I always knew the charges, sport...but like most sensible folks recognised the lawfare involved...saw the system rigged for an outcome...saw the likes of SD being utterly irrelevant to any of the points involved and how on appeal it was a lay-down misre
BTW...show me where in the trail so far the prosecution has let us all know the charges they are trying to prove....
"illegally recorded as legal expenses" - don't think that is anywhere near proven"
how it was planned & paid"...everything that came out in the trial seemed to have DT many times removed
And at least you are honest to admit the motivation/;
"
And just being convicted of a misdemeanour may be enough for him to lose the election based on recent polling."
The vermin on the left the Dems and the supporters here were never after justice were ya...just wanted a conviction...any sort any type would do...didn't matter at all and then use it to sway an election
Talk about election interference
Well, amigo....it ain't gonna work.
Dream on
Here's a reasoned rational look at the case.
https://thehill.com/opinion/judiciary/4589586-why-trump-should-win-his-ny-hush-money-trial/This case, the first criminal trial for any former president, began as a result of what can only be described as extortion. The infamousStormy Danielsrepeatedly threatened that unless she was paid a chunk of money, she would go to the media reporting an alleged affair with Trump. There is no evidence corroborating Daniels’s claim of the affair and her credibility is, likewise, near zero.
Trump, for his part, could have reported this extortion plot to the FBI, but that would have meant putting this salacious story in the hands of his political opponents at the Obama/Biden Justice Department — a terrible position in which to voluntarily place himself.
Instead, Trump entered into a contract with Daniels that was entirely permitted under the law. He treated Daniels’s claims as a nuisance. Businesses do this all the time, electing to pay a “nuisance fee” instead of engaging in the more expensive route of hiring lawyers and defending a story in the media with pricey PR efforts.
Trump is not charged with any wrongdoing in reaching a “hush money settlement” with Daniels. He is charged with entering those payments in his accounting register as “legal retainer” with the specific intent to aid and conceal another crime. The prosecutors are mum about what Trump should have put in his register. Perhaps if he had entered “legal bologna” or “legal extortion payments,” he would be in the clear.
Trump never sought a tax deduction on the payments, and was apparently following the legal advice of his now-discredited and convicted fraudster lawyer, Michael Cohen. Prosecutors must not only prove it was wrong to enter these payments in the manner Trump did, they must prove it was done with criminal intent.
But in order to convict, prosecutors must also prove a second criminal intent in logging the payments as Trump did for the purpose of avoiding campaign finance reporting requirements. Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg does have a plausible argument that the timing of these payments suggests the possibility that Trump was doing it to avoid such requirements. However, Bragg has to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Trump wasn’t doing it to protect his own image or the image of his companies.
Perhaps this difficult task of proving two layers of specific intent is the reason why other prosecutors at theDOJ,FECand the State of New York previously balked at prosecuting Trump for these very same allegations. Bragg’s own predecessor, Cyrus Vance, twicelooked intothe hush money payment and did not bring charges.
While Trump could have been more clear in his accounting register, to call his conduct criminal — and especially “felonious” — is almost unprecedented. Prosecutors did, actually, prosecute former Democratic presidential candidate John Edwards in 2011 for his efforts to cover up hush money payments for an affair he had while his wife was dying of cancer.
Theevidence of wrongdoingagainst Edwards was much stronger than the Trump charges — but prosecutors failed to convict Edwards.
