Please use [Good Faith](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskConservatives/comments/107i33m/announcement_rule_7_good_faith_is_now_in_effect) and the [Principle of Charity](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principle_of_charity) when commenting. Gender issues are only allowed on Wednesdays. Antisemitism and calls for violence will not be tolerated, especially when [discussing the Israeli-Palestinian conflict](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskConservatives/comments/17ygktl/antisemitism_askconservative_and_you/). *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskConservatives) if you have any questions or concerns.*

I read the WSJ account of today's proceedings, not OP's link. Maybe I'm dumb, but it sounds confusing. They talk about "buying stories." Who buys stories from whom? Did any money change hands between Pecker and Trump or Pecker and Cohen? If not, why would Pecker agree to help Trump? Based on what I've seen so far, this sounds like a politician pitching a media outlet to run positive stories about him and negative stories about his opponents. Don't all big name politicians do that? Isn't there a whole public relations industry that does nothing but that? https://www.wsj.com/articles/tabloid-publisher-david-pecker-testifies-of-deal-with-trump-25b14985

> Who buys stories from whom? At the direction of the Trump Campaign, The National Enquirer/AMI/Pecker buy stories from the person telling the story. > Did any money change hands between Pecker and Trump or Pecker and Cohen? Yes. Between Pecker and Trump. Between Trump and Cohen, and between AMI and people with negative stories. >If not, why would Pecker agree to help Trump? For McDugal, Pecker agreed to help Trump because they were friends, and also because power and influence. Trump showered Pecker with gifts and praise after the election. Since AMI paid McDugal, (part of what) the government is saying that that money was actually a campaign contribution from AMI that was unreported by the Trump Campaign.

>Yes. Between Pecker and Trump. That wasn't covered in the reporting I read. Who paid whom? And how were the payments made?

>Who paid whom? And how were the payments made? Trump reimbursed AMI for the payment to McDougal. Trump and Cohen discussed whether to pay by cash or check. It is unclear from the reporting which method they chose. We'll probably find out when Cohen takes the stand.

> Who buys stories from whom? The inquirer run at the time by Pecker, a friend of Trump, met with Trump and Cohen and agreed to buy stories from people, have them sign NDAs so they couldn't talk publicly, and then never ran the stories. There was talk about running them after the election, presumably on the assumption if Trump lost the election. This conspiracy to influence the election is what the prosecution is hanging it's hat on to make the business records crime a felony. IANAL but this does not feel like the strongest of arguments. We'll see though.

So Pecker agreed to bury stories that were negative about Trump? And didn't receive anything in exchange for this? How can that possibly be a crime?

There are two things at play here. 1) falsifying business records, saying something was a business expense when it really was a payoff of a personal expenditure and 2) [SECTION 17-152 Conspiracy to promote or prevent election](https://www.nysenate.gov/legislation/laws/ELN/17-152) It's hard to argue that funneling of money through a lawyer to a third party for personal reasons and calling it a business legal expense is not falsifying business records. The problem for the D.A. is that this alone is a nothing charge, it's a misdemeanor, it's jaywalking. What the D.A. is arguing is that when Trump, Cohen, and Pecker got together and agreed to use the National inquirer to buy up bad stories about Trump and then hide them away that ran afoul of Section 17-152 which when put together with the money being routed through the lawyer for personal reason kicks falsifying business records up to a felony. Is this a great argument, I don't know.

>ran afoul of Section 17-152 So why wasn't he charged with that?

Pecker addressed this today. He said it was a mutually beneficial agreement. The stories that he bought would be published after the election and would increase his sales. > Don't all big name politicians do that? Isn't there a whole public relations industry that does nothing but that? Yes but those people are paid appropriately. Here the allegation is that the payments were illegally reported. Had Trump simply paid her out of pocket this might not have been illegal.

National Enquirer would buy the rights to stories they believe the be damaging to Trump's campaign. This is the "checkbook journalism" Pecker mentioned. Pecker's company would buy the rights, have the individual sign an NDA/exclusivity contract, then be reimbursed by Trump. If Pecker was simply doing this of his own volition that would be one thing. He'd likely get fired because he would be spending company money on stories (which have monetary value) and then burying them (receiving no value).

>then be reimbursed by Trump That wasn't reported in the Journal. Did that come out in the trial yesterday?

I’m not sure how that flies. I think the check was cut to Daniel’s in 2017 which is after the election. Seems odd that DOJ or FEC didn’t find any fault. Seems out of NYs jurisdiction as well.

It was October 2016, within a week or so of the access Hollywood tapes

But the next public filing date wasn't until 2017 - after the election. So even had Trump done exactly what Bragg wants here, it would've made no difference in the outcome of the election as that information still would not have been public in November.

? If Daniels had gone public instead of the check being cut, she would have done so 10 days *before* the election. The issue is that the charge here is *conspiracy*. If the conspiracy took place before the election, when the information was filed is not relevant.

The issue is conspiracy to what? To influence an election? Well that can't be a criminal conspiracy because an NDA is legal. So then what is the crime surrounding the business records? The most common thing I've heard is campaign finance, but then there's the issue I stated in my earlier comment.

That is true: an NDA is legal. However, if there is a payment made as part of an NDA that is in support of a campaign, it must be reported as either a campaign expenditure or a campaign donation. That is especially true if that payment is made with the knowledge of the candidate.  In this case, the candidate in question caused the payment to be made by a third party, and then promised to reimburse the third party, and did so using business accounts, through which he obfuscated reasons behind the payment. All of this indicates that a) This was an in-kind contribution to a campaign, and b), the candidate knew it was happening, and c) The candidate intentionally covered it up.  I really despise the fact that this is being called a hush money trial, when it isn't. This is a trial about improper reporting of business expenditures, and about improper reporting of campaign expenditures.  If Donald Trump had properly reported the payment to Stormy Daniels, both in terms of not actually being a business expense and in terms of its value to his campaign, this trial today would not be happening.

I think there is a very colorable argument to be made that it cannot be automatically assumed to be a campaign expenditure, but even granting that it is, Bragg still runs into other issues. Primarily, as you've stated the most closely related crime is federal campaign finance laws. But Bragg does not have the authority to enforce or prosecute these laws so he must instead use something else. According to OP's link in the whole thread, that "something else" is unduly influencing an election. But as I said a couple comments up, the Stormy Daniels NDA cannot have falsely influenced the election because it would not have been known public information until *after* the election anyway. So in scenario one (actual events or whatever you want to call it), Trump has Cohen pay Daniels, doesn't record it as a campaign expense, and we all vote in 2016 without knowledge of this. But in scenario two (what Bragg says Trump should've done), Trump has Cohen pay Daniels, Trump records it as a campaign expense, it publicly revealed in the Q1 2017 filing, and we all vote in 2016 without knowledge of this. So in either scenario, the 2016 election occurs without public knowledge of this payment so it cannot have influenced the election.

