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

601,505 Views | 6807 Replies | Last: 1 day ago by Stat Monitor Repairman
aggiehawg
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to DannyDuberstein • 11:01a, 5/29/24
AG
DannyDuberstein said:
Truly nuts that FECA is included when not being given the opportunity to defend himself against it. What a politically motivated travesty this whole thing is. Ugly day for our country
And that as a state court judge, he doesn't even have jurisdiction over a federal criminal matter involving FECA.

As Andy McCarthy points out, had Merchan pulled such a stunt with an honest AG the SDNY would be filing all kinds of motions to take it away from him and stop it. But Garland is corrupt and has directed them not to interfere.
Reply Quote
15
1 edit
AustinAg2K
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to txags92 • 11:07a, 5/29/24
txags92 said:
SwigAg11 said:
pacecar02 said:
just curious

Did the prosecution ever offer evidence of how the records should have been entered into the books?

I've been wondering myself if the prosecution ever offered how they should have been classified. Reimbursement, if that was an option in their accounting system?
Ok, so lets think about this. The state's contention is that the money was not "legal services", but instead "hush money" and should have been recorded some other way. So if Cohen had paid out of his pocket for a former intelligence operative to make up a bunch of salacious stories about Trump's political opponent and then shop them around to the media, would that be legal services? If he paid his lawyer to draw up a routine non-disclosure agreement that the lawyer paid for and then invoiced the client for, how is that not "legal services"? Lawyers do that all the time! They pay for things and then bill the client for them. Why is this one instance required to be treated differently?
I think the prosecution would say they should have been marked as a campaign expense, although, I don't think they ever spelled that out specifically.
Reply Quote
4
txags92
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to aggiehawg • 11:08a, 5/29/24
AG
aggiehawg said:
DannyDuberstein said:
Truly nuts that FECA is included when not being given the opportunity to defend himself against it. What a politically motivated travesty this whole thing is. Ugly day for our country
And that as a state court judge, he doesn't even have jurisdiction over a federal criminal matter involving FECA.

As Andy McCarthy points out, had Merchan pulled such a stunt with an honest AG the SDNY would be filinf all kinds of motions to take it away from him and stop it. But Garland is corrupt and has directed them not to interfere.
He didn't just tell them not to interfere, he sent his #3 guy in the DOJ there to work for them to make sure they got a conviction by any means necessary.
Reply Quote
25
Ellis Wyatt
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to txags92 • 11:09a, 5/29/24
txags92 said:
SwigAg11 said:
pacecar02 said:
If he paid his lawyer to draw up a routine non-disclosure agreement that the lawyer paid for and then invoiced the client for, how is that not "legal services"? Lawyers do that all the time! They pay for things and then bill the client for them. Why is this one instance required to be treated differently?
Let's ask Hillary Clinton how to categorize it correctly, She obviously knows.
Reply Quote
15
txags92
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to AustinAg2K • 11:11a, 5/29/24
AG
AustinAg2K said:
txags92 said:
SwigAg11 said:
pacecar02 said:
just curious

Did the prosecution ever offer evidence of how the records should have been entered into the books?

I've been wondering myself if the prosecution ever offered how they should have been classified. Reimbursement, if that was an option in their accounting system?
Ok, so lets think about this. The state's contention is that the money was not "legal services", but instead "hush money" and should have been recorded some other way. So if Cohen had paid out of his pocket for a former intelligence operative to make up a bunch of salacious stories about Trump's political opponent and then shop them around to the media, would that be legal services? If he paid his lawyer to draw up a routine non-disclosure agreement that the lawyer paid for and then invoiced the client for, how is that not "legal services"? Lawyers do that all the time! They pay for things and then bill the client for them. Why is this one instance required to be treated differently?
I think the prosecution would say they should have been marked as a campaign expense, although, I don't think they ever spelled that out specifically.
Even if he marked it as a campaign expense, there is no limit to what he can contribute to his own campaign and it happened after the election, so where is the crime? What was he covering up? Was he supposed to reimburse Cohen for the expense before Cohen sent him an invoice for it? Is it routine for businesses to send checks to reimburse people before receiving an invoice for services? (Rhetorical question)
Reply Quote
8
Ellis Wyatt
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to txags92 • 11:12a, 5/29/24
txags92 said:

