Am I understanding the Trump trial correctly?

[poorpreacher]

Basically, Stormy Daniels was paid 130k not to disclose her affair with Trump. The prosecution contends Trump ordered this payment, from campaign funds, to protect his political future.

Do I have the the gist of it?

Has there been a shred of evidence, that Trump himself ordered this payment, for this purpose?

I don't dispute the affair.
Don't dispute she was paid

Is there any evidence Trump himself said, "Let's get a NDA, so voters won't find out"

 

[doerunn]

Trump disputes the affair

 

[Dirty Hairy Dawg]

If I remember correctly, and I probably don't, it seems to me the FEC ruled that if the payment could have been for other reasons than direct election expenditures, then the candidate gets the benefit of a doubt. IOWs, even if a payment helped the campaign a candidate using personal or business funds to silence an accuser because he didn't want his family to find out or to protect the reputation of his business, then no campaign violation was committed. I would imagine that Trump has a closet full of business related NDAs and nuisance settlements that could show a pattern.

 

[jlstone412]

Has there been a shred of evidence, that Trump himself ordered this payment, for this purpose?

Not yet. I believe thats where Cohen comes in. There is a meeting that occurred and Cohen was present. What was said?

At this point Bragg better have that smoking gun or Trump walks and rightfully so. Trump giving the order to Cohen to make the payments and giving the order to falsify the records is necessary here. That gets you conspiracy for election interference via unlawful means as well as falsifying business records in 1st degree.

In my opinion...Bragg has neither. I think he has circumstantial evidence. But not iron clad proof. And that leaves the door open for reasonable doubt.

We shall see when Cohen takes the stand.

I'm also interested in what defense strategy trump's team will take. They have to sow doubt. Can they effectively do that?

 

[elderdawg]

Bottom line is: even if this is a campaign election violation, the Feds(FEC) just order the candidate to pony up a modest fine. This BS happening now, by a state, just shows anyone with 2 brain cells to rub together, knows that we are in banana republic territory, and have been for about 8 years.

 

[Dirty Hairy Dawg]

Not yet. I believe thats where Cohen comes in. There is a meeting that occurred and Cohen was present. What was said?

At this point Bragg better have that smoking gun or Trump walks and rightfully so. Trump giving the order to Cohen to make the payments and giving the order to falsify the records is necessary here. That gets you conspiracy for election interference via unlawful means as well as falsifying business records in 1st degree.

In my opinion...Bragg has neither. I think he has circumstantial evidence. But not iron clad proof. And that leaves the door open for reasonable doubt.

We shall see when Cohen takes the stand.

I'm also interested in what defense strategy trump's team will take. They have to sow doubt. Can they effectively do that?

I just can't see Cohen being credible and I'm not sure many business men would be talking with their fixer about how a payment would be listed in a ledger.

 

[Bells76]

Basically, Stormy Daniels was paid 130k not to disclose her affair with Trump. The prosecution contends Trump ordered this payment, from campaign funds, to protect his political future.

Do I have the the gist of it?

Has there been a shred of evidence, that Trump himself ordered this payment, for this purpose?

I don't dispute the affair.
Don't dispute she was paid

Is there any evidence Trump himself said, "Let's get a NDA, so voters won't find out"

Congress maintains a separate general fund to use for this very issue for its members. The trials are so ridiculous, they will go down in history as making the Salem witch trials look like a judicial masterpiece.

 

[jlstone412]

I just can't see Cohen being credible and I'm not sure many business men would be talking with their fixer about how a payment would be listed in a ledger.

I think it is 2 pronged:

1: did trump instruct Cohen to pay (someone did...who was it)?
2: did trump instruct someone at the firm to doctor the books to "hide" the transaction?

Both of these I believe would speak to intent by trump. And Bragg needs both.

I don't think Cohen's credibility is an issue for this matter. He was convicted and served time for this exact exchange of money.

I believe there is one document that would've kept this whole thing hidden: a retainer agreement with Cohen. They got too cute by half and missed a step along the way and it has come back to bite them all.

 

[Dirty Hairy Dawg]

I think it is 2 pronged:

1: did trump instruct Cohen to pay (someone did...who was it)?
2: did trump instruct someone at the firm to doctor the books to "hide" the transaction?

Both of these I believe would speak to intent by trump. And Bragg needs both.

I don't think Cohen's credibility is an issue for this matter. He was convicted and served time for this exact exchange of money.

I believe there is one document that would've kept this whole thing hidden: a retainer agreement with Cohen. They got too cute by half and missed a step along the way and it has come back to bite them all.

Imo, Bragg has to prove Trump did so in order to influence the election. So, if Trump literally told Cohen to make the payment, you have to remove doubt that it wasn't for the purposes of protecting his businesses or hiding it from his family. Absent showing intent to primarily influence the election, you end up with an expired misdemeanor. It's really a stretch to try to turn this into a felony case and I'm sure the defense will present a credible case. That still doesn't mean the jury won't vote to convict.

 

[poorpreacher]

Not yet. I believe thats where Cohen comes in. There is a meeting that occurred and Cohen was present. What was said?

At this point Bragg better have that smoking gun or Trump walks and rightfully so. Trump giving the order to Cohen to make the payments and giving the order to falsify the records is necessary here. That gets you conspiracy for election interference via unlawful means as well as falsifying business records in 1st degree.

In my opinion...Bragg has neither. I think he has circumstantial evidence. But not iron clad proof. And that leaves the door open for reasonable doubt.

We shall see when Cohen takes the stand.