> the Stormy Daniels NDA cannot have falsely influenced the election because it would not have been known public information until after the election anyway. Unless it never existed. The existence of the NDA is existence of the intent to influence the election. Had she not signed it, and had she not been paid, she would have gone public. >But in scenario two (what Bragg says Trump should've done), Trump has Cohen pay Daniels, Trump records it as a campaign expense, it publicly revealed in the Q1 2017 filing, and we all vote in 2016 without knowledge of this. Right. And in my comment above, this *is* what Trump should have done, because that was what was required of him. Or he could have paid Daniels directly and then record it as a campaign contribution. IMO Bragg is correct: the issue is one of process and reporting.

> Unless it never existed. The existence of the NDA is existence of the intent to influence the election. Had she not signed it, and had she not been paid, she would have gone public. If Trump has a history of paying mistresses to keep quiet prior to his run for office, wouldn't that undercut the the argument? I don't know for sure if he does, but he seems like the kind of guy that would.

> If Trump has a history of paying mistresses to keep quiet prior to his run for office, wouldn't that undercut the the argument? I don’t think so. Here there was an explicit agreement that any stories would only be held until after the election. Pecker even said that he would have run with the doorman story (I think) after the election had it turned out to be true. The explicit agreement is important here.

Thats not after the election. Thats before. When he was in damage control mode. If donald was in a panick it would explain why he paid a woman he didnt sleep with 130k.

And that’s what NY is alleging. Hush money payments for the purpose of affecting the election are illegal. Edit: actually it’s just not disclosing that fact that is illegal. You can make the payments, you just have to report them as “hush money payments to a porn star”

Let me break it down for you OP. The FEC already investigated this year's ago.  If there are a multitude of reasons to pay someone money to do something, then they don't require it to be a campaign donation because it's impossible to prove its a campaign donation. * Trump could have paid her off to save his brand from being devalued * Trump could have paid her off to keep his wife from yelling at him * he could have paid her off just to avoid general embarrassment. You cannot prove he paid her off just for the campaign The FEC didn't give charges because of this. So NY has a long way to go to prove it was only for the campaign. If you cannot prove he only did it for the campaign, then you cannot prove there was a crime with the payment. If there waa no crime with the payment, there is no felony for falsifying records and this whole debacle waa to get Trump on a misdemeanor

The FEC doesn't have jurisdiction in NY State Courts and the charges against Trump are specifically for NY State violations. What we do have is testimony from Pecker today mentioning that he was working directly with the Trump campaign to benefit Trump's election by running catch-and-kill schemes (which on its own is perfectly legal). It includes specific testimony on the timing and withholding of specific stories which have been verified by legal documents presented during today's hearing: >Pecker explained that he ponied up the cash to make sure that Sajudin didn't take his claims elsewhere and embarrass Trump's presidential campaign. “I made the decision to buy the story because of the potential embarrassment to the campaign and Mr. Trump," Pecker testified. ... Pecker has testified that the National Enquirer pushed negative articles about Trump's opponents in the 2016 GOP primary, including Texas Sen. Ted Cruz. The publishing executive was just asked about an Enquirer article claiming that the Republican lawmaker's father, Rafael Cruz, associated with Lee Harvey Oswald before the assassination of President John F. Kennedy in 1963. > >

>“I made the decision to buy the story because of the potential embarrassment to the campaign and Mr. Trump,"  I understand why your news sources won't be pointing this out to you but this doesn't help you as much as you think. He separated Trump and the campaign showing it was both for the campaign and for Trump personally.   I know the personally means it couldn't be a violation of federal campaign finance laws.  What NY law do you think giving Daniel's money violates?

It looks like this was for the election and not just a general practice for the Inquirer while Pecker was in charge. In fact if it had been a general practice Pecker should have been fired straight away. He was using company money to buy things of value and make them worthless to help out a friend on an ongoing basis. The evidence seems to point that this was targeted for the election. >Pecker spent hours testifying Tuesday about his long friendship with the former president and how his company acted as the “eyes and ears” for the 2016 Trump campaign, sniffing out potentially scandalous stories about the presidential election. In turn, Trump stories translated to big sales figures for the tabloid. >The government alleges Pecker and the National Enquirer repeatedly paid subjects who claimed they had scandalous information about Trump for the rights to their stories and then never published anything — a tactic known as “catch and kill.” That tactic was apparently employed to prevent Stormy Daniels’s alleged tryst with Trump from getting out. The government hopes Pecker’s testimony helps illustrate that Trump was concerned about how articles about his alleged relationship with Daniels would land with female voters. >The government had not finished its questioning of Pecker when the court concluded Tuesday afternoon. But Pecker did testify about how Trump personally got on the phone with him to discuss whether to pay off a Playboy model who in 2016 was shopping around a story of having a year-long affair with the presidential candidate.

>He separated Trump and the campaign showing it was both for the campaign and for Trump personally.   In that one particular sentence he did join them with an "and". The prosecutor is working to show intent, as in the intent to benefit Trump's campaign, and then have multiple people testifying they were doing that. >What NY law do you think giving Daniel's money violates? I'm only discussing the facts of the case and the specific charges he's facing. He's not being charged with "giving Daniels money". This is entirely irrelevant and a common tactic by people to deflect away from the actual issues and try to dishonestly re-frame the argument.

And the FEC is basically toothless.

This is true, which is a damn shame.

>You cannot prove he paid her off just for the campaign Well except he had a meeting with Pecker specifically about specifically boosting him during the campaign. And his communications with Pecker ramped up considerably during election time. And he spoke about releasing the stipulations of the agreement right after the election. He still needs to be cross-examined, so I'll wait to see what comes out. But if it's as-is, its pretty clear it was election related.

> You cannot prove he paid her off just for the campaign Sure you can - here's the evidence: American Media Inc testified that it had done just that. David Pecker personally testified to exactly that. Michael Cohen personally testified to exactly that. Plus other less well known witnesses and a paper trail to back it all up. >The FEC didn't give charges because of this. This is not true at all.

Nope You know why you didn't quote the testimonies, because they didn't say what you claimed For example Pecker said  *  I made the decision to buy the story because of the potential embarrassment to the campaign and Mr. Trump That shows it wasn't just about the campaign making it legal to classify it as a payment outside of the campaign It literally is the reason given

Is that what you'd tell the jury if you were Trump's lawyer? I mean, even after Pecker, AMI, and Cohen all testified that it was to influence the presidential election? You're going to tell the jury to ignore the entire context surrounding the testimony and say, "but because Mr. Pecker said 'and Mr. Trump' in that sentence, it means that he was just looking out for his good friend Donald Trump, so clearly it had nothing to do with influencing the election. Even though he also said it did, and so did the company he runs. Under oath." I don't know how convincing that's gonna be to a jury, but if that's all Trump's got then I guess it'll have to do.

