Final jurors seated for Trump’s hush money case, with opening statements set for Monday (2 Viewers)

[Chomsky]

Well, you have been quite consistent in arguing you think there is an actual and convictable crime. But I've been watching some (more than usual for me) MSM lately to hear the view of the other side in regard to this trial. As the days go by, their legal guests and even some of the hosts, are growing increasingly uncertain about the needed links (pulling together of the case) being made.

I think the elements are there to satisfy the cited statutes.

But I do admit others may judge otherwise.

Intent can always be iffy unless clearly stated, and others may not see Trump's actions as a true campaign violation.

Like I said, I believe I can connect the dots. Regardless, from the get-go I felt it was most likely Trump walk on the Felony charges. After seeing the State's case up 'till now, and seeing what appears to be an educated intelligent jury empaneled, my opinion has moved a bit more towards conviction - but far from guaranteed.

My opinion may change after Cohen's testimony & cross.

In short - I'm now currently at Guilty of the Misdemeanors, and 50-50 toss-up on the Felonies. Maybe, just slightly better.

 

[Chomsky]

One juror does not an acquittal make.

WW

In practical terms, for this case a Hung Jury is as good as an acquittal.

 

[Chomsky]

Trump attorney Emil Bove is asking Hicks about how she testified that Trump didn't want the newspapers delivered to the residence on November 4, 2016, when the Wall Street Journal story on Karen McDougal came out. "There were parts of this that were very personal to him, right?" Bove asks.
"Absolutely. I don’t think he wanted anyone in his family to be hurt or embarrassed by anything that was happening on the campaign trail. He wanted them to be proud of him," Hicks says.

Though it definitely IS a good defense for the Trump team of lawyers to use, I think it's hard to argue that this was about Melania or his family given how long he waited to do anything. He didn't have her sign an NDA (though it was invalid) in all the years between 2006 - October 2016. This was about the campaign, and I have NO DOUBT the prosecution team will remind the jury of that again later in the trial

I'd counter by saying an argument could be made that the campaign caused an awareness that could effect Melania.

IOW there was nothing for Trump to worry about in terms of Melania, until Stormy started shopping the story around in response to Trump's campaign & upcoming election.

 

[Chomsky]

I'm still concerned over the lack of evidence that Trump was aware of the false invoice/reimbursement scheme. That is the core charge & without that, none of the "they did it for the campaign" testimony & evidence matters. Bragg seems hyperfocused on the felony upgrade but not the base charge itself.

The Trump defense is simple: "I just sign the checks the accounting department sends me. I don't audit invoices. Cohen & Weisselberg cooked this 'rendered services' invoice scheme up without me knowing."

Agreed. You're speaking to Intent. And it can be very hard to prove without direct evidence. Unfortunately the one guy that can provide direct evidence has credibility issues (Michael Cohen).

Obviously witness credibility can be remedied by documentation and other corroborating evidence. But that satisfies the act. What about intent, which is also required.

Cohen had tapes, if you recall. If one of the tapes has Trump acknowledging he & Cohen are scheming not just to hide items from the electorate, but also acknowledging it is illegal, than Trump's dead-meat. Otherwise, yeah - this is a tough case to prove.

 

[Chomsky]

Which would result in a hung jury, not an acquittal.
If that does happen a re-trial is possible.

But, extremely unlikely IMO.

 

[Chomsky]

If this is the result, what decision do you think the prosecution would make as to go forward or let it go? I think there is VERY little chance they'd choose a new trial!

No way would the State retry!

 

[Chomsky]

Agreed. They will not choose to retry. This is a very tough case. This will be their one and only shot and I'm betting on a hung jury. I just want 11 to 1 for guilty. Not the other way around.

From the get-go that was my call too (on the Felonies).

Now after seeing the State's case and the specific Jury empaneled, I've move to 50-50 or maybe even very slightly towards Guilty.

But, my current opinion can change with Cohen's testimony & cross. I believe Cohen has more downside than upside to offer the Prosecution, but hope I'm wrong.

Then there's the matter of Cohen's tapes between him & Trump, which we have yet to hear. They have the potential to be a bombshell - or not.

 

[Chomsky]

Personally, I think they would let it go as well. If he doesn't win in November, the other cases are going forward. If he does, I'm guessing they won't be able to trial it until after his Presidency even if they had everything in line. The notion that you can't try a sitting President seems to be the direction that is accepted. I would assume the same (pending some sort of absolutely awful and obvious crime).