Even if he marked it as a campaign expense, there is no limit to what he can contribute to his own campaign and it happened after the election, so where is the crime? What was he covering up? Was he supposed to reimburse Cohen for the expense before Cohen sent him an invoice for it? Is it routine for businesses to send checks to reimburse people before receiving an invoice for services? (Rhetorical question)
This is why they refused to let Brad Smith testify to clarify election law. They just let the prosecutor, Cohen, and Merchan do it for the jury.
Reply Quote
13
Funky Winkerbean
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Ellis Wyatt • 11:15a, 5/29/24
AG
Ellis Wyatt said:
txags92 said:

Even if he marked it as a campaign expense, there is no limit to what he can contribute to his own campaign and it happened after the election, so where is the crime? What was he covering up? Was he supposed to reimburse Cohen for the expense before Cohen sent him an invoice for it? Is it routine for businesses to send checks to reimburse people before receiving an invoice for services? (Rhetorical question)
This is why they refused to let Brad Smith testify to clarify election law. They just let the prosecutor, Cohen, and Merchan do it for the jury.


Was any reasoning provided for why they wouldn't let defense call Smith in for testimony?
Reply Quote
2
Stat Monitor Repairman
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
11:17a, 5/29/24


[WASHINGTON DC - MAY 29: White House watches live feed as deliberation begins in trial of former U.S. President Donald Trump's hush money trial at Manhattan in New York City. Closing (Photo by Julia Nikhinson-Pool/Getty Images)]
Reply Quote
18
1 edit
txags92
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Funky Winkerbean • 11:18a, 5/29/24
AG
Funky Winkerbean said:
Ellis Wyatt said:
txags92 said:

Even if he marked it as a campaign expense, there is no limit to what he can contribute to his own campaign and it happened after the election, so where is the crime? What was he covering up? Was he supposed to reimburse Cohen for the expense before Cohen sent him an invoice for it? Is it routine for businesses to send checks to reimburse people before receiving an invoice for services? (Rhetorical question)
This is why they refused to let Brad Smith testify to clarify election law. They just let the prosecutor, Cohen, and Merchan do it for the jury.


Was any reasoning provided for why they wouldn't let defense call Smith in for testimony?
Because he might convince the jury there was no crime.
Reply Quote
22
aggiehawg
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Funky Winkerbean • 11:19a, 5/29/24
AG
Quote:
Was any reasoning provided for why they wouldn't let defense call Smith in for testimony?
Merchan said he didn't want "to confuse the jury" with the implication being that he considered the FECA stuff as extraneous to this case. IOW, Merchan was lying through his teeth.
Reply Quote
24
Maroon Dawn
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to aggiehawg • 11:22a, 5/29/24
AG
aggiehawg said:
Quote:
Was any reasoning provided for why they wouldn't let defense call Smith in for testimony?
Merchan said he didn't want "to confuse the jury" with the implication being that he considered the FECA stuff as extraneous to this case. IOW, Merchan was lying through his teeth.


This by itself should get this case thrown out but as we all know they don't care, this is 100% to buy the Biden campaign 6 months of screaming the lie of "convicted felon"
Reply Quote
7
SwigAg11
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
11:22a, 5/29/24
AG
I take it the jurors are now in deliberations?
Reply Quote
4
Funky Winkerbean
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to aggiehawg • 11:27a, 5/29/24
AG
aggiehawg said:
Quote:
Was any reasoning provided for why they wouldn't let defense call Smith in for testimony?
Merchan said he didn't want "to confuse the jury" with the implication being that he considered the FECA stuff as extraneous to this case. IOW, Merchan was lying through his teeth.