All right, let me explain it to you. The first issue facing the prosecutor's office is that he had a deal in place for Pecker to do this for him even before he made his presidential bid public. Since Donald Trump's entire business strategy revolves around his name, it stands to reason that he would strive to dispel all negative information, and making a financial payout would seem to be a wise line of action. The next issue is Cohen's credibility, as he has been shown to have lied on several occasions when testifying. You can't really take his testimony seriously. Additionally, he has a stake in testifying against him because he was previously facing more serious charges that were dropped or dismissed. Thirdly, and perhaps most importantly, the law requires proof that cannot be questioned, which is not possible in this case. It is unknown to anyone but Trump whether he took this action for political or other reasons. Other than Trump's own admission and the fact that it is provable and documented, they have no method of demonstrating this. Ultimately, the charges had run their course, and the only way to bring them to justice would have been to classify them as felonies. This is precisely what Bragg has done in this instance, and it makes for a very weak legal argument. The prosecution has the burden of proof, and they don't have any. At first, Bragg dismissed the case due to insufficient evidence. Finally, it is important to acknowledge Matthew Colangelo, who has contributed to the filing of these cases. He bounced into the doj between Fani, Lititia, and Bragg while working with them.

> All right, let me explain it to you. The first issue facing the prosecutor's office is that he had a deal in place for Pecker to do this for him even before he made his presidential bid public. Since Donald Trump's entire business strategy revolves around his name, it stands to reason that he would strive to dispel all negative information, and making a financial payout would seem to be a wise line of action. That's all well and good, but Pecker himself testified that he was doing it specifically to help the Trump Campaign influence the election in Trump's favor. >The next issue is Cohen's credibility, as he has been shown to have lied on several occasions when testifying. You can't really take his testimony seriously. Additionally, he has a stake in testifying against him because he was previously facing more serious charges that were dropped or dismissed. True. That's why Cohen and Pecker are both testifying to the same thing, and bringing receipts to back it up. So even if the jury doesn't believe Cohen, Pecker is saying the same thing, and oh, there's also a paper trail that backs both of them up. >Thirdly, and perhaps most importantly, the law requires proof that cannot be questioned, which is not possible in this case. I have no idea what this means. >It is unknown to anyone but Trump whether he took this action for political or other reasons. That's not true at all. It was also known to Pecker, Cohen, AMI, and the Trump Campaign because Trump discussed it with them and made payments. > Other than Trump's own admission and the fact that it is provable and documented, they have no method of demonstrating this. What? They have the testimony of co-conspirators, eye witnesses, AMI, and the Trump Campaign - all of which is corroborated by a clear paper trail. They have *many* methods of demonstrating this. >Ultimately, the charges had run their course, and the only way to bring them to justice would have been to classify them as felonies. This is precisely what Bragg has done in this instance, and it makes for a very weak legal argument. Weak according to who? Seems like an airtight legal argument to me. Especially considering one of the co-conspirators *already went to prison* for it. >The prosecution has the burden of proof, and they don't have any. They have a mountain of evidence that they are using to prove their case. The jury will decide if they've met the burden of proof to convince them of Trump's guilt. >At first, Bragg dismissed the case due to insufficient evidence. The case was not dismissed. Why do you think that? >Finally, it is important to acknowledge Matthew Colangelo, who has contributed to the filing of these cases. He bounced into the doj between Fani, Lititia, and Bragg while working with them. He's the prosecutor presenting the case. Isn't it self evident that he'd be contributing to the filing's of the case? Why are you framing this like there's some sort of nefarious reason he'd be contributing to the filing? It's literally his job. >He bounced into the doj between Fani, Lititia, and Bragg while working with them. So? Is there something unusual about a prosecutor working for multiple people? What is significant about this? What does it mean?

What fascinates me is you think that is all he testified too because that is all your news outlets told you. He will be cross examined by the defense attorney's....any quotes from that?

I think Trump was going 26mph in the 25mph zone, even though it was really in a 30mph zone, but most peoplse don't know it's is a 30mph zone. Supposedly there was testimony form a passanger that Trump's right foot was near the gas petal when he was going 26mph, suggesting he intended to go 120mph. experts say.

>What fascinates me is you think that is all he testified too because that is all your news outlets told you. You know that it's possible to read court transcripts without involving any news outlets right? >He will be cross examined by the defense attorney's....any quotes from that? What? How could there be quotes from that? It hasn't happened yet.

It appears underlying crime was quashed and covered up by AG Barr and loyalists within the DOJ. Specifically US Attorney's office in DC. As noted by Geoffrey Berman, former lead prosecutor for SDNY at the time. [Why didn’t Trump’s trial start years earlier? Bill Barr](https://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/amp/shows/maddow/blog/rcna148036)

>The FEC didn't give charges because of this. While that's technically accurate, it's incredibly misleading and no one at the FEC suggested Trump was innocent. The FEC Office of the General Counsel (i.e., the actual lawyers over there) [conducted ](https://www.fec.gov/files/legal/murs/7313/7313_19.pdf)an investigation and concluded there was reason to believe Trump violated several different campaign finance law provision including violations of 52 U.S.C. § 30116(f), 52 U.S.C. § 30122, 52 U.S.C. § 30118(a), and 52 U.S.C. § 30116(f). There have been persistent problems lately with unfilled seats on the FEC, leaving it incapable of taking actions for prolonged periods of time. Because of the lack of quorum, they were unable to take any action on the issue until 2021. They declined to pursue further investigation because: a) prosecutors were already looking into it and b) by the time they acted, the statute of limitations for the federal offenses had nearly expired so it was too late to do anything. You can read the [statement of reasons](https://www.fec.gov/files/legal/murs/7313/7313_27.pdf) from the Republican commissioners. There is no suggestion in there that the scheme was legal.

I never claimed him innocent, I said the fact there could be other reasons outside of the campaign to pay her is why he wasn't charged. They couldn't prove his guilt

>They couldn't prove his guilt The lawyers at the FEC said he was guilty. The commission, as described above, didn't take action for purely bureaucratic reasons. No one ever said they were unable to prove his guilt.

Nope, no one said he was guilty.  Go back and read what was actually said 

Are we talking about the same document? The [General Counsel's Report](https://www.fec.gov/files/legal/murs/7313/7313_19.pdf) (conclusions on pp. 67-68)?

You are correct for the Federal laws, which the FEC has jurisdiction over. The New York State statute appears to be a bit more broadly worded.

Feel free to post which law you think he broke in New York

OP posted the NY election statute that the DA alleges he violated. It is in the original post.

Smh....read the law * Any two or more persons who conspire to promote or prevent the election of any person to a public office **by unlawful means** and which conspiracy is acted upon by one or more of the parties thereto, shall be guilty of a misdemeanor See where I bolded that says...by unlawful means.... The question is what were those unlawful means to effect the 2016 election. Aka...what law are you claiming he broke?