And if we're talking post-Presidency - he's going to be nearly 82 years old. Now....if he doesn't win in November???? I don't know. But....my gut says they won't retry it, or - at the minimum - they wait to see how the other trials happen. If he does get found guilty on one of the others, he's done. Why try this one again?

No doubt.........maybe read the transcript instead of listening to Turley. Her testimony was damning in multiple ways. She confirmed he knew of the payment, was hands on and nothing happened without his approval, that it was not Cohen's nature to use his own money and the impact on the election was top of mind with Trump.

She even apologized to him and started crying because she knew how bad it was.

And that's the dramatic effect the Jury was left with to sink-in over the weekend.

Very fortuitous timing for the Prosecution.

 

[triharder]

I'd counter by saying an argument could be made that the campaign caused an awareness that could effect Melania.

IOW there was nothing for Trump to worry about in terms of Melania, until Stormy started shopping the story around in response to Trump's campaign & upcoming election.

Certainly a fair rebuttal. I am surprised that the defense is not really pushing these alternatives. We’ll certainly have a more clear picture of the defense when it’s their turn to call witnesses. But I do think they are missing some opportunities now, unless the plan is the keep the cards close.

 

[Athanasius68]

No doubt.........maybe read the transcript instead of listening to Turley. Her testimony was damning in multiple ways. She confirmed he knew of the payment, was hands on and nothing happened without his approval, that it was not Cohen's nature to use his own money and the impact on the election was top of mind with Trump. She even apologized to him and started crying because she knew how bad it was.

The problem continues to be there is no crime here.
It's not against the law for a candidate for office to try in "impact" an election.
It's kind of what happens during a campaign.

The statute that Bragg uses to kick this misdemeanor into a felony states a candidate cannot 'unlawfully' influence an election. But after two weeks of testimony, he still hasn't identified what was unlawfully done.

 

[Chomsky]

Certainly a fair rebuttal. I am surprised that the defense is not really pushing these alternatives. We’ll certainly have a more clear picture of the defense when it’s their turn to call witnesses. But I do think they are missing some opportunities now, unless the plan is the keep the cards close.

I'm thinking Defense is saving their fireworks for Cohen.

Contesting every item with every witness is not a good strategy, as it wears the jury out and they lose faith that the contentions are legit.

Defense needs to be strategic, making it count, making it believable to the jury, and making it relevant.

 

[Callen]

From the get-go that was my call too (on the Felonies).

Now after seeing the State's case and the specific Jury empaneled, I've move to 50-50 or maybe even very slightly towards Guilty.

But, my current opinion can change with Cohen's testimony & cross. I believe Cohen has more downside than upside to offer the Prosecution, but hope I'm wrong.

Then there's the matter of Cohen's tapes between him & Trump, which we have yet to hear. They have the potential to be a bombshell - or not.

I have always said hung jury and I still think so. I agree with all that you say and the case is looking better and better as they proceed but a hung jury only needs one and I can see how one might be having trouble with "beyond a reasonable doubt". I'm there on the intent, it is very clear he wanted to do this because of the election but is that a crime? I'm still not understanding the "illegally influence" part....except as it relates to not calling it an campaign expense. Pecker's lawyers did tell him he was likely interfering in the election and he signed a non prosecutorial agreement with the DOJ so there must be something in the statutes about what constitutes illegal influence but I haven't connected those dots.

The Hicks testimony went really well for the defense and established a lot with regards to Trump, his intent and involvement. A reporter in the room said the jury was absolutely transfixed (my words) by her testimony ans wasn't even taking notes. Great day to end the week on especially after the mess with Davidson.

 

[Callen]

I just found this document and it makes for very interesting reading. It is a written response by the Judge to all the objections made by the defense pretrial. It covers all the issues discussed and argued regularly on this forum and the reason why they apply or don't. Everything from what constitutes fraud in this case, the issue of selective prosecution, the issue of the statute of limitations but most interesting to me is it discuses the 4 underlying crimes the prosecution is alleging. The judge accepts three and explains why but tosses one. A good read even if you just read the parts you are interested in. It's well structured and broken down in a way that separates the issues clearly.

DocumentCloud

www.documentcloud.org

​

 

[Callen]

The problem continues to be there is no crime here.
It's not against the law for a candidate for office to try in "impact" an election.
It's kind of what happens during a campaign.

The statute that Bragg uses to kick this misdemeanor into a felony states a candidate cannot 'unlawfully' influence an election. But after two weeks of testimony, he still hasn't identified what was unlawfully done.

