Why Trump should win his NY hush money trial

[Belk]

Funny you should ask. If they can do this to Trump once the precedent has been set they can do it to anyone.

That does not answer my question. You seem to be deflecting and avoiding it for some reason.

 

[BPPLEE]

That does not answer my question. You seem to be deflecting and avoiding it for some reason.

What that Joe Biden can have classified material and not be charged for it?

 

[Belk]

What that Joe Biden can have classified material and not be charged for it?

 

[rambot]

The judge let a witness be out of court to attend a wedding but Trump can’t go to his son’s graduation?

Has he attended the graduation of any of his other children or is this simply him trying to pull a power move?

It's just a meme though. Please feel free to research and confirm.

 

[BPPLEE]

Has he attended the graduation of any of his other children or is this simply him trying to pull a power move?

View attachment 346044

It's just a meme though. Please feel free to research and confirm.

Why?
I have no idea if any of that is true but if it is Trump still has a right to attend his son’s graduation if he wants to. Could be that he regrets missing the others

 

[rambot]

Why?
I have no idea if any of that is true but if it is Trump still has a right to attend his son’s graduation if he wants to.

He had the right AND the unobstructed opportunity to do the same for his other children. Doesn't really seem like he's actually that interested in supporting them in that way.

Could be that he regrets missing the others

Why would you think that?

 

[wing2000]

Why?
I have no idea if any of that is true but if it is Trump still has a right to attend his son’s graduation if he wants to. Could be that he regrets missing the others

The defendent has no such "right" in a court of law. In any case, the judge has yet to rule on the request.

Merchan has not yet made any decision about whether Trump can attend his son's graduation. But on Monday, he signaled that he's open to it, although it is also possible that if the trial is behind schedule, he will not allow it. In an excerpt from the court transcript obtained by CBS News' Graham Kates, Merchan said this:

Regarding counsel's request that the Court adjourn on Friday, May 17th for Mr. Trump to attend his son's high school graduation and Friday June 3rd to allow a member of the defense team to attend their son's graduation, I cannot rule on those two requests at this time. It really depends on how we are doing on time and where we are in the trial. If everything is going according to schedule without unnecessary delays, then I am sure we will be able to adjourn for one or both of those days, but if we are running behind schedule, we will not be able to.

Viral claims about Donald Trump's hush money trial, fact checked

CBS News Confirmed examines three viral claims that have emerged so far during Trump's first criminal trial.

www.cbsnews.com

 

[Hank77]

Right - he made the deal - executed it - all without Trumps approval or knowledge.

Seems to me there is a recording of Trump and Cohen discussing how they could pay Karen McDougal, the other woman paid off with $150,000.

https://www.cnn.com/2018/07/24/politics/michael-cohen-donald-trump-tape/index.html

 

[hislegacy]

Seems to me there is a recording of Trump and Cohen discussing how they could pay Karen McDougal, the other woman paid off with $150,000.

https://www.cnn.com/2018/07/24/politics/michael-cohen-donald-trump-tape/index.html

Which case are we talking about?

 

[Hans Blaster]

Which case are we talking about?

The one that is currently ongoing and mentioned in the title of the thread.

 

[hislegacy]

The one that is currently ongoing and mentioned in the title of the thread.

Yup, sure is. Nothing to do with Karen at all.

 

[Hans Blaster]

Yup, sure is. Nothing to do with Karen at all.

The NY County DA disagrees:

From page 4 of

https://manhattanda.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/04/2023-04-04-SOF.pdf

Woman 1 = Karen McDougal
Lawyer A=Michael Cohen

C. Suppressing Woman 1’s Account

12. About five months before the presidential election, in or about June 2016, the
editor-in-chief of the National Enquirer and AMI’s Chief Content Officer (the “AMI Editor-in-
Chief”) contacted Lawyer A about a woman (“Woman 1”) who alleged she had a sexual
relationship with the Defendant while he was married. The AMI Editor-in-Chief updated
Lawyer A regularly about the matter over text message and by telephone. The Defendant did not
want this information to become public because he was concerned about the effect it could have
on his candidacy. Thereafter, the Defendant, the AMI CEO, and Lawyer A had a series of
discussions about who should pay off Woman 1 to secure her silence.

13. AMI ultimately paid $150,000 to Woman 1 in exchange for her agreement not to
speak out about the alleged sexual relationship, as well as for two magazine cover features of
Woman 1 and a series of articles that would be published under her byline. AMI falsely
characterized this payment in AMI’s books and records, including in its general ledger. The
AMI CEO agreed to the deal after discussing it with both the Defendant and Lawyer A, and on
the understanding from Lawyer A that the Defendant or the Trump Organization would
reimburse AMI.

14. In a conversation captured in an audio recording in approximately September
2016 concerning Woman 1’s account, the Defendant and Lawyer A discussed how to obtain the
rights to Woman 1’s account from AMI and how to reimburse AMI for its payment. Lawyer A
told the Defendant he would open up a company for the transfer of Woman 1’s account and other
information, and stated that he had spoken to the Chief Financial Officer for the Trump
Organization (the “TO CFO”) about “how to set the whole thing up.” The Defendant asked, “So
what do we got to pay for this? One fifty?” and suggested paying by cash. When Lawyer A
disagreed, the Defendant then mentioned payment by check. After the conversation, Lawyer A
created a shell company called Resolution Consultants, LLC on or about September 30, 2016.

15. Less than two months before the election, on or about September 30, 2016, the
AMI CEO signed an agreement in which AMI agreed to transfer its rights to Woman 1’s account
to Lawyer A’s shell company for $125,000. However, after the assignment agreement was
signed but before the reimbursement took place, the AMI CEO consulted with AMI’s general
counsel and then told Lawyer A that the deal to transfer the rights to Lawyer A’s shell company
was off.

(Section D is about Stephanie Clifford.)

It will come up at trial.

 

[hislegacy]

If you say so....

 

[Hans Blaster]

If you say so....

It's not me, it is the NY County District Attorney. I linked to the document entered on the docket of the above captioned case.

 

[wing2000]

Demonstrating a pattern of paying off women who allegedly had affairs with the defendant is a valid line of inquiry IMO.

 

[hislegacy]

Demonstrating a pattern of paying off women who allegedly had affairs with the defendant is a valid line of inquiry IMO.

Do you think Clinton will be next

 

[wing2000]

Do you think Clinton will be next

Well, since Clinton is not a defendant and has no involvement with the charges against Trump, I would say there is no reason to call him as a witness - for the prosecution nor the defense.

 

[Bradskii]

If they can do this to Trump once the precedent has been set they can do it to anyone.

Are you saying that laws didn't use to apply to everyone?

 

[hislegacy]

Well, since Clinton is not a defendant and has no involvement with the charges against Trump, I would say there is no reason to call him as a witness - for the prosecution nor the defense.

I meant next to be prosecuted - his payouts for silencing woman dwarf Trumps.

 

[wing2000]

I meant next to be prosecuted - his payouts for silencing woman dwarf Trumps.

I don't know. Write to Kenneth Starr.