Bodington
Virgin
- Joined
- Oct 21, 2009
- Posts
- 240
I challenge all you Trump Haters to imagine if you and I were on the jury of the Trump hush money trial, how you would have persuaded me to convict vis à vis to my efforts to convince you to acquit. Assuming I had residence, I admit I probably would have been denied entry, but because I have virtually no social media presence the prosecutor might have inadvertently allowed me in.
Now the case revolves around a hush money payment to porn star Stormy Daniels who alleged that she and Trump had a one night stand way back in 2006. I can think we can all agree that consensual sex with a porn star is not a crime. Now after the Hollywood access tape became public knowledge in Oct 2016 Ms Daniels apparently threatened to expose their 2006 tryst. As a result, Trump’s lawyer at the time, Michael Cohen, paid $130,000 out of his own funds to Ms Daniels after signing a non disclosure agreement (NDA) to not reveal the purposes of why she received these monies.
Executing an NDA is not illegal, instead its rather ubiquitous amongst prominent persons to avoid public embarrassment or humiliation. In fact the reason Ms Daniels owes Trump $500,000 is by court order that found she had violated that NDA.
Now Cohen alleges that in a telephone conversation with himself, Trump and the chief officer of the Trump organization agreed to pay off Daniels in order for her to keep quiet. As a result of that agreement Cohen out of his own funds paid the $130,000 to Daniels by taking out a second mortgage on his house.
First of all, Cohen was testifying as a result of immunity granted by the prosecutor to provide this story. One thing that strikes me about this story is that since Cohen was Trump’s lawyer by testifying, he was violating attorney-client privilege. Of course, since he has already been disbarred no further punishment will visit upon him. But it is horrifying to contemplate that the prosecution allowed this testimony in. No longer can lawyers in the United States or at least in the state of New York assure absolute confidentiality to their clients. Doing away with the safety net of the attorney-client privilege will surely wreak havoc on the judicial system. And that I submit is an inevitable negative consequence as a result of this trial.
Anyway, the point is can you believe Cohen’s veracity? Even setting aside that he is acknowledged to be a perjurer and during cross examination Cohen had to admit he had misspoken on another issue during his direct examination, there are two crucial points that makes Cohen’s testimony suspicious. Trump’s senior officer alleged to be in on the call was not asked to testify. One can infer that person’s testimony would not be so helpful to the prosecution or might even cast doubt that such telephone conversation occurred.
The other point is why did Cohen pay the money out of his own personal funds? I believe any other lawyer in that position, would have asked for Trump to shoot over the money into his trust fund in order to pay the porn star. It strikes me that it was more of a hassle to obtain a second mortgage to pay of Daniels than it would have simply been to ask Trump for the money. It certainly casts doubts on Cohen story or even that the telephone conversation transpired as he alleged.
Now the prosecution maintains the recording of the payment in the Trump organization ledger was a false entry. That apparently is a New York crime, a misdemeanor already barred by the statute of limitations. But even so how in the hell did Trump falsify his business records? Cohen presented a bill from which he got reimbursed as legal expenses. How else could the payment be described in the accounts of the Trump organization other than a legal expense?
Does this mean in the description of the check should there have been the notation “Hush money payment to Stormy Daniels”. Should Cohen in rendering his bill have contained lurid details of the expenses he had incurred to justify the bill? The only reasonable conclusion is that it was a legitimate expense not an illegal one.
Even if you believe beyond a reasonable doubt that Trump’s business records were falsified, the prosecution still has to prove that this expired crime was committed in conjunction with a felony crime. And what was the felony crime? During the trial the prosecutor did not specify the felony they believed Trump committed until their final summation in which they offered three crimes that Trump might have committed.
The Judge in his jury instructions compounded the confusion. In that the jury could pick any one of the three crimes and they don’t have to be unanimous in any one of them so long as each jury member believed beyond a reasonable doubt, he committed one of these crimes. In other words four jury members could conclude Trump committed crime “A” and believe he did not commit crime “B” or “C”. Then four other jury members can conclude he committed crimes “B” but not crimes “A” or “C”. And thus the other four members of the jury can conclude he committed crime “C” but not crimes “A” or “B”. That surely flies in the face of unanimous requirement for conviction of a crime.
The three crimes? Well first it was suggested, it could have been a tax violation for submitting a false improper deduction. As I pointed out earlier it was a legitimate deduction and IRS would have recouped the taxable amount of this money as it would have been taxed against Cohen’s income.
The second possible crime was violation of federal campaign finance laws. Aside from the obvious fact that this is a state court that has no jurisdiction in determining federal crimes, which was blithely ignored by this trial judge, he denied the defense a witness who was a former head of the Federal Elections Commission who would have testified that there was no violation of campaign financing laws by the Trump organization. The Commission had looked into the matter in 2018 and decided against prosecution.
The third possible crime is alleged election interference in depriving the voters the knowledge of this hush money payment. That has to be the most laughable allegation of all. If the exposure of the access Hollywood tapes did not sink Trump’s candidacy, then this peccadillo surely would not have moved the needle. Besides Trump lost New York by a wide margin so by definition it did not affect the outcome and this supposed crime did occur in New York after all.
