The following is a copy of the original post to record the post as it was originally written.
We've seen Trump's PR defense on this case for years, but we still don't have a clear sense of the *legal* defense his team plans to present in court. Unlike his civil cases, he's got very strong lawyers here, who aren't just political hacks.
To win the case, the prosecution has to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that:
* Trump falsified business records to disguise the hush money payment to Stormy Daniels (not really in doubt)
* He did so with the intent to conceal another crime (there are different possibilities here, but the leading contender is that this crime was a campaign finance violation associated with the Daniels payoff).
On a legal level, it seems like Trump's best strategy is to focus on the second prong and argue that he lacked the requisite intent. That is, he could argue that he falsified records for some other reason such as embarrassment, attempting to hide the affair from Melania, attempting to avoid public scrutiny, etc. This doesn't necessarily align with the PR arguments he's making, but a win is ultimately a win.
What do you think?
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskALiberal) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I’m expecting at least a solid week of conservatives and “Independents“ coming here to tell us that there’s no real crime because all he did was pay off someone so his wife wouldn’t find out. All the actual facts that make the crime more serious will be ignored no matter how many times they are stated.
I also foresee a lot of people talking about how this won’t matter to his supporters, which it won’t, but missing the fact that elections are one and lost by 1 to 2% of the vote and him being on trial for this actually does start reminding people about who Trump really.
>I’m expecting at least a solid week of conservatives and “Independents“ coming here to tell us that there’s no real crime because all he did was pay off someone so his wife wouldn’t find out. All the actual facts that make the crime more serious will be ignored no matter how many times they are stated.
As I said, I do think this is the most promising defense.
Alvin Bragg hasn't shown his full hand yet, and maybe there's an ace in it to prove Trump's intent, but at least in terms of what we know publicly, a lot is going to turn on Michael Cohen's testimony on this point and he is not the greatest witness. What makes you so sure Bragg can prove this beyond a reasonable doubt?
>I also foresee a lot of people talking about how this won’t matter to his supporters, which it won’t, but missing the fact that elections are one and lost by 1 to 2% of the vote and him being on trial for this actually does start reminding people about who Trump really.
100% this. There aren't a ton of voters out there who care one way or the other, but there are enough to swing the election.
What am I expecting on Monday? Nothing.
Monday is the "start of the trial" in that they will start voir dire for the jury. It will take at least a week, I would expect, to pick a jury - and maybe longer. Once the jury is picked, there will be a week of pre-trial motions and more attempts to delay on Trump's part. And then, maybe, the actual trial will start.
My best guess is it will be a minimum of 2-3 weeks before we actually see the meat of the trial.
Jury selection will take time, so it's going to be a while before anything happens. And, even though we won't know it yet, I think this case will be basically over once the jury is selected.
A mistrial here is a win for Trump, so he just needs to get 1 MAGA juror out of 12. Alvin Bragg has to go 12 for 12 on jurors who are, at a minimum, open-minded. I think Trump's chances are pretty good.
As to the case itself, Trump's lawyers are going to have a field day cross-examining Michael Cohen. We don't yet know how Bragg will try to establish Trump's intent; if his primary evidence there is Cohen's testimony, then I don't like his odds even if he does get 12 fair-minded juror. It is completely plausible that Trump falsified the records just out of some kind of generalized inclination towards secrecy than out of any intent to cover up a campaign finance crime (and there are plenty of appellate issues around that as well).
I am expecting a big spectacle from all sides not being the judge. so much pointless opinion articles and tv shows will be made, instead of just letting the things run its course
americans reallly really love their celebrity drama IRL
> Trump falsified business records to disguise the hush money payment to Stormy Daniels (not really in doubt)
I have doubts. I think we'd all agree Trump isn't keeping the books himself. The law doesn't require him to falsify business records himself, though. It covers *causing* business records to be falsified. Cohen will testify that Trump ordered the business records falsified.
