is a potential acquittal, this judge will grant a mistrial.

---

Acquittal or hung jury with those two lawyers on the jury. A hung jury is more likely in my view, between the two.

---

You assume the "normal" jury selection was followed and these lawyers were "randomly" selected.

<tinfoil hat on>
Watching this bull**** go down, it would not surprise me if those lawyers were planted in order to try to sway the jury into finding guilt and using their background as lawyers as some sort of expert in this deal.

The side that can blatantly cheat an entire election will do anything to see that Trump doesn't win the Presidency.
<tinfoil hat off>

Tony Franklins Other Shoe said:

---

TXAggie2011 said:

---

And I think the conspiracy explanation above is pretty good. Lots of people get dinged for conspiracy to commit a crime even though they're not charged with that crime for some reason.

---

Is that like the get away driver even though he was never inside pulling the trigger or robbing the store?

---

In that universe, yes. I'm sure folks have her words like aid, abet, accessory, perjury, obstruction, tampering, etc.

We have a whole universe of crimes that relate to the "cover up."

Agreed.

So the only way this can be tied to Trump(I guess?) is for Cohen to say that Trump told him to come up with the money to pay the $130k for the story and then we will repay you through the Trump org?

And sorry if I am way behind, IANAL and have been half paying attention as I am very busy in my personal/business life.

WHOOP!'91 said:

---

aggiehawg said:

---

As I understand it, Bragg doesn't have to charge Trump with anything else, just convince this jury that the accounting of the payment was done purposely to conceal some other crime.

---

---

Trump didn't do it, whoever was entering it only had a few choices in the system, one of which was "Legal Expenses". It was seen as a check to a lawyer, hence "Legal Expenses".
This was testified to earlier. They are trying to read WAY too much into that.

Also, Trump never thought he committed a crime, so why would he need to cover it up? Besides, who would go thru his ledger to find it if it did say "Hush Money Payment". It is stupid all the way around.

TXAggie2011 said:

---

Tony Franklins Other Shoe said:

---

TXAggie2011 said:

---

And I think the conspiracy explanation above is pretty good. Lots of people get dinged for conspiracy to commit a crime even though they're not charged with that crime for some reason.

---

Is that like the get away driver even though he was never inside pulling the trigger or robbing the store?

---

In that universe, yes. I'm sure folks have her words like aid, abet, accessory, perjury, obstruction, tampering, etc.

We have a whole universe of crimes that relate to the "cover up."

---

To add to this, let's take Trump or the specific facts of this case out of the equation for a minute.

I own a business, and I donate $1 million bucks to a campaign, even though I know that's well above legal campaign limits. I do this, knowing I am breaking federal election law. My accountant hears about this, so he goes in makes up $1 million in business losses to explain where that $1 million went and hide that I broke campaign finance laws.

He's falsified business records to conceal my violation of law. If that case came down the pipe, this board wouldn't bat an eye if my accountant got dinged for a felony, I bet.

I think most would agree its a perfectly understandable and valid law if they take the emotion and politics out of it for a minute.

Whether the state can prove Trump himself intended to conceal something, that's another issue I've said I have questions about. But again, meeting the burden of proof is a whole different animal than the underlying legal elements of the crime.

TXAggie2011 said:

---

TXAggie2011 said:

---

Tony Franklins Other Shoe said:

---

TXAggie2011 said:

---

And I think the conspiracy explanation above is pretty good. Lots of people get dinged for conspiracy to commit a crime even though they're not charged with that crime for some reason.

---

Is that like the get away driver even though he was never inside pulling the trigger or robbing the store?

---

In that universe, yes. I'm sure folks have her words like aid, abet, accessory, perjury, obstruction, tampering, etc.

We have a whole universe of crimes that relate to the "cover up."

---

To add to this, let's take Trump or the specific facts of this case out of the equation for a minute.

I own a business, and I donate $1 million bucks to a campaign, even though I know that's well above legal campaign limits. I do this, knowing I am breaking federal election law. My accountant hears about this, so he goes in makes up $1 million in business losses to explain where that $1 million went and hide that I broke campaign finance laws.

He's falsified business records to conceal my violation of law. If that case came down the pipe, this board wouldn't bat an eye if my accountant got dinged for a felony, I bet.

I think most would agree its a perfectly understandable and valid law if they take the emotion and politics out of it for a minute.

Whether the state can prove Trump himself intended to conceal something, that's another issue I've said I have questions about. But again, meeting the burden of proof is a whole different animal than the underlying legal elements of the crime.

---

But what if it's for your own campaign?

Do we know if Trump's campaign consulted outside counsel specializing in election law compliance?

