So, I just read through both the prosecution, and the defense opening statement details.

[Quixote1818]

Prosecution summary: There was a conspiracy to pay off Stormy, to cover up tRump's affair, so as to not affect the election that was bitch-slapped by the Access Hollywood tapes. We have witnesses and we have the receipts that this was done in order to not have the news of the Stormy affair come out and further harm tRump's campaign. This is illegal.

Defense: They are all lying. There was no conspiracy, and it wasn't illegal.

If the prosecution is able to prove their allegations with their witnesses, and the receipts they say that they have then tRump is screwed.

[WarGamer]

1. According to what I've read... it's a novel prosecution theory.

Similar but different to John Edwards who solicited political donations to pay off his former lover.

It never went to Court but the use of campaign funds was the key to the charges.

Here, they're basing the Trial on the business fraud tied into election fraud...

I'm anxious to hear them prove it.

Without the election fraud angle... it's a misdemeanor.

[Bernardo de La Paz]

3. It's election fraud because the money was not reported to the FEC

on edit: see reply #10 for a correction on the reporting detail.

It was to aid tRump's election. That can be clearly established.

Money payments to aid a campaign have to be reported. It was not reported.

tRump hid them through the bookkeeping dodge ( "legal expenses" ) because if they had been reported to the FEC it would have been discovered and been made an election scandal by the media.

Cohen served time for his involvement. The facts are well established.

[onenote]

10. I don't think the issue is failure to report.

Michael Cohen was charged with, and pleaded guilty to, two campaign finance law violations: making an unlawful corporate contribution and making a campaign contribution in excess of the limits on campaign contributions. The defense probably is correct in arguing that paying off Daniels to silence her and thereby influence the outcome of the election is not illegal. But what is illegal is the way she was paid off -- through a payment that was attributed to a corporation and in an amount that exceeded the limits. The challenge for the defense will be in rebutting that Trump directed the payments. Presumably they will try to persuade the jury that its significant that Trump himself was never charged with violating campaign laws.

[Bernardo de La Paz]

14. Good analysis. I think you are more correct than I am. . . . . nt

[intrepidity]

15. Remind me, though

Why *wasn't* Donald ever charged for violating campaign finance laws?

[happy feet]

30. And Cohen

Has the receipts-check from TFG and an audio recording of his convo wTFG-tho I don’t know whether the later can be introduced into court proceedings.

[happy feet]

35. And Cohen

Has the receipts-check from TFG and an audio recording of his convo wTFG-tho I don’t know whether the later can be introduced into court proceedings.

[onetexan]

12. Yup and cohen will vouch for the prosecution

[WarGamer]

18. Yes #10 is more acccurate.

And this has never been adjudicated before.

[Johnny2X2X]

8. Nothing novel about it IMO

Every day in this country prosecutors charge criminals with felonies because those crimes were to aid or pursue other crimes. It's actually just applying normal prosecutorial procedures to a rich and powerful defendent for a change.

[WarGamer]

20. Ya better let the BBC and NYT know... they both used that verbiage.

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-68861539
https://www.nytimes.com/2024/04/17/us/politics/trump-trial-hush-money.html

Mr Bragg has adopted a novel legal theory that will turn a misdemeanour - falsifying business records - into a felony. He has alleged that Mr Trump changed the business records to cover up a second crime - the violation of New York campaign-finance laws. His office alleges that the Trump campaign sought to hide the affair from voters ahead of the 2016 election.

[Johnny2X2X]

22. Yeah, I realize that's the bullshit narrative been going around since this broke

But that's not novel at all. People have misdemeanors turned into felonies every single day in this country because they were committing them to cover up a second crime. It happens every single day in every criminal court and it's a normal way of prosecuting fraud and other financial crimes.

[WarGamer]

24. Please keeep in mind.

I'm not a Trump defense attorney. In fact I know little about the law... I'm an engineer who turned into a BioChemist mid career.

So my natural inclination is to learn about things I don't understand.

The problem is, in a case like this... one has to sift through the BULLSHIT.

