Trump's Troubles

Lol

 

will believe it when i see it.

 

Mitt Romney believes that Biden should pardon Trump, because that makes Biden the "big guy" and Trump the "little guy". Under ordinary circumstances, I might agree. But this is a world-class con-man we're talking about. Trump would not drop out of the race. Trump has been unable to admit that he's done anything wrong. He would just use the pardon as "proof" that the accusations were baseless, a witch-hunt. When Nixon was pardoned, it was AFTER he resigned in disgrace, there was no chance of him becoming president again. Biden should maintain the option of pardoning Trump IF he drops out of the race, and stays out until the day after the election.

Mitt Romney says Biden should have pardoned Trump: It makes me the big guy and "the person I pardoned, the little guy."

I think that Romney is so square that he can't fully comprehend the mind of a con-man. (I'm also not sure what he's doing bringing LBJ into the discussion either.)

 

Trump likely gets convicted unless he has one or more supporters on the jury. He obviously is guilty of falsifying business records. Otherwise, he would not have agreed to pay Cohen $260,000 in reimbursement of Cohen’s $130,000 payment to Stormy Daniels, i.e., he also reimbursed Cohen for the NYC, NYS and fed income taxes on the $130,000 amount that would not have been taxable to Cohen if reported correctly. As to the campaign finance law felony, Cohen was already found guilty of that crime, and Trump was his co-conspirator on that crime. There are recorded telephone calls that prove that crime.

 

CharlestonGator, since you gave me the disagree emoji, how about explaining why you disagree?

 

Cohen was hurt a bit by the cross this afternoon, but overall it was pretty poor by Blanche. He's an ex federal prosecutor that hasn't been on this side of crosses before. It was reported the jury was bored and sleepy while he rambled on.

The prosecution will get their chance to clean up any damage he caused on redirect. Remember, other credible witnesses have already corroborated Cohen's testimony.

 

Cohen's credibility the gift that keeps on giving. LOL

 

I guess “only the best people” doesn’t apply to the fixer.

 

I read what Romney said, and I was shocked. Really, this country is too far down the path with a Trump. I think the country needs to have the security document trial and the Jan 6 trial. We need conclusion and a pardon will not give us one.

Win or lose, have a trial, have a jury decide the facts.

IMO, a pardon at this point looks like the coward’s way out. Our country is not a coward.

 

Here is what I think the jury will focus their deliberations (with every one of them chiming in on their view of the evidence)

I think they will ultimately conclude that it is undisputed that:

1. Trump and his team was trying hard to kill harmful stories.
2. The Access Hollywood tape, so close to the election, was a monster problem, and the Team worked very hard to close any other stories before the election.
3. Pecker/ National Inquirer had reached its payout limit, and patience, with Trump.
4. The fixer, Cohen, took over, and negotiated the payout.
5. The fixer set up the bank account, funded it with his own money, and paid Stormy.

Where the fight will be is over the following:

1. Was it even necessary to pay-off Stormy, who had tried to shop her story for years.
2. Did Cohen negotiate with Stormy for self-profit?
- He was repaid by Trump/Weisselberg with “grossed-up” money, plus a bonus.
- He was working overtime to earn Trump “credits”
- He was hell-bent on securing an insider job once Trump took the White House.
- did Trump know about it then, or only later when Cohen tried to earn his credits.
3. Or, was Cohen simply doing his loyal job for and at the direction of his “boss”?

The State needs to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt. Reading how the evidence came in, it appears to me they met a burden of proving the case by a preponderance (over 50%), but did they prove it beyond a reasonable doubt (not ANY doubt, but a REASONABLE doubt)?

 

He drive-bys me like that too. He's the new BLuke.

 

Imo they also did a good job of proving how tightly Trump controls every penny and every decision. There's no way he would have agreed to pay Cohen double the actual payoff amount if he wasn't involved.

 

I agree, BUT, remember, Cohen set up the shell company and funded the Daniels payment WITH HIS OWN MONEY. The defense did a very good job of discrediting, or at least questioning, WHY he would do so. The defense has given a credible argument that Cohen did so out of self-interest (to pocket his “credits” from Trump and/or to shill for a WH job). The prosecution, IMO, is going to need to convince the jury that these alternatives are just not credible because, as yiy say, Trump is hands-on in literally everything and nobody would dare take steps without his blessings.

 

If the State was relying entirely or even primarily on Cohen's testimony it would be a slam dunk for the acquittal of Trump. That's not the case. Virtually all of Cohen's testimony on the substantive issues is corroborated by documentation and/or the testimony of other more credible witnesses. As a number of the legal talking heads including those who have had extensive experience prosecuting organized crime cases, the government frequently wins cases based on the testimony of bad people; can you say Sammy "the Bull"Gravano?".

 

You don’t need to convince me. lol. But that’s what the defense is going to argue and they did a nice job of creating the predicate for the argument, at least IMO. But I sure Don’t know how the jury will react to the argument, for sure.