Isn't that obstruction?
Reply Quote
5
AustinAg2K
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to SwigAg11 • 11:29a, 5/29/24
SwigAg11 said:
I take it the jurors are now in deliberations?
I think they're watching "A Time to Kill" to get into the right mood first.
Reply Quote
5
VegasAg86
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to AustinAg2K • 11:34a, 5/29/24
AG
AustinAg2K said:
SwigAg11 said:
I take it the jurors are now in deliberations?
I think they're watching "A Time to Kill" to get into the right mood first.
Now, imagine the defendant is Joe Biden.

Reply Quote
16
backintexas2013
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
11:37a, 5/29/24
AG
Fair warning if he is found guilty a ton of socks from the likes of two teas, starting a conversation, Art Briles supporter, Texags is racist poster, etc… are going to show up. Their intention is to get you banned. Don't fall for it.
Reply Quote
26
Stat Monitor Repairman
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
11:37a, 5/29/24


Is this the bailiff who will take Trump into custody?
Reply Quote
5
VegasAg86
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Stat Monitor Repairman • 11:40a, 5/29/24
AG
Stat Monitor Repairman said:


Is this the bailiff who will take Trump into custody?
lol, De Niro was wearing a surgical mask OUTSIDE before he gave his TDS fueled rant outside of the courthouse yesterday.
Reply Quote
5
aggiehawg
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Funky Winkerbean • 11:46a, 5/29/24
AG
Funky Winkerbean said:
aggiehawg said:
Quote:
Was any reasoning provided for why they wouldn't let defense call Smith in for testimony?
Merchan said he didn't want "to confuse the jury" with the implication being that he considered the FECA stuff as extraneous to this case. IOW, Merchan was lying through his teeth.


Isn't that obstruction?
Might even consider it jury tampering but judges are allowed to tamper with juries. He'll be investigated by the state judicial conduct board and rebuked for his egregious behavior in this trial at some point in the future. There are already ethics complaints against him.
Reply Quote
12
Rockdoc
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
11:47a, 5/29/24
AG
Well either I haven't been paying close enough attention or I'm just getting too old, but has the judge structured this so it can't likely be a hung jury?
Reply Quote
4
jrdaustin
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to aggiehawg • 11:49a, 5/29/24
AG
aggiehawg said:
Quote:
I think they are trying to claim the Catch and Kill payments from AMI are the campaign contributions. Not the Stormy deal.
No it is both. that is what Steinglass said in his summation yesterday.
So how does that square with prior legal precedent with regard to John Edwards?
Reply Quote
5
SwigAg11
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Rockdoc • 11:49a, 5/29/24
AG
Rockdoc said:
Well either I haven't been paying close enough attention or I'm just getting too old, but has the judge structured this so it can't likely be a hung jury?

A hung jury is always possible if 1 juror thinks there was reasonable doubt about the expense entries.
Reply Quote
4
Ellis Wyatt
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Maroon Dawn • 11:50a, 5/29/24
Maroon Dawn said:
aggiehawg said:
Quote:
Was any reasoning provided for why they wouldn't let defense call Smith in for testimony?
Merchan said he didn't want "to confuse the jury" with the implication being that he considered the FECA stuff as extraneous to this case. IOW, Merchan was lying through his teeth.


This by itself should get this case thrown out but as we all know they don't care, this is 100% to buy the Biden campaign 6 months of screaming the lie of "convicted felon"
I am still waiting on Merchan to rule on a directed verdict. I am holding my breath.
Reply Quote
2
RafterAg223
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
11:50a, 5/29/24
AG
Extremely dark and sad time for this country right now, and I would be writing this even if the shoe were on the foot of a liberal dem politician that I really don't like. I could not in good conscience declare ANYONE guilty in a case of this national magnitude when I have zero clarity on what crime has even been purportedly committed. I pray that someone on this jury has a moment of clarity on this and decides that this is up to the electorate to rule on in November. This is really really bad.
Reply Quote
30
1 edit
TexAg1987
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
11:52a, 5/29/24
So in the event of a hung jury, does this judge step in and pronounce guilt?