I mean... I could read Turley or Dershowitz tell me how this case is an outrage and Bragg is practically Witch Hunter #1... or I could read Tribe or Weissmann tell me how Trump better prepare for a Life sentence on Riker's...

Those are "content creators" paid by their employers to say and write things THEIR audience wants to ingest.

So one has to find analysis by those who don't really have an axe to grind and it's hard.

Sometimes you've got to read between the lines.

[Mr.WeRP]

19. Technically it is Tax Fraud as well

[WarGamer]

21. No, it wasn't written off as a tax deduction. That was reported earlier today.

There's a reason he wasn't charged with a tax crime.

[Mr.WeRP]

25. I see nowhere that Bragg has dropped this

Bragg listed three such crimes that Trump allegedly intended to commit: violation of federal campaign finance limits, violation of state election laws by unlawfully influencing the 2016 election, and violation of state tax laws regarding the reimbursement.

Source: https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/2024/04/08/falsifying-business-records-charges-trump-hush-money-case/


These are the three underlying crimes that escalate the falsification of business records to felony level.

[WarGamer]

26. I haven't seen the transcript yet... for opening statements

But it appears Bragg is going through with the campaign-finance angle...

Not the ones he spoke of pre trial.

Prosecutors told jurors that the reimbursement of hush money payments made to adult film star Stormy Daniels was part of a larger conspiracy to influence the 2016 presidential election.

[Mr.WeRP]

27. Opening statements don't have to walk through everything

All Bragg has to prove is that Trump falsified the records with intent and then show how this violated other state laws. It is not as high a burden as any other criminal case. And I am sure Bragg wouldn’t bring it if it didn’t have the goods. The real question is will the jury buy it.

[appleannie1]

2. Didn't Michael Cohen tape some of the conversations where Trump directed him to pay her off?

[InstantGratification]

5. yes Cohen made tapes

I know of only one that has been made public. That one is a conversation between Cohen and Trump talking about discussions Cohen had with Pecker and Weiselberg and paying back the $150k. Pecker and Weiselberg were both given immunity deals in exchange for their testimony, which has already been used in the prosecution of Cohen. The defense with try to discredit Cohen as a convicted liar who has an axe to grind, expect to hear that tape played to back Cohen up.

Pecker testified today. I haven't seen transcripts of his testimony yet, but I believe the summery was that he acknowledged using the National Enquirer to buy and not publish stories damaging to Trump and publish stories damaging to Trumps enemies. He also admitted buying the Karen McDougal story and burying it to help Trump win the election and that Trump stiffed him for the 150 grand.

[Diraven]

11. Kind of ironically

If Trump could have stiffed Cohen for his share too (which I'm sure he tried), he wouldn't actually have committed any crimes in this whole deal.

[intrepidity]

16. No doubt that thought tortures the cheapskate

"If only I had stiffed him the way I usually stiff everyone, this never would have happened! See? i knew that stiffing people was the right thing to do!"

I'd bet good money that thought haunts him frequently.

[thesquanderer]

13. re: "Trump stiffed him for the 150 grand"

Now we know why Pecker would have been eager to flip on him.

Nice to see TFG getting a lesson in karma.

[wnylib]

36. Maddow was in the courtroom for NBC. She reported

to other NBC staff that Pecker's testimony was "elliptical" and then elaborated on that.

Pecker gave evasive answers and had to be asked the same direct question a few times before he finally admitted that, yes, he had killed stories for Trump.

He also said something about being there on subpoena, as if emphasizing that he did not volunteer. Sounds to me like he is fearful of retaliation for his testimony and is not an eager witness.

[WhiteTara]

6. yes

[erronis]

4. Only screwed if all twelve jurors agree to convict.

The weakest link can destroy the case.

However, the exposure of all of the details should be harming to the defendant's run to be Dictator.

[GoodRaisin]

7. Yeah and juror 2 gets all news from Truth Social and X?

I mean, looks like Trump got the magat he needs.