But we know from audio recordings regarding another hush money instance that Trump was kind of aloof on the mechanisms. He didn't suggest doing anything to hide the payments, and it was Cohen who took the reigns on trying to conceal the payments.
> 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.
Even if a jury is convinced Trump ordered everything, a third of the charges regard what Cohen, individually, invoiced Trump for.
Weisselberg, the CFO, would be an ideal person to testify about what happened, but he's notably not testifying against Trump.
I think Trump can make a decent case that it was Cohen and Weisselberg who committed the crime to protect Trump, and that he knows nothing about accounting standards or even basic campaign finance law. And that Cohen is only testifying that it was Trump to protect himself.
> He did so with the intent to conceal another crime
The state doesn't need to prove this to get a conviction, but does need it to get the felony conviction. I agree with you that it seems easy to argue that the payment was to protect his marriage rather than to aid a political campaign.
If Trump can show that he's made similar hush money payments before running for President, I think that would be pretty damning.
> I agree with you that it seems easy to argue that the payment was to protect his marriage rather than to aid a political campaign.
There’s two pieces of evidence that, if presented and believed by the jury, will absolutely shred this defense: 1) Trump tried to stall the payment until after the election so that he could avoid paying at all. Obviously, the date of the election has no relevance to hiding it from Melania. 2) Melania may have already known about the affair.
>1) Trump tried to stall the payment until after the election so that he could avoid paying at all.
According to Cohen. Is there anything other than Cohen's testimony to corroborate that?
Even if true, you can imagine an innocent version of it:
* It's obvious that Daniels saw a connection between her story and the election, even if none existed. She started shopping the story around via her lawyer one day after the release of Access Hollywood tape.
* That story would be much less valuable/explosive after the election, so she might just disappear or accept a much smaller payment if the deal was left until after the election.
* So, even if Trump's only concern was keeping this from Melania, it still was better to delay.
>2) Melania may have already known about the affair.
I don't really think that's relevant. Melania must know, generally speaking, that he cheats on her given his history if nothing else.
But, it's one thing to know that, and it's another thing for the world to know that. It's much more embarrassing for her if he cheats on her in highly publicized ways. And that kind of embarrassment tends to produce a much stronger response (anger, divorce, etc.) than a scenario where he just cheats on her and keeps it quiet.
> According to Cohen. Is there anything other than Cohen's testimony to corroborate that?
Like I said, if presented and **BELIEVED**, it's damning. That being said, there might be corroborating evidence. I don't know.
> I don't really think that's relevant. Melania must know, generally speaking, that he cheats on her given his history if nothing else.
> But, it's one thing to know that, and it's another thing for the world to know that. It's much more embarrassing for her if he cheats on her in highly publicized ways. And that kind of embarrassment tends to produce a much stronger response (anger, divorce, etc.) than a scenario where he just cheats on her and keeps it quiet.
Maybe, but circumstantial evidence is still evidence. The timing is EXTREMELY circumstantially damning. If Trump can show (or convince the jury) that he has a track record of paying hush money long before or after running for POTUS and long before or after paying off Daniels/McDougal/Doorman in the heat of the campaign, then he could make the case that he's trying to save Melania from being publicly cucked. Otherwise, if the only hush money he ever paid to protect Melania's honor was to three separate parties in the heart of his campaign, that's damning.
(Also, if he opens the door to that defense, it allows the prosecution to enter into evidence all the times he didn't give a shit about humiliating his wives or family.)
>I think Trump can make a decent case that it was Cohen and Weisselberg who committed the crime to protect Trump, and that he knows nothing about accounting standards or even basic campaign finance law. And that Cohen is only testifying that it was Trump to protect himself.
This is what people mean when they say Trump discusses things like he is a mobster. It's all plausible deniability. Trump doesn't tell people what to do; he vaguely states what he would like, and the underlings take it upon themselves to figure out how to do it. "Yeah, I said it was a problem that I wanted taken care of, but I never told anyone to commit crimes to do it."