TXAggie2011 said:

---

TXAggie2011 said:

---

Tony Franklins Other Shoe said:

---

TXAggie2011 said:

---

And I think the conspiracy explanation above is pretty good. Lots of people get dinged for conspiracy to commit a crime even though they're not charged with that crime for some reason.

---

Is that like the get away driver even though he was never inside pulling the trigger or robbing the store?

---

In that universe, yes. I'm sure folks have her words like aid, abet, accessory, perjury, obstruction, tampering, etc.

We have a whole universe of crimes that relate to the "cover up."

---

To add to this, let's take Trump or the specific facts of this case out of the equation for a minute.

I own a business, and I donate $1 million bucks to a campaign, even though I know that's well above legal campaign limits. I do this, knowing I am breaking federal election law. My accountant hears about this, so he goes in makes up $1 million in business losses to explain where that $1 million went and hide that I broke campaign finance laws.

He's falsified business records to conceal my violation of law. If that case came down the pipe, this board wouldn't bat an eye if my accountant got dinged for a felony, I bet.

I think most would agree its a perfectly understandable and valid law if they take the emotion and politics out of it for a minute.

Whether the state can prove Trump himself intended to conceal something, that's another issue I've said I have questions about. But again, meeting the burden of proof is a whole different animal than the underlying legal elements of the crime.

---

Really bad analogy because this isn't remotely close to what happened.

Paying her to keep quiet with non-campaign funds isn't violating any campaign laws or any other laws for that matter. As Alan Derschowitz said...hush payments aren't against the law.

It got labeled legal fees. That's what they were. Now if it was labeled "campaign fee", then I think you would have a legitimate case, especially if it was paid using campaign dollars. But it wasn't.

will25u said:

---

So the only way this can be tied to Trump(I guess?) is for Cohen to say that Trump told him to come up with the money to pay the $130k for the story and then we will repay you through the Trump org?

And sorry if I am way behind, IANAL and have been half paying attention as I am very busy in my personal/business life.

---

Here's the problem with that. Stormy's lawyer, Keith Davidson, testified differently. He was pesturing Cohen when Cohen was late on transmitting the payment in the few weeks leading to the election. According to Davidson, Cohen told him that he (Cohen) could not reach Trump while he was out campaigning and then further said he (Cohen) would "just handle it" himself.

That was corroborated in part by Farro, Cohen's banker. Cohen was insisting that a new account for Essential Consultants be opened immediately, that a wire from Cohen's home equity line of credit be transferred into that account in the amount of $130,000, also immediately. Within 24 hours, account was opened, received the HELOC funds and then wired out to Keith Davidson's designated account number.

Farro's information from Cohen was that this was for some real estate related deal. nothing to do with Trump, nor Trump's campaign as that would have alarmed him and his bank's internal procedures would require much more investigation before following Cohen's instructions.

Tramp96 said:

---

TXAggie2011 said:

---

TXAggie2011 said:

---

Tony Franklins Other Shoe said:

---

TXAggie2011 said:

---

And I think the conspiracy explanation above is pretty good. Lots of people get dinged for conspiracy to commit a crime even though they're not charged with that crime for some reason.

---

Is that like the get away driver even though he was never inside pulling the trigger or robbing the store?

---

In that universe, yes. I'm sure folks have her words like aid, abet, accessory, perjury, obstruction, tampering, etc.

We have a whole universe of crimes that relate to the "cover up."

---

To add to this, let's take Trump or the specific facts of this case out of the equation for a minute.

I own a business, and I donate $1 million bucks to a campaign, even though I know that's well above legal campaign limits. I do this, knowing I am breaking federal election law. My accountant hears about this, so he goes in makes up $1 million in business losses to explain where that $1 million went and hide that I broke campaign finance laws.

He's falsified business records to conceal my violation of law. If that case came down the pipe, this board wouldn't bat an eye if my accountant got dinged for a felony, I bet.

I think most would agree its a perfectly understandable and valid law if they take the emotion and politics out of it for a minute.

Whether the state can prove Trump himself intended to conceal something, that's another issue I've said I have questions about. But again, meeting the burden of proof is a whole different animal than the underlying legal elements of the crime.

---

Really bad analogy because this isn't remotely close to what happened.

Paying her to keep quiet isn't violating any campaign laws or any other laws for that matter. As Alan Derschowitz said...hush payments aren't against the law.

It got labeled legal fees. That's what they were. Now if it was labeled "campaign fee", then I think you would have a legitimate case, especially if it was paid using campaign dollars. But it wasn't.

---

Its almost exactly what happened if they determine the payment was actually, in fact a campaign contribution.

But I don't any other way than how I said it above that I'm not talking about whether the facts in this case amount to a violation or not but rather the prudence of the law itself.