[intrepidity]

17. There are at least two diehard magats on that jury. nt

[Silent Type]

29. A number of jurors say they read/watch right wing news-- CNN, MSNBC, NYT, WP, and

all those other media sources people think are conservative.

[EndlessWire]

42. It might turn out that way

but it might not. Saying Juror No. 2 is MAGA and will vote to free Trump is doing the jury system a disservice. It's just not fair, and is doing the same thing that the guy that Trump last retweeted did against the Juror that ultimately quit. How is there anything different?

Many people who have experience in this are saying that the jury will bond and do the right thing. We all will be disappointed if the jury lets Trump go, but we could give this juror a chance. We just don't know. We are better than Trump, that we do know.

We might not win this trial in the way we want. He might be found guilty of a misdemeanor. He might not be found guilty of anything. He might get a hung jury. We won't know for awhile. But, if we win the E Felony, each and every count we win on that will count as an aggregate and Trump could get years.

Buck up, People! Everything depends on how the evidence is perceived. The juror might end up disgusted at Trump. We don't really know what the juror feels right now.

I have heard several times how we have stern control on the Breaking News section of this very site because people often use this site for their news intake. It is a standard of conduct imposed for that purpose. So, what if one of the jurors had said that they get all their news from us? It doesn't matter unless we are engaged in brainwashing, which we aren't.

We are only two days in, and already we have lost?

[Yavin4]

9. If Trump wins this case, then pols can used campaign funds for all sorts of nefarious purposes.

Bribery. Payoffs. Money laundering. The works.

[MaryMagdaline]

23. It's a tough case but not as tough as the Edwards case.

Edwards’ donation was made before there was a campaign and he did not make the payment himself or designate it as a business right-off. There was no paper trail with his signature. “Friends” made the donation. Edwards testified that his intent was to hide an affair from his wife. Don’t know but it’s quite possible that jury in NC was instructed that if there is a legal purpose vs an illegal purpose, the state must prove that the intent/purpose was NOT the legal one.

The jury instructions will be interesting, and as always, determinative of guilt or non-guilt if we have an honest jury.

[spooky3]

31. Per various talking heads, the fact that Trump asked Cohen

Not to pay off Stormy if he won the election suggested that his motivating was to hide the incident from voters rather than from his wife.

[MaryMagdaline]

38. Excellent point! I forgot all about that

[Warpy]

28. Looks like his legal team has just given up

and is lettting him write their stuff for them.

Good luck with that, Fatso.

[pfitz59]

32. He keeps speaking to the press

undermining his own defense. His lawyers look pained. What to do with a client who won't shut up and thinks he's smarter than the experts?

[wnylib]

37. If the press really wants a ratings event, they could

ramp up stories about Trump's other cases - the ones that Judge Merchant ok'd as permissible for the prosecution to bring up if he testifies. Ramp up stories about how Trump lied continually about those cases and how he was "proven" guilty.

Such reporting might goad Trump into actually testifying in order to address those cases when brought up. Knowing that everyone is watching this trial, he might see it as his opportunity to rehash those cases and condemn the results. Then claim that the current case is just as false as all the other ones. He might consider it a campaign method to convince his voters of the injustice against him and the need for them to donate and vote for him.

[Irish_Dem]

33. Didn't the defense say Trump does not know Stormy?

He never had sex with her?

[LiberalFighter]

40. Will Stormy provide physical description of body parts not known?

And require confirmation?

[Irish_Dem]

41. Jebus, I was eating my lunch.

[RANDYWILDMAN]

34. Trump team is not smart

Deny deny deny does not work in court.

They are gonna lose, the real question is are they gonna get paid...doubt it myself

[lindysalsagal]

39. Thanks. I didn't want to read and own all that.

[dlk]

43. Amy conspiracy is a just group of friends/associates making a plan

The reason for the plan, it’s intended outcome, and the surrounding rules/laws are what matters.

[kimbutgar]

44. You know if a Democratic ex president did the same thing they'd be prosecuted and spent time in jail by now.

I hate the IOKYAR automatically being forgiven like in this case.