So OK Trump haters. Tell me what crime did Trump commit?
Now the case revolves around a hush money payment to porn star Stormy Daniels who alleged that she and Trump had a one night stand way back in 2006. I can think we can all agree that consensual sex with a porn star is not a crime. Now after the Hollywood access tape became public knowledge in Oct 2016 Ms Daniels apparently threatened to expose their 2006 tryst. As a result, Trump’s lawyer at the time, Michael Cohen, paid $130,000 out of his own funds to Ms Daniels after signing a non disclosure agreement (NDA) to not reveal the purposes of why she received these monies.
Executing an NDA is not illegal, instead its rather ubiquitous amongst prominent persons to avoid public embarrassment or humiliation. In fact the reason Ms Daniels owes Trump $500,000 is by court order that found she had violated that NDA.
Now Cohen alleges that in a telephone conversation with himself, Trump and the chief officer of the Trump organization agreed to pay off Daniels in order for her to keep quiet. As a result of that agreement Cohen out of his own funds paid the $130,000 to Daniels by taking out a second mortgage on his house.
First of all, Cohen was testifying as a result of immunity granted by the prosecutor to provide this story. One thing that strikes me about this story is that since Cohen was Trump’s lawyer by testifying, he was violating attorney-client privilege. Of course, since he has already been disbarred no further punishment will visit upon him. But it is horrifying to contemplate that the prosecution allowed this testimony in. No longer can lawyers in the United States or at least in the state of New York assure absolute confidentiality to their clients. Doing away with the safety net of the attorney-client privilege will surely wreak havoc on the judicial system. And that I submit is an inevitable negative consequence as a result of this trial.
Anyway, the point is can you believe Cohen’s veracity? Even setting aside that he is acknowledged to be a perjurer and during cross examination Cohen had to admit he had misspoken on another issue during his direct examination, there are two crucial points that makes Cohen’s testimony suspicious. Trump’s senior officer alleged to be in on the call was not asked to testify. One can infer that person’s testimony would not be so helpful to the prosecution or might even cast doubt that such telephone conversation occurred.
The other point is why did Cohen pay the money out of his own personal funds? I believe any other lawyer in that position, would have asked for Trump to shoot over the money into his trust fund in order to pay the porn star. It strikes me that it was more of a hassle to obtain a second mortgage to pay of Daniels than it would have simply been to ask Trump for the money. It certainly casts doubts on Cohen story or even that the telephone conversation transpired as he alleged.
Now the prosecution maintains the recording of the payment in the Trump organization ledger was a false entry. That apparently is a New York crime, a misdemeanor already barred by the statute of limitations. But even so how in the hell did Trump falsify his business records? Cohen presented a bill from which he got reimbursed as legal expenses. How else could the payment be described in the accounts of the Trump organization other than a legal expense?
Does this mean in the description of the check should there have been the notation “Hush money payment to Stormy Daniels”. Should Cohen in rendering his bill have contained lurid details of the expenses he had incurred to justify the bill? The only reasonable conclusion is that it was a legitimate expense not an illegal one.
Even if you believe beyond a reasonable doubt that Trump’s business records were falsified, the prosecution still has to prove that this expired crime was committed in conjunction with a felony crime. And what was the felony crime? During the trial the prosecutor did not specify the felony they believed Trump committed until their final summation in which they offered three crimes that Trump might have committed.
The Judge in his jury instructions compounded the confusion. In that the jury could pick any one of the three crimes and they don’t have to be unanimous in any one of them so long as each jury member believed beyond a reasonable doubt, he committed one of these crimes. In other words four jury members could conclude Trump committed crime “A” and believe he did not commit crime “B” or “C”. Then four other jury members can conclude he committed crimes “B” but not crimes “A” or “C”. And thus the other four members of the jury can conclude he committed crime “C” but not crimes “A” or “B”. That surely flies in the face of unanimous requirement for conviction of a crime.
The three crimes? Well first it was suggested, it could have been a tax violation for submitting a false improper deduction. As I pointed out earlier it was a legitimate deduction and IRS would have recouped the taxable amount of this money as it would have been taxed against Cohen’s income.
The second possible crime was violation of federal campaign finance laws. Aside from the obvious fact that this is a state court that has no jurisdiction in determining federal crimes, which was blithely ignored by this trial judge, he denied the defense a witness who was a former head of the Federal Elections Commission who would have testified that there was no violation of campaign financing laws by the Trump organization. The Commission had looked into the matter in 2018 and decided against prosecution.
The third possible crime is alleged election interference in depriving the voters the knowledge of this hush money payment. That has to be the most laughable allegation of all. If the exposure of the access Hollywood tapes did not sink Trump’s candidacy, then this peccadillo surely would not have moved the needle. Besides Trump lost New York by a wide margin so by definition it did not affect the outcome and this supposed crime did occur in New York after all.
So OK Trump haters. Tell me what crime did Trump commit?
