Blanche plainly thinks this shirt is powerful impeachment, if he displayed it with limited question and then totally changed gears. Doing that means that you think that last question was very strong
Sleepy Don again today? NYTimes: "As Michael Cohen testifies, Trump has dropped his head repeatedly and appears to be struggling to stay awake."
I have been following this via Inner City Press on X who is doing an excellent job. In case anyone wants as live coverage as you can get, here is the link. https://twitter.com/innercitypress So my question is if Cohen is the final witness for the prosecution, when do we see the proof campaign funds were used to pay Cohen off? Doesn't this whole thing ride on the illegal use of campaign funds?
I have not followed this closely at all, but I don't think the indictment was premised on the use of campaign funds. I even remember one of Trump's lawyers arguing on tv some time back that this case is distinguishable from the indictment of John Edwards because Trump had not used campaign funds.
You are correct. It is all about the characterizations of the hush money payments on their business records and why it was done. Source of funds is not an issue.
How is the source of funds not an issue? Wouldn't he have had to use money the camping received to pay Cohen?
hrmm but I thought that had past statute of limitations but the only way Bragg could get this to court is if he tied federal campaign violations with it? And on top of that, where did they show Trump falsified business records?
By classifying then as legal expenses instead of reimbursement. They had to double the amount paid to Cohen to account for his taxes and make him whole since they called them legal expenses.
I know nothing of business expense law or NY law for that matter. If Trump agreed to pay for Cohen's expenses and his taxes for that income, how is that illegal? Trump ends up expensing them the same on his business tax returns. I guess I dont understand that part of the indictment. Also again, I understand this is past the statute of limitations and needed federal campaign violations to get over that. How do you get to continue with the one that is past the statute of limitations without proving the other that even allowed this to go to court?
Blanche says they may have as much as two additional full days of cross of Cohen. Doubt that is actually true. They probably just want to keep everyone off balance.
Hush money payments to Daniels are not illegal. Calling them a legal retainer to Cohen on your tax returns is. This is what Trump is being charged with. This would only be a misdemeanor and past statute of limitations unless this illegal record falsification is tied to an additional crime. Trump doesn't need to be convicted, or even charged of the second crime. The misdemeanor just need to be tied to the crime. And in this case, the crime is election interference/illegal campaign contributions. If Trump paid Daniels off to help win the election, not only is that not a legal expense, it's a campaign expense.
No. If he had used campaign funds, and stated so, that would be legal. He utilized corporate funds for a campaign purpose and hid it by falsifying business records. That is a campaign finance violation that was hidden by falsifying business records, the crime he is charged with in New York.
Ahh ok thank you for breaking that down. Seems crazy to me NY law allows a past statute crime to be charged by adding a second crime that you are not charged with or proven guilty of. How in the world does that make sense? Regarding the business falsification, so really this is down to Cohens word against Trump. Cohen testified with a document about grossing it up to cover everything but that document didn’t have Trumps name on it. He just said Trump knew and ok it. I still don’t see how that’s illegal on Trumps part being it was Cohen that billed him that way. He would have claimed it as expense either way right? Seems like a silly thing to be illegal in NY.
Ok I had to look up to see if I could wrap my mind around this. Here is a good break down Charting the Legal Theory Behind People v. Trump After reading this I can see why so many are easily confused. Here is what the judge said, “Notably, in that ruling, Merchan clarified that § 175.10 “does not require that the ‘other crime’ actually be committed”—“all that is required is that defendant … acted with a conscious aim and objective to commit another crime.” That simply blows me away. I hope Florida doesn’t have any BS law like that.
Lots of states have similar laws. It's tied to a lot of RICO laws. This way, the big boss actually can be charged with the big crime he/she directed the lower levels to commit. And it's more than just Cohen's versus Trump's words. The entire trial so far as set up that Trump knew what he was doing, wanted to pay Daniels off because of campaign reasons, not family reasons, and that the payments to Cohen were falsified records as they weren't legit legal expenses.
It should be noted that the crime that Trump is alleged to have hidden with the false business documents has been proven in court, via a guilty plea. The issue is that Trump was only listed as an unindicted co-conspirator in that crime committed by Cohen.
for purposes of this proceeding, they don't need to prove that Trump committed the campaign finance violations that Cohen pled to. They just need to prove that DT attempted to commit those crimes, not that he finished them.
If stating so/public disclosure is the key (whether campaign funds are involved or not -- Edwards had used campaign funds but tried to hide it as well), does that mean there's no lawful way a candidate (even one who's telling the truth) could ever confidentially settle a dispute or pay for an NDA without risking jail time? Perhaps voters have a right to know about payments when someone is seeking public office, but that strikes me as especially harsh when it comes to an alleged consensual affair.