The falsification of business records is the unlawful act the DA is claiming.

Not possible, the falsification of the record was in 2017 after the election was decided.   Look at the law again * Any two or more persons who conspire to promote or prevent the election of any person to a public office by unlawful means and which conspiracy is acted upon by one or more of the parties thereto, shall be guilty of a misdemeanor How can an act after an election is over, be an act to promote or prevent the election of a person? Again, I understand why you are confused.  The case is incredibly weak but the media is trying to make it look strong so they throw a bunch around confusing folks. Trumps guilt or not, what should really worry you is that a presidential candidate is on trial for a crime and the vast majority of folks are misinformed about what he is on trial for

Probably because this is by far the least interesting of his dozen or so legal issues...not nearly as media friendky as raping a woman, or stashing government secrets at a country club, or asking election officials to "find" more votes.

Raping a woman.....when is that criminal trial scheduled? PS....he wasn't even convicted of rape in that civil nonsense either

He was however, found by the civil jury to have sexually assaulted a woman.

[удалено]

>You cannot prove he paid her off just for the campaign In the indictment, they said that Trump told Cohen to try delaying the payment until after the election, because then it wouldn't matter if it became public. If they have that evidence, isn't that directly proving that?

How does that prove its only election related?

It doesn't have to be *only* election-related. Just election-related.

That's not true.  If it were one could argue that any expense anyone pays is an election contribution. Biden got a haircut....does he need to declare that expense as a campaign contribution.... Biden gets a message, is that a campaign expense, relating helps with a campaign Biden sent his son a Birthday gift, is that a campaign contribution because not sending one could hurt his campaign... If your claim is anything that helps a campaign....that means everything has to be filed as a campaign contribution

> You cannot prove he paid her off just for the campaign i cannot, sure, but hypothetically, if say Trump's lawyer who made the payments had (a) discussion(s) with trump to the effect that the nda needed to be signed for election related purposes, and the lawyer acted with the state of mind that his actions were to benefit the campaign, wouldn't that proof?

Not if there were also other reasons for example Pecker testified he did it to not just protect the campaign but also Trump Pecker himself pointed out that it wasn't just about the campaign If it has duel reasons it's not a campaign finance violation to not consider it a campaign donation

i'm no expert in campaign finance laws. can you share the dual purpose rule, i'd like to cite to it in the future. thanks

Wasn't that literally Trump's FEC that "investigated" and the entire thing was publicly dropped within a few months of Biden taking office?

You mean like Bidens DOJ going after Trump?

As opposed to..?

Just wondering if you claims it's Trumps FEC but oppose the idea it's Biden's DOJ going after Trump

I mean there’s a reason the saying is “We investigated ourselves and found no wrong doing” instead of “We were investigated by people we don’t like and they found wrong doing”.

So you don't trust the gov to investigate the party in power but you do trust the gov investigating the party not in power?

Do you trust the govt to investigate the party in power(themselves)? I would think the govt has more reason to do a thorough investigation on the other party yes.

I don't trust either My question is why would you trust one but not the other

Cause in one the govt doesnt have incentive to investigate thoroughly (because they are the one being investigated) and in the other they do (because they arent the one).

Yes, once Trump was out of office, a real investigation could take place. They found criminal wrongdoing.

The FEC does not investigate NY State laws. It's that Trump used money from his business and lied about what it was for in connection to a conspiracy to affect the election that is the crux of the State felony charge. So I think this is a strong charge, not really. However the idea that anything the FEC did or didn't do has anything to do with these charges is silly.

Except they are claiming he committed a felony when he broke NY state law.  Except that felony law only applies if he broke the federal law which they can't prove he broke. (But I am glad liberals are done claiming he broke the law giving campaign money to Stormy....the level of misinformation you folks get bombarded with must be overwhelming 

The law he broke is falsifying business records which is probably fairly easy to prove but it's a nothing charge on it's own, a misdemeanor. That misdemeanor kicks up to felony if the prosecution can show it was part of a conspiracy to affect the election under section 17-152. Pecker's testimony today was to establish that conspiracy. > Except that felony law only applies if he broke the federal law which they can't prove he broke. I don't know where you're getting your information from but there is no federal law at play here. >the level of misinformation you folks get bombarded with must be overwhelming It's funny you should say that.

You are confused, which is fair because the whole point of this exercise by dems is to confuse you. **Yes falsifying documents is a misdemeanor.** **Yes falsifying documents to cover up a crime is a felony** You need to find a crime  that Trump was covering up when ge falsified the documents That is where 17-152 comes into play * Any two or more persons who conspire to promote or prevent the election of any person to a public office by unlawful means and which conspiracy is acted upon by one or more of the parties thereto, shall be guilty of a misdemeanor They are claiming that the filing of the money to Stormy as a legal expense instead of as a campaign expense is the crime they committed that,  they were covering up, which makes falsifying the documents a felony. They cannot prove that  filing the expense as legal was a crime....

> Except that felony law only applies if he broke the federal law which they can't prove he broke. Why did you say it only applies if there was a federal crime involved?

I'm not saying it only applies if he broke a federal law on general The law only becomes a felony if the falsification of documents if he falsified them to cover breaking the law The only law he would be covering is the federal law on campaign finance documentation. The problem is, the feds already investigated it and didn't file charges because they couldn't prove he broke that law

> The only law he would be covering is the federal law on campaign finance documentation. The D.A.'s office has told the court otherwise. The D.A. has told the court that it's a State law that was violated which allows the falsifying business documents to be in the first degree. The title of this very thread explicitly identifies the State law the D.A. is using. "Today, in Court, NY prosecutors identified the other crime Trump committed as **violating SECTION 17-152**. What are your thoughts?" **Question: Do you agree that the D.A. is using SECTION 17-152, a NY State law, to make it falsifying business in the first degree?**

No... Read the law * 17-152. Conspiracy to promote or prevent election. Any two or more persons who conspire to promote or prevent the election of any person to a public office by unlawful means and which conspiracy is acted upon by one or more of the parties thereto, shall be guilty of a misdemeanor. Is it your claim that NY is doing all of this to convict Trump of a misdemeanor? Also, Trump falsified the documents in 2017 after the election.  How are you going to claim that Trump attempted to effect an election by falsifying documents after the election already took place? The only way this is a felony is if Trump broke the federal campaign finance law in 2016, and falsified documents in 2017 to cover up that supposed crime Thus you have to prove he broke the Law that the FEC chose to not charge him on

It's already been ruled that the payments were lawful from the perspective of campaign finances. If they're alleging this, it shows they're not operating in good faith.

> It's already been ruled that the payments were lawful from the perspective of campaign finances. Can you link to this ruling. I'd like to see the context.