I'm also interested in what defense strategy trump's team will take. They have to sow doubt. Can they effectively do that?

Doesn't Bragg have to prove Trump ordered the payment FOR ELECTION INTERFERENCE?

Not just he ordered the payment, but specifically ordered the payment for that purpose?

If that is true, that's tough to prove.

"Yeah, I ordered the payment. But I ordered it to keep my wife from finding out, not for politics." would seem to end the discussion........Unless they have Trump on tape or something in writing.

 

[jlstone412]

Imo, Bragg has to prove Trump did so in order to influence the election. So, if Trump literally told Cohen to make the payment, you have to remove doubt that it wasn't for the purposes of protecting his businesses or hiding it from his family. Absent showing intent to primarily influence the election, you end up with an expired misdemeanor. It's really a stretch to try to turn this into a felony case and I'm sure the defense will present a credible case. That still doesn't mean the jury won't vote to convict.

I agree on the point of Bragg proving intent.

Regarding doubt...that's where the combined testimony of pecker, Cohen and Daniels comes in. It's all related. Bragg has to connect the dots.

It's a felony due to technicality. It's a slap on the wrist in the grand scheme of things. He won't serve jail time if convicted.

 

[jlstone412]

Doesn't Bragg have to prove Trump ordered the payment FOR ELECTION INTERFERENCE?

Not just he ordered the payment, but specifically ordered the payment for that purpose?

If that is true, that's tough to prove.

"Yeah, I ordered the payment. But I ordered it to keep my wife from finding out, not for politics." would seem to end the discussion........Unless they have Trump on tape or something in writing.

It would be great for Bragg if it was that easy (having trump on tape or something). But I doubt he has that.

And that's why all the other testimony is important (pecker, Daniels, Cohen). Removing doubt that the payments are for anything BUT influencing the election/keeping her story out of the public sphere. Circumstantial? Sure. But does it meet the standard of "beyond a reasonable doubt"? 🤷‍♂️

Will have to see what the defense says. And then the jury.

 

[ugafish]

Doesn't Bragg have to prove Trump ordered the payment FOR ELECTION INTERFERENCE?

Not just he ordered the payment, but specifically ordered the payment for that purpose?

If that is true, that's tough to prove.

"Yeah, I ordered the payment. But I ordered it to keep my wife from finding out, not for politics." would seem to end the discussion........Unless they have Trump on tape or something in writing.

He probably doesn’t need to prove anything to a jury full of Liberals in order to convict trump.

 

[Athens is Heaven]

Not yet. I believe thats where Cohen comes in. There is a meeting that occurred and Cohen was present. What was said?

At this point Bragg better have that smoking gun or Trump walks and rightfully so. Trump giving the order to Cohen to make the payments and giving the order to falsify the records is necessary here. That gets you conspiracy for election interference via unlawful means as well as falsifying business records in 1st degree.

In my opinion...Bragg has neither. I think he has circumstantial evidence. But not iron clad proof. And that leaves the door open for reasonable doubt.

We shall see when Cohen takes the stand.

I'm also interested in what defense strategy trump's team will take. They have to sow doubt. Can they effectively do that?

Brag has a lying sleezball as his star witness this is a joke right?

 

[jlstone412]

Brag has a lying sleezball as his star witness this is a joke right?

The defendant is also a lying sleazeball...your point?

 

[Athens is Heaven]

Congress maintains a separate general fund to use for this very issue for its members. The trials are so ridiculous, they will go down in history as making the Salem witch trials look like a judicial masterpiece.

Especially with a rigged jury too boot.

 

[Athens is Heaven]

The defendant is also a lying sleazeball...your point?

You act like you know him personally. You don’t know nothing just like your buddy Brag.

 

[jlstone412]

You act like you know him personally. You don’t know nothing just like your buddy Brag.

And you know Cohen personally to make the same assertion?

 

[MCinATL]

2 things can be true at once in this case:

1) its a legal charade, no legit/real charges, and no proof even against illegit charges
2) a manhattan jury of liberals finds Trump guilty.

both are/will happen.

 

[Athens is Heaven]

And you know Cohen personally to make the same assertion?

Man that sleeve bag served prison time. You think he voluntarily went to prison?

 

[jlstone412]

Man that sleeve bag served prison time. You think he voluntarily went to prison?

He served prison time in relation to this very case...

 

[Athens is Heaven]

He served prison time in relation to this very case...

Yes.

 

[oldmandawg]

The defendant is also a lying sleazeball...your point?

Joe's on trial? Well, it's about time.

 

[jlstone412]

Joe's on trial? Well, it's about time.

no, it’s the other old guy with cognitive issues that can’t stay awake

 

[TivoliDawg]

Basically, Stormy Daniels was paid 130k not to disclose her affair with Trump. The prosecution contends Trump ordered this payment, from campaign funds, to protect his political future.

Do I have the the gist of it?

Has there been a shred of evidence, that Trump himself ordered this payment, for this purpose?

I don't dispute the affair.
Don't dispute she was paid

Is there any evidence Trump himself said, "Let's get a NDA, so voters won't find out"

Yes. There is testimony from Trump’s long-time attorney, Michael Cohen.

 

[poorpreacher]

Yes. There is testimony from Trump’s long-time attorney, Michael Cohen.

He hasn't testified yet, I don't believe. So his testimony isn't in evidence as of now.

 

[oldmandawg]

no, it’s the other old guy with cognitive issues that can’t stay awake

Well, the lying sleazeball is Joe in a nutshell.