Trump's Best Defense In the Hush-Money Trial

[Geee]

The Federalist

The first Trump trial is here, set to begin on Monday, with the allegation being that the former president violated New York law by having his company misreport payments to Stormy Daniels as “legal fees” rather than campaign expenditures. 

Much of the commentary on the case — at least from those defending the former president — has consisted of accusations that Manhattan District Attorney (DA) Alvin Bragg is abusing his power on a political vendetta and that Judge Juan Merchan is a biased partisan. These accusations go to the heart of the rule of law and should not be made lightly. But equally important, they do not address whether Trump is actually guilty as charged, and that is the question soon to be before a jury. Better, then, to assume the good faith and professionalism of the public officials involved and explain why the DA’s case is wrong as a matter of law.

 

Misreporting business expenses is normally, at most, a misdemeanor. Bragg seeks to ratchet it up to a felony here by arguing that the misreporting was done to cover up a crime. That alleged crime is a violation of the Federal Election Campaign Act (FECA). The theory is that Trump’s payments to Daniels were campaign expenditures and thus needed to be publicly reported as such. By not reporting the expenditure, the theory goes, Trump prevented the public from knowing information that might have influenced their votes. 

There is one big problem with this theory: The payments to Daniels were not campaign payments. 

In Bragg’s defense, FECA does define a campaign expenditure as any payment, “for the purpose of influencing an election.” And there is certainly some evidence that Trump agreed to a nondisclosure deal with Daniels, at least in part, to keep her from telling her story during the closing days of the campaign — i.e., to “influence an election.” :snip:

[Geee]

A serial perjurer will try to prove an old misdemeanor against Trump in an embarrassment for the New York legal system - Jonathan Turley

The famous Roman philosopher and orator Marcus Tullius Cicero once said, “The more laws, the less justice.”

This week, New York judges and lawyers appear eager to prove that the same is true for cases against Donald Trump. 

After an absurd $450 million decision courtesy of Attorney General Letitia James, Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg will bring his equally controversial criminal prosecution over hush money paid to former porn star Stormy Daniels before the 2016 election.

Lawyers have been scouring the civil and criminal codes for any basis to sue or prosecute Trump before the upcoming 2024 election. This week will highlight the damage done to New York’s legal system because of this unhinged crusade. They’ve charged him with everything short of ripping a label off a mattress.

[Geee]

Michael Cohen is an admitted liar. He’s still going to be the star witness against Trump.

[Geee]

Trump’s ‘hush money’ NYC trial live updates: At least 50 of first 96 potential jurors dismissed for saying they couldn’t be fair, impartial

Donald Trump is inside Manhattan Criminal Court today as his first criminal trial begins with jury selection, over six-figure hush-money payments the ex-president allegedly made to former porn star Stormy Daniels and Playboy Playmate Karen McDougal ahead of the 2016 election.

Trump has pleaded not guilty to 34 felony counts of falsifying business records in an effort to cover up the payments to keep Daniels and McDougal quiet about alleged affairs the women say they had with him.

The case marks the first time a former president has gone to trial over criminal charges. The trial is expected to last about two months, and Trump faces up to four years in prison if convicted.

Because it’s a criminal trial, the former commander-in-chief must show up at court every day that it’s in session.

[Valin]

Apr 15, 2024

Megyn Kelly is joined by Alan Dershowitz, author of "Get Trump," and Josh Hammer, host of "America on Trial with Josh Hammer,” to discuss the details of the absurd Trump “hush money” trial beginning today, why we'll see a very biased jury pool, what the ideal juror would look like, and more.

[Geee]

Tim Scott: ‘Prejudiced’ Trump Trial an ‘Injustice’ Driving Black Voters to GOP, They Want ‘Fair Justice System’

[Geee]

Alvin Bragg’s Witch Trial

Until today, it had been over 200 years since the state of New York held a witch trial. Jane “Naut” Kanniff, defended herself against charges that she was a witch in a 1816 New York court. Miss Kanniff, however, at least knew what “crime” she was charged with having committed. She survived the process with an acquittal. Alvin Bragg, in contrast to Kanniff’s prosecutors, is taking Donald Trump to trial while accusing him of covering up a crime he has not specified.

Bragg’s indictment repeatedly alleges Trump made a false business entry to, “commit another crime and aid and conceal the commission thereof.” What crime? The indictment doesn’t say. Was it witchcraft? As I demonstrate below, I don’t think we can rule it out.

[Geee]

‘This Is Embarrassing’: Turley Says He Is In ‘Utter Disbelief’ Over Bragg Trial Opening Statements

George Washington University law professor Jonathan Turley said he is in “utter disbelief” over the opening statements of the trial brought forth by Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg.

Former President Donald Trump arrived at the courthouse Monday to hear opening statements from the prosecution and defense teams over the 34-count indictment accusing him of falsifying business records to cover up an alleged hush money payment to former porn actress Stormy Daniels. It is alleged that Trump’s former lawyer Michael Cohen paid $130,000 to Daniels to keep an alleged extramarital affair between her and Trump undisclosed ahead of the 2016 presidential election.