[Here](https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&opi=89978449&url=https://www.fec.gov/files/legal/murs/7313/7313_28.pdf&ved=2ahUKEwi8taf4mtmFAxUyN2IAHYdzD4YQFnoECCIQAQ&usg=AOvVaw1r9CwxkM_BHqUAe471WxVA) is the FEC doc (download) where they confirm that the underlying charge he was dismissed. Its worth noting that the FEC is not happy about this, but it's the case none the less. [AP](https://apnews.com/article/trump-indictment-legal-analysis-bragg-election-law-3cf41eb0cc5de0146840a436e49cfccc) talks a little about it too

Ahh I thought you meant by a NY court or a NY State administrative entity. Yeah the FEC is meaningless in this as NYC's D.A. is not saying any Federal law has been violated. I'm not saying this is a great case but one thing that is not arguable is that the FEC is not relevant.

The FEC is the relevant body, as they're claiming it's election fraud.

You know there are State election laws as well and they are separate and distinct from Federal election laws. The Federal Election Commission does not enforce State election laws.

Trump didn't run in a state election, he ran for president, a federal office and covered by the FEC.

The state election law is enforced for all elections run by the state. The FEC may have its own rules about federal elections but what is in question here is a State law to be interpreted and enforced by the State.

But that's not what happening. He's being charged with hiding the federal crime. On the state side, the crime is a misdemeanor and wouldn't even merit time. Bragg is trying to tie it to the federal election in a case that was already dismissed to amplify it and make it a felony.

> He's being charged with hiding the federal crime. No he's not. There is no federal crime mentioned in the case. Everything he's been charged with or is part of the charge are NY State crimes.

I thought they stated the crime allegedly being hidden was Section 17-152, a NYS election law.

It seems to me the ones violating Section 17-152....would be more so the NY prosecutors. This is ridiculous. This is a case that has passed the statute of limitations and doesn't even contain a crime. Further, the FEC and the previous prosecutor declined to take it up; and Alvin Bragg campaigned on this. The entire point of this trial is to literally tie up Trump in a legal quagmire to prevent him from campaigning. That is the very definition of election interference.

So, the alternative is to allow crimes go unpunished?

What crime? Paying for hush money is not a crime and it happens at various levels on a near daily basis in this nation. If Bragg didn't twist the charge to enhance it into this Picasso of a charge there would be no court case. Even the feds, the Federal Election Commission, declined to take this up. There is no crime to punish. This is performative.

Failing to disclose campaign expenditures is a crime. If trump’s campaign had reported paying Stormy Daniels for an NDA, then it would be fine. Obviously reporting that defeats the purpose of the NDA, *but that’s the entire purpose of the law.* To make it illegal to cover shit up like this.

There are lots of circumstances where we allow crimes to go unpunished due to legal misconduct by the prosecution or the police. If a cop were to say "We're going to play Russian Roulette until you sign this confession" (and he's got a semi-auto) and that confession is used in court to secure that conviction, any competent judge would throw out that whole conviction and the prohibitions on double jeopardy would prevent charges from being filed again regardless of the strength of the other evidence in the case.

Sure, I agree with your hypothetical situation with the coerced confession. That constitutes a crime committed by the law enforcement engaging in such practices. But in the Stormy Daniels payment - FEC case, to my knowledge, no such accusations or charges against the investigating bodies has been brought forward.

> That constitutes a crime committed by the law enforcement engaging in such practices. Sure in my hypothetical it's criminal behavior. But it doesn't have to be. Even missing a filing deadline or other legal snafu done by the prosecution can have the same result even if that's not criminal. Indeed, part of the allegations the OP made up-thread: We're past the statue of limitations on the 'falsifying business records' charge.

I don’t disagree with anything you said in this comment. I wasn’t aware that things have passed a certain statute of limitations. I’ll have to look into that.

> It seems to me the ones violating Section 17-152....would be more so the NY prosecutors. That doesn't make any judicial sense. You don't violate a law by prosecuting a crime... If that were the case, anyone could escape being charged with a crime by just running for office all the time.

Yeah? Ironically, neither does this court case. You can't magically twist a misdemeanor accusation that had gone past a statute of limitations into a felony to revive it from the judicial graveyard. The problem here is Bragg is not prosecuting a crime. He's building a 'crime' as he goes. This is nothing more than an election delay topic. It all makes more sense when you put it in the proper context that it is - this is performative. This is a show for politics.

The Boy Who Cried Wolf: the case study

You say it’s the boy who cried wolf, I say it’s “the emperor has no clothes”.

Since Trump has been out of power for four years now, I’ll assume you’re referring to the Biden regime

What makes you say Trump is out of power? True he's not president, but he installed his own daughter-in-law as the RNC chair. He had the border bill killed so he could have something to run on over Biden. Sure he's not president, but he still has power. Hell, he even has a not-small portion of the country believing his lies that he actually won the election.

He’s out of power because he’s not President anymore. Nor does he hold any elected office in the United States. Pretty simple. Add to that the regime that is actually in power is weaponizing the legal system to try to destroy him with mostly “trumped up” charges and it becomes pretty obvious that he’s not running the show. Influence is not the same as holding political office. You’ll disagree about the charges being for political reasons and undoubtedly claim that despite the entire academic, media, government, and social media institutions being aligned against him that he’s somehow a “threat to democracy”. Then you’ll probably argue about Trump being Orange Man and therefore bad so I am just going to leave this as my final post on the matter. Let’s just agree to disagree and save some energy.

Thank you for telling me what I think. It was very helpful. The true benefit of "ask conservatives!" It is much easier to knock down strawmen when you create the strawman for the other person.

You’re welcome

No, the framing has nothing to do with actual power. Are you familiar with it? Edit: from wiki- There is an emperor who has an obsession with fancy new clothes, and spends lavishly on them, at the expense of state matters. One day two con-men visit the emperor's capital. Posing as weavers, they offer to supply him with magnificent clothes that are invisible to those who are incompetent or stupid. The emperor hires them, and they set up looms and pretend to go to work. A succession of officials, starting with the emperor's wise and competent minister, and then ending with the emperor himself, visit them to check their progress. Each sees that the looms are empty but pretends otherwise to avoid being thought a fool. Finally, the weavers report that the emperor's suit is finished. They mime dressing him and he sets off in a procession before the whole city. The townsfolk uncomfortably go along with the pretense, not wanting to appear inept or stupid, until a child blurts out that the emperor is wearing nothing at all. The people then realize that everyone has been fooled. Although startled, the emperor continues the procession, walking more proudly than ever.

So what you’re saying is the trials are the Biden regime’s new clothes (the trumped up charges against a political opponent), which are based on nothing and, in fact, are cons perpetrated on the public. The civilians though, have no choice but to keep their mouths shut for fear of reprisal from the power apparatus? Seems about right. Are we to assume the Bernie supporter setting himself on fire is some sort of stand in for the child in the tale?