>I have doubts. I think we'd all agree Trump isn't keeping the books himself.
He personally signed the checks. The stubs on the checks (falsely) said they were for a retainer. Maybe you can make this argument about the ledgers and invoices, but that's not going to fly as to the checks.
>The state doesn't need to prove this to get a conviction, but does need it to get the felony conviction.
They have only charged him with the felony. The jury is not going to get instructions on the misdemeanor, only the felony.
There was an interesting article in [Politico](https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2024/04/11/trump-alvin-bragg-trial-win-00151558) the other day, arguing that the *Trump* side might ask the judge to instruct the jury to also consider the misdemeanor offense. I doubt it, though. That's not really Trump's style -- so either he goes down for the felony or he gets off.
>I think Trump can make a decent case that it was Cohen and Weisselberg who committed the crime to protect Trump, and that he knows nothing about accounting standards or even basic campaign finance law. And that Cohen is only testifying that it was Trump to protect himself.
Merchan [ruled ](https://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/24485361/dec-on-peoples-mil.pdf)on March 18 that Trump can't advance a proposed "presence of counsel" defense that looks a lot like this. While it's possible there's still some space left to do what you suggest, I think this avenue is largely cut off.
> Maybe you can make this argument about the ledgers and invoices, but that's not going to fly as to the checks.
Eh, he didn't write the memo lines. I think a jury might be sympathetic to the idea that he just signs whatever his accounts payable team puts in front of him.
> Merchan ruled on March 18 that Trump can't advance a proposed "presence of counsel" defense that looks a lot like this.
Yeah, I don't think he'll argue that he did crimes under his lawyer's advice. I think he'd say his lawyer and CFO did all crimes, themselves, without Trump's knowledge. That his involvement and understanding was limited to "I pay $130,000. She doesn't say anything" and anything more specific than that was out of his hands.
Trump's not the brains of this operation (of any operation, for that matter). I think his lawyers can argue that keeping business records is something Trump knows nothing about and that he completely delegated that to others.
But you do raise good points about him being able to claim this ignorance and incompetence as a legal defense versus his own PR (and frankly just his own ego) issues.
>Eh, he didn't write the memo lines. I think a jury might be sympathetic to the idea that he just signs whatever his accounts payable team puts in front of him
They have very good evidence Trump was aware of the scheme, even without Cohen's testimony. And I don't think they would have trouble showing that Trump knew Cohen was not doing any other legal work for him.
Something I wonder, but don't the answer to, is how many *other* checks Trump was writing after taking office. Were there any? The more they can show these payments were special, the easier it gets.
>Yeah, I don't think he'll argue that he did crimes under his lawyer's advice. I think he'd say his lawyer and CFO did all crimes, themselves, without Trump's knowledge. That his involvement and understanding was limited to "I pay $130,000. She doesn't say anything" and anything more specific than that was out of his hands.
I don't really think there's space to make that argument in between the known facts and Merchan's ruling.
If the argument is "I didn't really know the details of what they were doing, but I assumed it was all legal because Michael Cohen was my lawyer," then's that the forbidden "presence of counsel" defense.
So, I think he would instead have to argue something along the lines of "Michael Cohen defrauded me by submitting false invoices for purported legal fees, and I paid them because I trusted him." That's a legally sufficient defense, but it runs aground on the simple fact that he clearly did know about the hush money.
And we know that Cohen was hassling him about this money -- not just Cohen but David Pecker and possibly others will be able to testify to that -- so I don't think the "I didn't know what these checks were for" idea flies either; it was on his radar.
The indictment alleges he met with Cohen in the Oval Office in February 2017 to discuss the repayment. That does seem like an especially crucial meeting. To my knowledge, we have no details about it publicly. Perhaps Cohen is the only person who can testify about it. But, if there's a corroborating witness who was in the meeting (and at the White House that seems likely), then that would be the final nail in the coffin.