“What is clear is in this case, Trump is right,” Turley said. “I mean, this is an embarrassment. I mean, the fact that we are actually talking about this case being presented in a New York courtroom leaves me in utter disbelief. I mean, the arguments today did in fact capture all the problems here. You know, you had this misdemeanor under state law that had run out. This is going back to the 2016 election. And they zapped it back into life by alleging that there was a campaign finance under the federal laws that doesn’t exist. The Department of Justice doesn’t view it this way.”

[Geee]

The lawfare against Donald Trump hits new heights today

New York v Trump is a joke - 34 felonies for what comes down to misclassifying spending in a payment ledger - but the elite media is keeping a straight face.

[Geee]

A PROSECUTION IN SEARCH OF A CRIME

Donald Trump is undergoing a criminal trial in Manhattan. He is charged with filing corporate records that included a false statement; namely, that payments to Michael Cohen that were described as being for legal services were, in fact, to reimburse Cohen for making one or more payments to Stormy Daniels in exchange for a non-disclosure agreement. But those payments to Daniels were perfectly legal, and filing a false corporate document is a misdemeanor on which the statute of limitation has passed.

So in order to charge Trump, District Attorney Alvin Bragg had to allege that the false documents were filed in order to cover up another crime. That would make it a felony. But what is that other crime? Bragg has been coy about it. In truth, there was no other crime, and Bragg’s prosecution is election interference on behalf of the Democratic Party, plain and simple.

[Geee]

Trump Defense Attorney Fires Crippling Shots At Alvin Bragg’s Case Just Minutes Into Cross-Examination

NEW YORK — Former President Donald Trump’s lawyer sought to cast doubt on arguments at the core of Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg’s case just minutes into cross-examining the prosecution’s first witness.

Defense attorney Emil Bove questioned former National Enquirer publisher David Pecker about the tabloid’s business practices, pointing out that purchasing stories to keep them from getting out, as he did for Trump, is not unusual for what has been described as the publication’s “checkbook journalism.” The prosecution had previously questioned Pecker on the details of purchasing former playboy model Karen McDougal’s story of an alleged affair with Trump, one of three instances they argue demonstrate an illegal “conspiracy” to influence the 2016 election by Pecker, former Trump attorney Michael Cohen and Trump.

Bove sought to flip the script and demonstrate the McDougal deal was just “standard” procedure. He highlighted multiple instances where Pecker’s magazine suppressed damaging stories for other individuals in the public eye, including for politicians like Rahm Emanuel, current U.S. ambassador to Japan and former Democratic mayor of Chicago, and former Republican California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger

[Geee]

House Judiciary releases new report accusing DA Bragg of political prosecution

The House Judiciary Committee released a new report on Thursday which accuses Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg of pursuing a political prosecution against former President Donald Trump. 

 

"[Since] at least 2018, the DANY has weaponized the criminal justice system, scouring every aspect of President Trump’s personal life and business affairs, going back decades, in the hopes of finding some legal basis—however far-fetched, novel, or convoluted—to bring charges against him," the report concluded. 

"When one legal theory would not pan out, instead of discontinuing its politically motivated investigation, the DANY simply pivoted to a new theory, constantly searching for a crime—any crime—to prosecute President Trump." 

The committee used evidence from former Special Assistant District Attorney Mark F. Pomerantz’s book, in which he described his work at the Manhattan District Attorney's office. According to the committee, Pomerantz published a book shortly after resigning from the office after DA Bragg assumed the role in order to pressure him to charge the former president

[Geee]

Trump trial: Four takeaways from Pecker’s time on the witness stand

[Geee]

Alvin Bragg and Democrats’ ‘Election Interference’ - Kimberley Strassel

One big election question is whether voters will again fall for Joe Biden’s 2020 pitch: Elect me because Republicans are a “threat to democracy.” If they don’t, Democrats can blame the growing insanity of the Donald Trump prosecutions, which every day look less like fair or sober justice.

 

 

Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg’s court case—which hinges on the claim that Mr. Trump falsely labeled seven-year-old business records about a nondisclosure-agreement payment to an adult film star—was always tenuous. To elevate this somewhat nonsensical issue to a felony, Mr. Bragg had to claim further the entries were mislabeled with intent to commit or conceal a secondary crime. After months of indecision, Mr. Bragg finally settled on a gotcha, suggesting the NDA payment made by lawyer Michael Cohen was an illegal campaign contribution—even though the money came from the candidate—that Mr. Trump criminally concealed from voters, amounting to election “interference” or “fraud.”

Consider the sheer nuttiness of this argument, especially when spooled to its natural conclusions. Campaigns exist to present a candidate favorably to the public—to highlight good things, hide unpleasant things. If it is felony “election interference” for a candidate to try to keep private the details of a seamy relationship, what other candidate concealments—of a lawful and entirely personal nature—must be reported? Must the out-of-pocket settlement for that fender-bender be disclosed, since it conceals a candidate’s bad driving skills? How about plastic surgery, since it masks the true ravages of age or health? Let’s raise donation caps now, since this will cost a lot.