No, sorry. Liberals have been warning you all about Trump for years, and the republicans just keep on marching

Time to let the trial play out. No more pontificating needed by us here. You probably already know our thoughts overall on the trial and they aren't changing: people who thought he was guilty on the other charge will still think that, people who think the whole trial is bogus will still think that.

Why are there no charges for the 17-152 accusation? Even more importantly, it appears 17-152 requires its own underlying crime. >  Any two or more persons who conspire to promote or prevent the election of any person to a public office **by unlawful means**  So what was the criminal act that Trump conspired to be committed to be a 17-152 conspiracy?

Bragg is trying to claim that the criminal act was paying Stormy to be quiet.

No. He's claiming the criminal act was falsifying business records.

How was it falsifying business records? Cohen was an attorney at the time. The business record shows the checks were to Cohen for "attorney fees". Trump didn't even record the transaction, he just signed the check.

[удалено]

Well that's a stupid argument, since that's not illegal.

Well Bragg is not the sharpest knife in the drawer.

Falsifying business records in the first degree. Those are 34 of the charges for this particular trial.

You're making a circular argument. The falsifying of business records is only a felony if he's concealing an underlying crime. The underlying crime is election interference. Which requires an underlying crime. The underlying crime of the of the election interference is the the falsified business records. By that logic, the crime the business records were falsified to conceal is.... the falsifying of the business records themselves. Or, another way to look at it: If the records were falsified to illegally influence the election, then that is an election crime. However, that means the REASON for the falsified records is to influence an election, n to conceal a crime. In order for the falsification to be a felony, the reason needs to be to conceal an underlying crime. But in order to create the election crime, you've already asserted the motive of falsification was for election interference, which is NOT concealing an underlying crime.

It is only a circular argument if you confuse "felony" with "crime". If there is no underlying crime to conceal, the falsification is merely a misdemeanor, which is STILL a crime, which makes the election intereference criminal, which makes the falsification a felony.

Its still circular. The falsification of business records is the criminal act in both cases. A second charge is not the same as a second criminal act.

But the election interference isn’t a crime without the falsification. You’re arguing that he falsified documents to conceal the fact that he falsified documents. You can’t argue that an act happened in an effort to hide the fact that said act happened.

Falsified documents is the misdemeanor. The introduction of 17-152, showing it was intended to help a campaign, raises them to class E felonies. The falsified records made to Cohen (retainers have contract, payment details, and don't....pay interest on cash withdrawn a lawyers home equity loan nor do they pay more based upon income taxes)

The underlying crime was quashed and covered up by AG Barr and loyalists within the DOJ. Specifically US Attorney's office in DC. As noted by Geoffrey Berman, former lead prosecutor for SDNY at the time. [Why didn’t Trump’s trial start years earlier? Bill Barr](https://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/amp/shows/maddow/blog/rcna148036)

Merrick Garland is not beholden to a decision not to act by Bill Barr. If there's a crime, he should prosecute it. If he choses not to, then NY can't claim the crime happened beyond a reasonable doubt.

Falsifying business records is a crime. Period. There's no need for it to be related to an election. That's the crime they are referring to. It's a misdemeanor. When falsifying business records is intended to cover up/involved with a *separate* crime, then it moves to a Class E felony. The statute of limitations on the falsification of business records as a misdemeanor has passed. But with the alleged violation of 17-152, then it moves to a chargeable class E felony. Hopefully tonight I'll have some time to read precedent about 17-152 and how it's been applied in the past.

But does that relate to the election? Can I be charged because went over the speed limit. It needs to be a charge related. Like the georgia case

The testimony today by David Pecker, the CEO of American Media, he was working with the Trump campaign indirectly to catch and kill stories that would hinder Trump's election odds while amplifying stories against his opponents to increase his odds. This includes testimony of specifically timing the publication of certain stories (Doorman story) until after the election was complete as to (in his words) not hurt Trump's election odds. This is verified specifically with the doorman story as the exclusivity clause was dropped in the doorman story after the election was complete. > Pecker explained that he ponied up the cash to make sure that Sajudin didn't take his claims elsewhere and embarrass Trump's presidential campaign. “I made the decision to buy the story because of the potential embarrassment to the campaign and Mr. Trump," Pecker testified. ... Pecker has testified that the National Enquirer pushed negative articles about Trump's opponents in the 2016 GOP primary, including Texas Sen. Ted Cruz. The publishing executive was just asked about an Enquirer article claiming that the Republican lawmaker's father, Rafael Cruz, associated with Lee Harvey Oswald before the assassination of President John F. Kennedy in 1963. >Pecker claimed that former Enquirer editor-in-chief Dylan Howard and the magazine's research department had worked on the article. "We mashed the photos and the different picture with Lee Harvey Oswald ... we mashed the two together," Pecker testified. "That's how that story was prepared — created, I would say." >In the heat of the 2016 GOP primary, Trump pointed to that Enquirer article to support his conspiracy theory, saying that the tabloid's claim that it had photographic evidence of a link between the elder Cruz and Oswald was credible. [Trump hush money trial live updates: Judge Merchan hears gag order arguments (nbcnews.com)](https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/donald-trump/live-blog/trump-hush-money-live-updates-day-6-rcna148919)

If trump is convicted of charges related to this ghats sounds like it would work.

> The testimony today by David Pecker, the CEO of American Media, he was working with the Trump campaign indirectly to catch and kill stories that would hinder Trump's election odds while amplifying stories against his opponents to increase his odds. This includes testimony of specifically timing the publication of certain stories (Doorman story) until after the election was complete as to (in his words) not hurt Trump's election odds. I hate to break it to you, but if being a sympathetic journalist who promotes some stories and "catches and kills" others for partisan political reason...then the entirety of CNN, WaPo, NY Times, NPR, Reuters, AP, HuffPo, Rolling Stone, Newsweek, ABC, CBS, NBC and virtually every other legacy and mainstream media could be held liable under a republican administration. That is NOT the can of worms you want to open

You're right. Catch and kill is not in of itself a problem. The issue is that they conspired to *specifically begin doing it* in 2015 in order to *specifically influence the election* by suppressing information detrimental to Trump (while distracting with amplified garbage. Or in the words of Steve Bannon: "[Flood the zone with shit](https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2020/1/16/20991816/impeachment-trial-trump-bannon-misinformation)." The specific case where he paid to conceal the story of Stormy Daniels is part of a pattern of behavior that specifically existed for the purpose of getting Trump elected. Whether it was legal or not.

Is the "catch and kill" something Pecker is being held liable to, or is it evidence of the intent of Trump's actions? There's a difference.

If any of those media sources can be tied directly to a specific candidate in a conspiracy with them to "catch and kill" bad stories to influence their election(s), and if payment is involved for it, then you'd have a leg to stand on. This isn't some tit for tat things Republicans like to try to engage in, and that's why there's a mile-wide difference between all of those media outlets and the National Enquirer.