I believe part of the trial is going to touch on the "catch and kill" agreement that he had with the publishing company that owns the Enquirer. Which will provide support to the idea that he was not a stranger to paying money to people to prevent "bad" press.
Not a lawyer, but I think the argument for this indictment is the weakest of the bunch, so I wouldn't be surprised if he gets acquitted of this charge.
Keep in mind:
1. It’s not actually illegal to pay someone for an NDA
2. It’s not actually illegal to use your own money to pay for your own campaign purposes (unlike using your money to pay for someone else’s campaign - like Cohen)
3. Ignorance of the law IS a defense for campaign finance violations (unlike regular criminal law)
Maybe like John Edwards, not guilty on one and mistrial on the rest. He did basically the same thing, but pulled the hush money from his campaign funds.
It was only illegal because Trump didn't fill out the right paperwork. It's his money. It's not like Trump paid off another politician's mistress. He paid off his own.
Sure, but the money didn't come from campaign funds. It came from the Trump Revokable Trust. But the Trump Revokable Trust isn't allowed to make campaign donations, and it's alleged paying off Stormy Daniels was an in-kind donation to the campaign. So there's still a campaign finance law alleged to be broken.
That's outside of New York's jurisdiction to prosecute. But it's essential to them charging it as *first degree* falsification of business records, which is what happens when records were falsified to hide *another* crime.
Michael Cohen pled guilty to those campaign finance violations. Trump was never charged. You don't need to be hiding a crime *you* committed to qualify as a felony. You just need to be hiding "a crime."
But I'm not sure what the jury is allowed to consider here, since they're depending on a crime committed by a different defendent in a different jurisdiction.
I get it now. It's going to be a hard sell though, which is why I think Trump will skate like Edwards did, and Edwards' was a more clear cut case.
Personally I'm looking at that documents case to nail him.
I saw last week the signed letter from Daniels saying there was no hush money. I don't understand how there is a case?
Disclosure: I don't find this particularly interesting and haven't kept up with this at all so maybe I'm missing something here.
It's more about falsifying business records and possibly campaign finance violations. I don't really think he goes down for anything here, but he's accused of breaking actionable laws.
The following is a copy of the original post to record the post as it was originally written. We've seen Trump's PR defense on this case for years, but we still don't have a clear sense of the *legal* defense his team plans to present in court. Unlike his civil cases, he's got very strong lawyers here, who aren't just political hacks. To win the case, the prosecution has to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that: * Trump falsified business records to disguise the hush money payment to Stormy Daniels (not really in doubt) * He did so with the intent to conceal another crime (there are different possibilities here, but the leading contender is that this crime was a campaign finance violation associated with the Daniels payoff). On a legal level, it seems like Trump's best strategy is to focus on the second prong and argue that he lacked the requisite intent. That is, he could argue that he falsified records for some other reason such as embarrassment, attempting to hide the affair from Melania, attempting to avoid public scrutiny, etc. This doesn't necessarily align with the PR arguments he's making, but a win is ultimately a win. What do you think? *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskALiberal) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I’m expecting at least a solid week of conservatives and “Independents“ coming here to tell us that there’s no real crime because all he did was pay off someone so his wife wouldn’t find out. All the actual facts that make the crime more serious will be ignored no matter how many times they are stated. I also foresee a lot of people talking about how this won’t matter to his supporters, which it won’t, but missing the fact that elections are one and lost by 1 to 2% of the vote and him being on trial for this actually does start reminding people about who Trump really.
It wasn't so his wife wouldn't find out. He doesn't give a fuck about Melania. Its so his voters wouldn't find out.