Reply Quote
3
fasthorse05
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
11:54a, 5/29/24
Kind of a sidebar, but can a state judge be impeached?

Or would they just have to be disbarred?
Hate is how progressives sustain themselves. Without hate, introspection begins to slip into the progressive's consciousness, threatening the progressive with the truth: that their ideas and opinions are illogical, hypocritical, dangerous, and asinine.
This is backed by data.
Reply Quote
3
txags92
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Rockdoc • 11:54a, 5/29/24
AG
Rockdoc said:
Well either I haven't been paying close enough attention or I'm just getting too old, but has the judge structured this so it can't likely be a hung jury?
Probably keeping the alternates around in case there is a holdout that needs to be replaced for some made up "misconduct" so they can be sure they get their conviction. The prosecution probably already has a file on each of the jurors that they can give the judge to use to get rid of any juror that appears to be problematic.
Reply Quote
3
Aggie_John
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
11:56a, 5/29/24
AG
If there is 1 holdout on the jury, can the judge replace them with one of the alternates to get a verdict?
Reply Quote
2
aggiehawg
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to jrdaustin • 11:56a, 5/29/24
AG
jrdaustin said:
aggiehawg said:
Quote:
I think they are trying to claim the Catch and Kill payments from AMI are the campaign contributions. Not the Stormy deal.
No it is both. that is what Steinglass said in his summation yesterday.
So how does that square with prior legal precedent with regard to John Edwards?
It doesn't square with anything. Merchan just allowed it for no reason.
Reply Quote
3
txags92
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to TexAg1987 • 11:57a, 5/29/24
AG
TexAg1987 said:
So in the event of a hung jury, does this judge step in and pronounce guilt?

Normally, he would not be able to do that. But with the motion for a directed verdict hanging out there unresolved, the legal folks would have to weigh in on whether the judge could use that to rule in favor of a directed guilty verdict on the basis of the prosecution's response brief.
Reply Quote
1
txags92
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Aggie_John • 11:59a, 5/29/24
AG
Aggie_John said:
If there is 1 holdout on the jury, can the judge replace them with one of the alternates to get a verdict?
Not just for holding out. They would have to have some kind of misconduct to remove them...relying on forbidden evidence to try to reach his conclusions, bringing in facts from outside of what was presented during the trial, etc. Although with this judge, holding out against a guilty verdict probably would be considered misconduct.
Reply Quote
7
Tramp96
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to txags92 • 12:00p, 5/29/24
txags92 said:
Aggie_John said:
If there is 1 holdout on the jury, can the judge replace them with one of the alternates to get a verdict?
Not just for holding out. They would have to have some kind of misconduct to remove them...relying on forbidden evidence to try to reach his conclusions, bringing in facts from outside of what was presented during the trial, etc. Although with this judge, holding out against a guilty verdict probably would be considered misconduct.

Yep, nothing would surprise me at this point. Boss Hogg of Hazard County had more scruples than this judge.
Reply Quote
4
1 edit
Wabs
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
12:02p, 5/29/24
AG
So if/when they say he's guilty, will they oblige the public of the crime he's guilty of? Or just nah?
Reply Quote
1
aggiehawg
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
12:04p, 5/29/24
AG
The deputies or bailiffs in charge of the jury are not allowed in the deliberation room but are right outside the door. If there is any yelling or shouting they will report that to the judge. Also when they deliver their lunch to them, they will note who is sitting next whom and whether their demeanor is friendly and cooperative towards one another or if there is discord between the jurors.
Reply Quote
4
Tramp96
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Wabs • 12:04p, 5/29/24
Wabs said:
So if/when they say he's guilty, will they oblige the public of the crime he's guilty of? Or just nah?

Nope. They'll just gone on and on about the rule of law, how no man is above the law, justice was served, yada yada yada.
Reply Quote
4
First Page Last Page
Page 147 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.