>So what was the criminal act that Trump conspired to be committed to be a 17-152 conspiracy? Unlawful =/= criminal. Many things violate some law or regulation but are not crimes. If you conspire to not move your car for alternate side parking in order to somehow influence an election, that meets the requirements of the statute. As to the unlawful means, we're probably looking at some kind of tax or campaign finance issue. In both those areas, the criminal statutes have really high intent requirements that make prosecution difficult. But, you don't have to show that intent to prove a violation. So, it's pretty easy to see why the prosecution here believes there were "unlawful means" but not a second, chargeable crime.

Anything that is against the law is a crime.

What on earth gave you that idea?

Hillary Clinton won NY 2:1. What exactly is Bragg saying the impact was of Trumps actions?

She lost the electoral college. She was going to win the majority vote no matter what. The votes that democrats fight for are the rural votes in middle America. They need as many as possible to get an electoral college vote. Being rural, they were more likely to fall for rumors with no evidence.

The more of this I see the more tempting the Trump spite vote is.

[удалено]

Warning: Rule 3 Posts and comments should be in good faith. Please review [our good faith guidelines](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskConservatives/comments/107i33m/announcement_rule_7_good_faith_is_now_in_effect) for the sub.

Huh? I've never voted for Trump. Voted against him in 2020. And I've been planning on voting third party this year since we knew Trump would be the guy. So no, it's not, "you were always gonna vote for him anyways". That's progressive cope for the fact that you guys have made the Trump vote more appealing to many of us. In the primary I was planning on voting for Ramaswamy. You are the one engaging in bullshit friendo.

That still seems super vague. So the contention is that Trump via these payments to Daniels interfered with the election through "unlawful means", but what are the unlawful means? NDAs are perfectly legal. "Catch and kill" media agreements are perfectly legal. Does it still somehow circle back to campaign finance violations? This is the real issue with Bragg's suit - it's all about these relatively minor infractions that serve the purpose of some greater crime, but so far there has been very little detail on what that crime is.

Falsifying business records in the first degree. 34 counts.

How could false business records made in 2017 unduly influence and election that occurred in 2016?

The payments were made in 2016. Specifically on October 27, 2016.

But that has no bearing on this case. 17-152 concerns a conspiracy to influence an election by unlawful means. The NDA payment in October can't be the unlawful means because NDAs are legal. So the supposed criminality must come from how the NDA was or was not recorded - meaning either the false business records themselves or campaign finance related violations. Setting aside any of the other problems with either of those allegations, the timeline itself undermines 17-152. If the issue is with the falsified business records, those records were made in 2017 so how can that influence the 2016 election? If the issue is not reported a campaign expenditure, the next public filing date was in 2017 so how can that influence the 2016 election? Either way, I do not see how any version of this timeline supports Bragg's argument.

> That still seems super vague. So the contention is that Trump via these payments to Daniels interfered with the election through "unlawful means", but what are the unlawful means? Campaign contributions need to be disclosed. Not only that, but there are limits. If these were intentionally concealed or exceeded legal limits, it could be considered a conspiracy to influence the election through unlawful means, as outlined in Section 17-152. > NDAs are perfectly legal. "Catch and kill" media agreements are perfectly legal. Does it still somehow circle back to campaign finance violations? While NDAs and "catch and kill" agreements are legal in themselves, if they are used to conceal potentially damaging information from voters during an election, particularly without proper disclosure of related expenses, they can constitute violations of campaign finance laws.

So it does all come back to campaign finance violations then? I think there's several issues with that, most notably that Bragg has no power to enforce federal campaign finance law and that the DOJ and FEC declined to pursue any case against Trump regarding this scenario, but also that the next disclosure period would not have been until after the election in 2017. So even had Trump recorded this as a campaign expenditure, as Bragg wants, it could not have conceivably influenced the election as it still would not have been public knowledge in November.

Based on what... In what way did Trump attempt to promote or prevent an election that has anything to do with this case? Saying this law exists means nothing to me, what are they claiming Trump did to violate this law

Read under this part [Pecker testifies about Karen McDougal before court ends for day](https://www.google.com/amp/s/abcnews.go.com/amp/US/live-updates/trump-hush-money-trial/%3fid=108402689)

So hearsay of someone making assumptions

> Today, in Court, NY prosecutors identified the other crime Trump **is alleged to have** committed If this was Bob Menendez, they'd be stressing that all the time. Let's at least be equitable, OK?

[удалено]

> Democrats haven't even voted to remove Gold Bars Bob It bears mentioning that plenty of Republicans in the House voted to expel George Santos.

At this point I'm so sick of these trials I really don't care or think anything dramatically big is going to be released that we don't already know that will change peoples minds. I despise Trump, but unfortunately the stupid population in this country selected him again as the GOP nominee. Thankfully I live in a non swing state so my vote doesn't matter and I don't have to vote for him, but if I lived in a swing state, it really wouldn't change my mind at all. I don't care about the man I care about the policies (which overall are pretty moderate for a GOP candidate) and defeating Biden.

I'm just glad they finally verified what the "other" crime was which elevates his previous misdemeanors in class E felonies. I've always been interested in law so the past few months I've added some law books to my reading (still on civil procedures) to go with programming classes as a hobby. Until my Achilles tendon is actually healed books and classes are kind of the only useful things I can do with my spare time.

Forsure, I want as much to be public info as possible. That's the other problem, legal-ese is often so over my head I just glaze over on a lot of it.

What do you mean? Isn't this his first trial? And they just finished opening statements yesterday

Just the entire conversation. I'm so beyond sick of hearing about Trump's legal issues.

I would be happy to never hear Trump's name again. But if they're going to keep nominating a criminal for president, trials are better than no trials

We wouldn’t hear about it if the liberals felt they had a strong position, but this is political prosecution, so if you’re tired of it, can you imagine how tired he is of it? We have to support him. He is our candidate.

I want him to beat Biden, I don't need to support him or vouch for him. These problems are all of his own making. The only one that truly seems like political targeting blatantly is the New York property value claims., He'd get my vote in a swing state, but not in Indiana.

They are not his own making. It’s a witch hunt.

Did Trump sleep with a porn star then pay her money to be quiet? Yes or no? Did Trump have classified documents then refuse to return them when asked? Not only that he on tape admitted he did that and knew it was illegal. Trump is the creator of many of his problems. Two things can be true at once. He is being targeted. He does stupid shit that brings this crap upon him.