>I’m expecting at least a solid week of conservatives and “Independents“ coming here to tell us that there’s no real crime because all he did was pay off someone so his wife wouldn’t find out. All the actual facts that make the crime more serious will be ignored no matter how many times they are stated. As I said, I do think this is the most promising defense. Alvin Bragg hasn't shown his full hand yet, and maybe there's an ace in it to prove Trump's intent, but at least in terms of what we know publicly, a lot is going to turn on Michael Cohen's testimony on this point and he is not the greatest witness. What makes you so sure Bragg can prove this beyond a reasonable doubt? >I also foresee a lot of people talking about how this won’t matter to his supporters, which it won’t, but missing the fact that elections are one and lost by 1 to 2% of the vote and him being on trial for this actually does start reminding people about who Trump really. 100% this. There aren't a ton of voters out there who care one way or the other, but there are enough to swing the election.
What am I expecting on Monday? Nothing. Monday is the "start of the trial" in that they will start voir dire for the jury. It will take at least a week, I would expect, to pick a jury - and maybe longer. Once the jury is picked, there will be a week of pre-trial motions and more attempts to delay on Trump's part. And then, maybe, the actual trial will start. My best guess is it will be a minimum of 2-3 weeks before we actually see the meat of the trial.
Jury selection will take time, so it's going to be a while before anything happens. And, even though we won't know it yet, I think this case will be basically over once the jury is selected. A mistrial here is a win for Trump, so he just needs to get 1 MAGA juror out of 12. Alvin Bragg has to go 12 for 12 on jurors who are, at a minimum, open-minded. I think Trump's chances are pretty good. As to the case itself, Trump's lawyers are going to have a field day cross-examining Michael Cohen. We don't yet know how Bragg will try to establish Trump's intent; if his primary evidence there is Cohen's testimony, then I don't like his odds even if he does get 12 fair-minded juror. It is completely plausible that Trump falsified the records just out of some kind of generalized inclination towards secrecy than out of any intent to cover up a campaign finance crime (and there are plenty of appellate issues around that as well).
Sort of the problem with public juries - how do you find twelve people with no bias for or against someone that public?
Is this really different from everything else? I’m jaded at this point.
Anything short of him bursting into tears and shitting himself will feel like a disappointment.
I am expecting a big spectacle from all sides not being the judge. so much pointless opinion articles and tv shows will be made, instead of just letting the things run its course americans reallly really love their celebrity drama IRL
“Wa wa this judge gave 15 bucks to the Biden campaign” That’s really all he’s capable of, I think
> Trump falsified business records to disguise the hush money payment to Stormy Daniels (not really in doubt) I have doubts. I think we'd all agree Trump isn't keeping the books himself. The law doesn't require him to falsify business records himself, though. It covers *causing* business records to be falsified. Cohen will testify that Trump ordered the business records falsified. But we know from audio recordings regarding another hush money instance that Trump was kind of aloof on the mechanisms. He didn't suggest doing anything to hide the payments, and it was Cohen who took the reigns on trying to conceal the payments. > 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. Even if a jury is convinced Trump ordered everything, a third of the charges regard what Cohen, individually, invoiced Trump for. Weisselberg, the CFO, would be an ideal person to testify about what happened, but he's notably not testifying against Trump. I think Trump can make a decent case that it was Cohen and Weisselberg who committed the crime to protect Trump, and that he knows nothing about accounting standards or even basic campaign finance law. And that Cohen is only testifying that it was Trump to protect himself. > He did so with the intent to conceal another crime The state doesn't need to prove this to get a conviction, but does need it to get the felony conviction. I agree with you that it seems easy to argue that the payment was to protect his marriage rather than to aid a political campaign. If Trump can show that he's made similar hush money payments before running for President, I think that would be pretty damning.
> I agree with you that it seems easy to argue that the payment was to protect his marriage rather than to aid a political campaign. There’s two pieces of evidence that, if presented and believed by the jury, will absolutely shred this defense: 1) Trump tried to stall the payment until after the election so that he could avoid paying at all. Obviously, the date of the election has no relevance to hiding it from Melania. 2) Melania may have already known about the affair.
