Trump's Troubles

Agree, but just passing on what they say. Apparently there are some oddities with the chain of custody on that tape. So the anticipated argument is that you can only believe that tape if you believe in the credibility of Michael Cohen.

We'll see

 

Groomers gonna groom

 

As a layman, this seems to be the weakest case Trump is involved in, the most complex, and the most salacious. You legal beagles and those paying close attention have done a good job on this thread.

I wish there were a knowledgeable right winger who was able to coherently post on here an opposing view point. The advocacy for Trump has been poor. Seems like they would argue that while Trump definitely broke the law he is guilty of misdemeanor record keeping crimes and the state is overreaching trying to make a very loose connection to whatever they can stretch to be a second crime.

In August 2018, Cohen pleaded guilty to eight counts including campaign-finance violations, tax fraud, and bank fraud. Cohen said he violated campaign-finance laws at Trump's direction "for the principal purpose of influencing" the 2016 presidential election.

While it is likely true what Cohen said, is it beyond a reasonable doubt that he simply poorly executed a lawful request by Trump which was to keep a bad story out of the press for multiple reasons - election, family, business dealings?

Also today’s seemingly unimportant detailed testimony of Stormie appears to be simply to embarrass Trump vs anything else. And he should be very embarrassed.

 

Then I missed that. Going from Lawfare daily summaries and they did not mention that. As I think about it, think they are talking about the payment schemes resulting in the falsification of business records. Don't know if Pecker could testify to that

 

Pecker established the pattern of Trump trying to catch and kill damaging stories that could hurt his election chances. The two examples are Karen McDougal and the former Trump doorman. Trump isn't being tried for either of these, because payment came from The National Enquirer, and Trump never falsified records to cover up this payment--because Trump never reimbursed the Enquirer!

The fact Trump didn't pay was why Pecker didn't pay for the Stormy Daniels story catch and kill. To further connect the Daniels catch and kill scheme is the timing. Cohen was stringing payment to Daniels along and was possibly trying to avoid payment by waiting until post election, and not paying at all. But the Access Hollywood tape came out, and forced team Trump's hand to catch and kill the Daniels story as quickly as possible to try and do damage control before the election.

 

That makes sense. Again it's just a matter of opinion, but Ben Wittes noted that that is a potential gap

 

From what I've gathered from a handful of attorneys on Twitter/X, the purpose of Stormy's testimony is to demonstrate why Trump wanted to prevent her story from coming to light before the election. Even more so after the Access Hollywood tape was released since this would be a double whammy against his moral fiber.

Regarding Trump's defense, I'd be interest to hear some plausible defense arguments as well. I suspect it will primarily be that Trump wasn't aware of what was happening and it was Cohen and Weisselberg working together, without Trump's knowledge, to make the payments to make the story go away. Or it could be that it had nothing to do with the campaign and he just wanted to avoid personal embarrassment, although I think the prosecution has done a really good job proving that wasn't the motivation behind trying to make the story go away.

Really what it comes down to is timing. Stormy was shopping her story as soon as Trump announced his candidacy for President. Trump & team weren't especially motivated to buy and bury the story until the Access Hollywood tape came out which Hope Hicks said in her testimony.

 

Yep, they have to lay the predicate with the Stormy testimony. She and Trump didn't get together to play scrabble.

 

Yes, true and we also shouldn't forget that Trump has claimed she's making the whole thing up so the prosecution needs to show that her story is real and would have been damaging had it come out before the election.

 

If you're following along today, the judge has not been happy at all with the prosecution and Stormy Daniels. He's getting frustrated at the amount of detail she's revealing, after being warned not to get until to too many details, and sustaining objection after objection by the defense.

 

There are a lot of Republicans who care. Unfortunately the ones who have spoken up have been RINOed out, so the ones who are left are keeping quiet and hoping this all goes away soon.

 

Neither author is an attorney. One has a BA in government, the other a MA in international language.

 

All I can tell you is that I have read and listened to Quinta Jurecic for years. Her legal analysis is top notch. And they have ton of legal talent at Lawfare, which itself is term that reflects the overlap between law and national security. She weekly podcasts (every Thursday) on Rational Security, with a law/NatSec focus with

Scott R. Anderson
S_R_Anders
Scott R. Anderson is a fellow in Governance Studies at the Brookings Institution and a Senior Fellow in the National Security Law Program at Columbia Law School. He previously served as an Attorney-Adviser in the Office of the Legal Adviser at the U.S. Department of State and as the legal advisor for the U.S. Embassy in Baghdad, Iraq.

and (currently on paternity leave, or I may be reversing the guys)

Alan Z. Rozenshtein is an Associate Professor of Law at the University of Minnesota Law School, a senior editor at Lawfare, and a term member of the Council on Foreign Relations. Previously, he served as an Attorney Advisor with the Office of Law and Policy in the National Security Division of the U.S. Department of Justice and a Special Assistant United States Attorney in the U.S. Attorney's Office for the District of Maryland.

In any event, I trust her analysis for abstract legal analysis like this one. For actual direct analysis of legal tactics and strategy, still no substitute for Ken White

 

The Onion never misses

 

Trump's attorneys called for a mistrial based on the level of detail in Stormy's testimony, and their contention that much of the detail is not consistent with her prior descriptions.

Mistrial denied and the Judge made an interesting comment that isn't going to lead to a very fun discussion later between Trump and his attorneys:

(BTW - Adam Klasfeld's courtroom reporting is top notch. Gives very thorough play-by-play updates)

 

Agree about his reporting. Saw that. The lack of objection will likely result in waiver, at least it would under normal legal rules

 

I think what is lost is that the issue of whether Trump actually slept with Daniels, as opposed to her being an opportunist, is irrelevant. It makes no difference whether they slept together, only that (a) she was making the claim, and (b) Trump wanted the claim silenced. I think the jury hearing from Daniels will let them stew on exactly how damaging her broadcasting of the alleged affair would have been in the days leading up to the 2016 vote,particularly in the heals of the “grab her by the p#$$y” tape. I think another significant point is that the affair allegedly happened a decade before the election, and there was little motivation to shut down Daniels until after the release of the Hollywood tape.

And so, perhaps admittedly through polarized lens, I think Daniels testimony was potentially devastating, even while accepting she is a horrible witness when it comes to veracity.