Read the document in post #2188. Should answer all your questions and then some.

 

[triharder]

I have always said hung jury and I still think so. I agree with all that you say and the case is looking better and better as they proceed but a hung jury only needs one and I can see how one might be having trouble with "beyond a reasonable doubt". I'm there on the intent, it is very clear he wanted to do this because of the election but is that a crime? I'm still not understanding the "illegally influence" part....except as it relates to not calling it an campaign expense. Pecker's lawyers did tell him he was likely interfering in the election and he signed a non prosecutorial agreement with the DOJ so there must be something in the statutes about what constitutes illegal influence but I haven't connected those dots.

The Hicks testimony went really well for the defense and established a lot with regards to Trump, his intent and involvement. A reporter in the room said the jury was absolutely transfixed (my words) by her testimony ans wasn't even taking notes. Great day to end the week on especially after the mess with Davidson.

He coordinated with an outside agency to make deals to suppress information ahead of the election. That by itself would have been a misdemeanor. Agencies can do as they will of course, but I’m confident it is illegal to actively work with them to do so while campaigning. Because he falsified the records makes it a bigger deal. I think it is the actively cooperating with the outside agency that does it.

But again, the second crime could also be the illegal campaign finance, or breaking law on taxes (though I haven’t heard a case for either of these).

 

[ScrambledEggs]

It's not against the law for a candidate for office to try in "impact" an election.

Can a candidate use his or personal business to hide campaign contributions made by their personal lawyer?

 

[CaughtInThe]

 

[The Hairy Fiddler]

I just found this document and it makes for very interesting reading. It is a written response by the Judge to all the objections made by the defense pretrial. It covers all the issues discussed and argued regularly on this forum and the reason why they apply or don't. Everything from what constitutes fraud in this case, the issue of selective prosecution, the issue of the statute of limitations but most interesting to me is it discuses the 4 underlying crimes the prosecution is alleging. The judge accepts three and explains why but tosses one. A good read even if you just read the parts you are interested in. It's well structured and broken down in a way that separates the issues clearly.

DocumentCloud

www.documentcloud.org

​

Hicks' testimony was a total disaster for the defense.

 

[hooligan]

That is false.
It is an element of the crime.
All the components of .05 plus concealing or committing another crime

Falsifying documents with an intent to defraud is part of the misdemeanor statute.

Please provide what you think is the relevant definition of fraud, and cite the NYS statute that supports your definition.

Nothing? I'm shocked.

 

[CaughtInThe]

 

[CaughtInThe]

 

[CaughtInThe]

 

[Callen]

He coordinated with an outside agency to make deals to suppress information ahead of the election. That by itself would have been a misdemeanor. Agencies can do as they will of course, but I’m confident it is illegal to actively work with them to do so while campaigning. Because he falsified the records makes it a bigger deal. I think it is the actively cooperating with the outside agency that does it.

That makes sense from what I read. Additionally from Peckers testimony the paper could be guilty of illegal campaign contributions by paying for the story and not claiming it. That one is becoming much clearer in my mind.

But again, the second crime could also be the illegal campaign finance, or breaking law on taxes (though I haven’t heard a case for either of these).

In the judges ruling, which I posted above, the judge OK's three different statutes that the prosecution can pursue charges on. He rejected a forth one ... I can't cut and past it here but it's very clear what crimes they are pursuing as the second crimes. Not one but three and yes they involve campaign financing both federally and at a state level and NY tax laws. I just don't think the prosecution has got there yet. I think they have nailed crime one , the federal crime committed by AMI and are now moving on to the NY campaign finance laws and then the tax law.

Scroll down to page 12 on this document. That is where he outlines the four charges and then goes on to explain why they each may apply. The document is incredibly enlightening. I think the prosecution may pull this off if they tie it all up neatly in summation and the judge explains the laws in his orders...which they usually do.

DocumentCloud

www.documentcloud.org

 

[gbg3]

Oh.....I missed that one. Yep. That is pretty darn clear. Yeah...she helped cover it all up as well. I have zero doubt that she knew what she was doing was wrong. If nothing else, she said she was treated like family, but doesn't seem to have the gumption to tell Melania about what was going on (as a friend/family member would).

Yep, you and everyone else "missed that one" because it's not true.

 

[triharder]

Yep, you and everyone else "missed that one" because it's not true.

It’s not the reason I missed it. But I do appreciate your thoughts. The media outlets are sure portraying it as if it’s true. I don’t see why it isn’t at least a strong likelihood. None of us are on the jury.