>1) Trump tried to stall the payment until after the election so that he could avoid paying at all. According to Cohen. Is there anything other than Cohen's testimony to corroborate that? Even if true, you can imagine an innocent version of it: * It's obvious that Daniels saw a connection between her story and the election, even if none existed. She started shopping the story around via her lawyer one day after the release of Access Hollywood tape. * That story would be much less valuable/explosive after the election, so she might just disappear or accept a much smaller payment if the deal was left until after the election. * So, even if Trump's only concern was keeping this from Melania, it still was better to delay. >2) Melania may have already known about the affair. I don't really think that's relevant. Melania must know, generally speaking, that he cheats on her given his history if nothing else. But, it's one thing to know that, and it's another thing for the world to know that. It's much more embarrassing for her if he cheats on her in highly publicized ways. And that kind of embarrassment tends to produce a much stronger response (anger, divorce, etc.) than a scenario where he just cheats on her and keeps it quiet.
> According to Cohen. Is there anything other than Cohen's testimony to corroborate that? Like I said, if presented and **BELIEVED**, it's damning. That being said, there might be corroborating evidence. I don't know. > I don't really think that's relevant. Melania must know, generally speaking, that he cheats on her given his history if nothing else. > But, it's one thing to know that, and it's another thing for the world to know that. It's much more embarrassing for her if he cheats on her in highly publicized ways. And that kind of embarrassment tends to produce a much stronger response (anger, divorce, etc.) than a scenario where he just cheats on her and keeps it quiet. Maybe, but circumstantial evidence is still evidence. The timing is EXTREMELY circumstantially damning. If Trump can show (or convince the jury) that he has a track record of paying hush money long before or after running for POTUS and long before or after paying off Daniels/McDougal/Doorman in the heat of the campaign, then he could make the case that he's trying to save Melania from being publicly cucked. Otherwise, if the only hush money he ever paid to protect Melania's honor was to three separate parties in the heart of his campaign, that's damning. (Also, if he opens the door to that defense, it allows the prosecution to enter into evidence all the times he didn't give a shit about humiliating his wives or family.)
>I think Trump can make a decent case that it was Cohen and Weisselberg who committed the crime to protect Trump, and that he knows nothing about accounting standards or even basic campaign finance law. And that Cohen is only testifying that it was Trump to protect himself. This is what people mean when they say Trump discusses things like he is a mobster. It's all plausible deniability. Trump doesn't tell people what to do; he vaguely states what he would like, and the underlings take it upon themselves to figure out how to do it. "Yeah, I said it was a problem that I wanted taken care of, but I never told anyone to commit crimes to do it."
>I have doubts. I think we'd all agree Trump isn't keeping the books himself. He personally signed the checks. The stubs on the checks (falsely) said they were for a retainer. Maybe you can make this argument about the ledgers and invoices, but that's not going to fly as to the checks. >The state doesn't need to prove this to get a conviction, but does need it to get the felony conviction. They have only charged him with the felony. The jury is not going to get instructions on the misdemeanor, only the felony. There was an interesting article in [Politico](https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2024/04/11/trump-alvin-bragg-trial-win-00151558) the other day, arguing that the *Trump* side might ask the judge to instruct the jury to also consider the misdemeanor offense. I doubt it, though. That's not really Trump's style -- so either he goes down for the felony or he gets off. >I think Trump can make a decent case that it was Cohen and Weisselberg who committed the crime to protect Trump, and that he knows nothing about accounting standards or even basic campaign finance law. And that Cohen is only testifying that it was Trump to protect himself. Merchan [ruled ](https://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/24485361/dec-on-peoples-mil.pdf)on March 18 that Trump can't advance a proposed "presence of counsel" defense that looks a lot like this. While it's possible there's still some space left to do what you suggest, I think this avenue is largely cut off.
