For those of us that haven't really followed this whole thing here it is in a nutshell NEW YORK — With Donald Trump expected to be indicted in the coming days, his supporters, critics, New York law enforcement officials and a variety of other constituencies await the history-making spectacle of seeing criminal charges brought against a former president for the first time. In many ways, the mechanics of indicting Trump are likely to be the same as they would be for any other defendant charged by Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg. In other ways, they may be quite different largely due to the fact that Trump enjoys the protection of the U.S. Secret Service and draws supporters who’ve resorted to violence in the past. Everything you should know about the potential Trump indictment
I don't recall hearing a recording of that specific issue. They supposedly have 11 or 12 recordings, but I think this is the only one I've heard.
There you go. You’d have to not only prove a payment was made, you don’t only have to prove Trump authorized the payment, but you have to prove that he made the payment to support his campaign, not merely spare himself or his family from public embarrassment.
IF Trump's lawyer who did an interview with Ari Melber last week is any indication, it doesn't seem like they dispute that the Stormy payment was structured to have Cohen pay it and then have Trump reimburse Cohen, claiming those reimbursement payments from Trump to Cohen were for legal services rendered. Rather, one of the main arguments I heard from Trump's lawyer was that the potential case against Trump is weaker than the case brought against John Edwards because it was essentially Trump's money being used as opposed to a third party's money. It doesn't seem like the key facts are in dispute in terms of the structure of the payment or Trump's knowledge of that structure. Trump's lawyer also argued that the payment to Stormy would have been made independent of the campaign/election. IF there is an indictment, I suppose Trump could testify that he made the payment for personal reasons and it had nothing to do with the campaign/election. But what attorney representing Trump would consider it a good idea for Trump to be placed under oath?
You can't really use the Edwards case as a direct comparison even though the media is doing so. 5 of the 6 charges Edwards faced were related to receiving illegal campaign donations over the maximum limit allowed. Donors were labeling the contributions as gifts, they even paid gift tax on the money, and the wealthiest donor was also making the checks look like they were for purchases, etc. Edwards was paying his mistress $9000/month out of those donations, but, and I think this point is critical to the campaign finance violation, he continued to make those payments after he withdrew from the race. Hard to argue he was paying money to protect a campaign he had ended. Also, his jury hung on 5 of the 6 counts. He was acquitted of count six, which alleged he failed to disclose those contributions. The government chose not to try him again on the 5 counts. https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=&ved=2ahUKEwiBgeXsk_D9AhVnRTABHdsjA60QFnoECBcQAQ&url=https://www.justice.gov/sites/default/files/opa/legacy/2011/06/03/edwards-indictment.pdf&usg=AOvVaw1EMw9kIVnbJaWJLkYhos4K
Cohen pled guilty and served time. You think he pled to a crime that didn’t exist? Trumps defense here isn’t even really disputing the allegation itself or that no crime took place. Rather, the defense is more or less that his lawyer was an idiot who gave him bad legal advice. My take on that is it might work in a particular case. It might even in the Daniels case, as really that “hush money” payment to Daniels surely could have been done in a “legal” way. But then when you look at all the crooks Trump surrounds himself with, either he is the worst screener of legal talent in the world, or instead of highly competent lawyers he wants sacrificial pawns who have no issues being co-conspirators in crimes.
I think he might have pled guilty to one count where he wasn't guilty to grant an overall more lenient sentence. He didn't only plead guilty to campaign finance.
Reading this thread is pretty amusing. So Trump's finance guy and his fixer attorney pled guilty and went to jail, yet their boss is innocent and is simply a victim of those damn libbies in the FBI and CIA who are out to get him? J Edgar must be laughing his ass off in his grave at this characterization of the FBI.
Correct, which damages his credibility as a witness, and supports the notion that he would have otherwise been sentenced harshly had he not pled guilty.
Again, the issue isn't so much that the payment was made, but why the payment was made. Is it really so hard to believe that Cohen just pled guilty to all of it, tacking on campaign finance as one of them to just end the process knowing that he can only be sentenced so harshly? As far as "why" the FBI targeted him, I'd say the text messages between Strzok and Page speak for themself, same with their reliance on the Steele dossier. Not necessarily a Democratic attack, but certainly an anti-Trump one.
Yes, Angela Corey. I couldn’t remember her name, only that she was from Jax. The peculiarities that you noted above were newsworthy in the local media when they first happened. She got on the case and did an immediate, complete 180 turn from what Sanford Police, SCSO, and the local prosecutors had done. The early local coverage had detailed how many different sets of eyes in the county and state prosecutors offices had reviewed the case and referred no charges against Z. The local prosecutors had done what appeared to be a very thorough job investigating and getting numerous reviews of the findings. Then it became a national story, Corey came in, and then it became the circus that failed at trial. Some of the initial facts from the case were changed for the national court of opinion. From what I remember the local media did a good job pressing and reporting the facts of the case during the first week or so of the investigation.
Not the first time nor will it be the last time a convicted felon testified on behalf of the prosecution in a trial that ultimately ends (or ended) in a verdict for the government.