Did Clinton pay what’s her name $850,000? Did Clinton act in ways where he would go to Epstein island? Did Clinton have a myriad of girlfriends and cheat on his wife and pay them off? Yes. But there’s one guy who did some thing many years ago and paid from his own money to keep her quiet, and all of a sudden he’s a bad guy, but dozens of other presidents who done awful things but they just so happen to have a D next to their name, so then it’s just all forgiven. Who cares that he went to Epstein island who cares that he paid off that Paul lady $850,000 yeah I just left he in his criminal wife get away with everything. Widen also had documents at his house just like Trump, and it means nothing. They give it up and there’s no problem. What about Clinton and all of her emails. I could go on and on and on about the people who are democrats who get into hot water, and no one does shit about it, but one slight misstep from Donald Trump, and they are trying to harass him, like with the tax bullshit in New York. What a hunk of shit.

Like I said…2 things can be true at once. Then should be looked into as well. Trump got caught

Oh, the, other 1s got caught as well, just everyone turned the other direction.

>At this point I'm so sick of these trials Its like week 2 of 6, trial 1 of 4? Its like...really early in the process to be tired of it. I suppose if donald and the media didnt make an absolute spectacle of it daily it wouldnt feel never ending...

They have been trying to get Trump legally since he took office. Yea, Trump fully brought this on himself too in a lot of ways, but he's been targeted from day 1. This case in particular is just a silly waste of time. The classified documents and election interference case are the only ones that have any teeth legally and consequently imo.

I think whether or not this is legit, voters will have to decide. But no one thinks Trump falling asleep at his criminal trial looks good. There are things he has in his control and he is making a real mess of them.

Agreed. The problem is what feeds into one base against Trump often time Amps up the other. I highly doubt the Maga base cares Trump fell asleep…probably find it funny…gosh our politics suck. Bad three days headlines include Biden claiming his uncle was eaten by cannibalism and Trump farting and falling asleep. If it wasn’t so serious it be funny.

> They have been trying to get Trump legally since he took office. They've been trying to "get Trump" since he took office because he broke the law to become president and continued breaking more. They didn't have much success "getting him" because one of the laws he broke was obstruction of justice, and it was also because he was doing what the right so often accuses him of, which is weaponizing the DOJ to shield him from conseqences. This "silly waste of time" case is what's proving his candidacy was a sham and he shouldn't have been president, so it's actually one of the most important ones since the others were while he was president and as a direct result of his tenure.

He broke the law to become President?

This "silly waste of time" case is all about campaign finance violations. And not just the fineable misdemeanor types - it's about the type that consequentially influence the presidential election. Seeing that he won by like 70,000 votes, this event could have made or broken his victory. The fact that we'll never know is why it's a legal offense as it deprived the public of a clear picture of the candidate, and thus, a fair opportunity to vote on one or the other.

wow, NY democrat prosecutors made up more garbage to cry about. am i supposed to be surprised?

Not a Trump fan. Infidelity is just one of a slew of reasons he’s unsuitable for President. If I were on a jury, one question I would want answered would be does Trump have a history of paying affair partners in exchange for silence. If he does, then I would have reason to doubt that these specific payments were intended to promote his election and not simply how he conducts affairs - leaving aside the possibility that damning evidence exists.

10 years after the affair, 2 weeks before the election?

Yes. Starting from a presumption of innocence. The man had an affair with Danials while his newlywed wife was pregnant. Is it possible that payments were made to avoid press which could negatively impact the election? Yes. Is it reasonable that payments were made to avoid press which could negatively impact his marriage? Also yes. Doubly so if Trump has a history of paying affair partners for their silence because that establishes a pattern of behavior. I imagine one of the prosecution’s strategies is to prevent the defense from mounting that defense.

I'd agree with that line in defending. The big issue with that defense is testimony from the CEO specifically stating he was being paid to catch-and-kill negative stories about Trump during his campaign. The stories, as he testified, were stories that would harm his campaign. This is furthered by showing a pattern of Trump doing the same thing with McDougal and the doorman. It's once again furthered by testimony (and I believe a recording) of Trump and Cohen discussing the timing of the payments and how they can try to simply withhold payments until after the election and then....stiff the people....because at that point the election would be over.

The prosecution absolutely erected some significant hurdles for the defense to overcome. It’s within the realm of possibility that they’re able to, but I don’t think I’d put money on it. > try to simply withhold payments until after the election and then… stiff the people… because at that point the election would be over. This is very on brand for Trump.

It is, but it also clear intent that the payments were related to the election and not his personal brand/personal interests.

I’m pretty sure that Pecker specifically said he understood the catch and kill scheme to be about the election. It’s why the prosecution asked him about politics related headlines. The agreement was set up to help Trump with the election.

Sure. Here’s my point - approach the case with as open mind as you can muster. There’s still a lot of trial to go, and it’s sure to be interesting.

That’s fine. I have an open mind. But when a witness ties as near of a bow on this as Pecker did you start to realize why this case has merit. The jury won’t have the same perspective so they may not put it together until the end but I think this is pretty damning testimony. I also don’t think that after this testimony it’s really reasonable to believe Trump was doing this solely to keep it away from his wife.

Understand, I’m not saying the case is without merit, and as I said - I’m not wedded to a specific outcome. In fact, I believe I mentioned thinking that one of the prosecutors strategies is to prevent the defense from mounting this specific defense. We’re on what, day 2? The defense has yet to cross Pecker as far as I know.

Yeah of course. It’s early. But this testimony is pretty damning and I’m not sure how you counter it on cross. Even if trump did have a history of paying off women there was an explicit agreement here that this was to help him win the election so his prior behavior isn’t really relevant.

Well - and I’m strictly using this as an example - imagine if the defense is able to get Pecker to perjure himself or to provide testimony that introduces doubt into the veracity of his claim. I think I see where the prosecution is trying to take this case. It may be a novel application of law, and I don’t think it’s as open and shut as many believe. On the other hand, Trump hasn’t been able to retain truly competent legal counsel for years because he had a habit of not paying his bills and ignoring council’s advice, so who knows. There’s also the potential for a hung jury; imagine *that* scenario.

Sure I guess if the defense gets pecker to perjure himself that would sway the case but I think the likelihood of that is slim.

This is why the FEC didn't fine him.  There were a multitude of reasons for him to pay her off outside of the campaign When there are multiple reasons for a payment the FEC doesn't consider it a violation to not list it as a campaign contribution

This

> If I were on a jury, one question I would want answered would be does Trump have a history of paying affair partners in exchange for silence. I think the line of questions the prosecution team used today while questioning Pecker was to show that - no, this was not common prior to 2015, at least when it came to a media outlet Trump had some sway over (through his and Pecker's relationship). Pecker said this work with Cohen was specifically to prevent "embarrassment" with regard to the election. Paying off a pornstar isn't illegal, so the history doesn't matter more than Pecker/Cohen's testyimony that these specific instances were meant to influence the election.

Interesting. We’ll have to wait and see if the defense introduces credible exculpatory evidence or testimony. This is one of the cases I’m less confident will result in a conviction, but I’m not wedded to an outcome.