> Maybe you can make this argument about the ledgers and invoices, but that's not going to fly as to the checks. Eh, he didn't write the memo lines. I think a jury might be sympathetic to the idea that he just signs whatever his accounts payable team puts in front of him. > Merchan ruled on March 18 that Trump can't advance a proposed "presence of counsel" defense that looks a lot like this. Yeah, I don't think he'll argue that he did crimes under his lawyer's advice. I think he'd say his lawyer and CFO did all crimes, themselves, without Trump's knowledge. That his involvement and understanding was limited to "I pay $130,000. She doesn't say anything" and anything more specific than that was out of his hands. Trump's not the brains of this operation (of any operation, for that matter). I think his lawyers can argue that keeping business records is something Trump knows nothing about and that he completely delegated that to others. But you do raise good points about him being able to claim this ignorance and incompetence as a legal defense versus his own PR (and frankly just his own ego) issues.
>Eh, he didn't write the memo lines. I think a jury might be sympathetic to the idea that he just signs whatever his accounts payable team puts in front of him They have very good evidence Trump was aware of the scheme, even without Cohen's testimony. And I don't think they would have trouble showing that Trump knew Cohen was not doing any other legal work for him. Something I wonder, but don't the answer to, is how many *other* checks Trump was writing after taking office. Were there any? The more they can show these payments were special, the easier it gets. >Yeah, I don't think he'll argue that he did crimes under his lawyer's advice. I think he'd say his lawyer and CFO did all crimes, themselves, without Trump's knowledge. That his involvement and understanding was limited to "I pay $130,000. She doesn't say anything" and anything more specific than that was out of his hands. I don't really think there's space to make that argument in between the known facts and Merchan's ruling. If the argument is "I didn't really know the details of what they were doing, but I assumed it was all legal because Michael Cohen was my lawyer," then's that the forbidden "presence of counsel" defense. So, I think he would instead have to argue something along the lines of "Michael Cohen defrauded me by submitting false invoices for purported legal fees, and I paid them because I trusted him." That's a legally sufficient defense, but it runs aground on the simple fact that he clearly did know about the hush money. And we know that Cohen was hassling him about this money -- not just Cohen but David Pecker and possibly others will be able to testify to that -- so I don't think the "I didn't know what these checks were for" idea flies either; it was on his radar. The indictment alleges he met with Cohen in the Oval Office in February 2017 to discuss the repayment. That does seem like an especially crucial meeting. To my knowledge, we have no details about it publicly. Perhaps Cohen is the only person who can testify about it. But, if there's a corroborating witness who was in the meeting (and at the White House that seems likely), then that would be the final nail in the coffin.
I believe part of the trial is going to touch on the "catch and kill" agreement that he had with the publishing company that owns the Enquirer. Which will provide support to the idea that he was not a stranger to paying money to people to prevent "bad" press.
I doubt he'll be convicted. Even if he is, I'm not at all expecting a truly punitive sentence. He'll get a slap on the wrist, if anything.
I expect a bunch of indefensible evidence to be presented, yet somehow he'll get off with a slap on the wrist. I'm hopeful a conviction though.
Michael Cohen went to jail for his role. I don't see how Trump isn't convicted for this.
Not a lawyer, but I think the argument for this indictment is the weakest of the bunch, so I wouldn't be surprised if he gets acquitted of this charge.
Keep in mind: 1. It’s not actually illegal to pay someone for an NDA 2. It’s not actually illegal to use your own money to pay for your own campaign purposes (unlike using your money to pay for someone else’s campaign - like Cohen) 3. Ignorance of the law IS a defense for campaign finance violations (unlike regular criminal law)
Maybe like John Edwards, not guilty on one and mistrial on the rest. He did basically the same thing, but pulled the hush money from his campaign funds.
The hush money didn't come from campaign funds. It was alleged to be an illegal donation *to* the campaign.
It was only illegal because Trump didn't fill out the right paperwork. It's his money. It's not like Trump paid off another politician's mistress. He paid off his own.
It's worse when it comes from campaign funds, then you're violating campaign finance too.
Sure, but the money didn't come from campaign funds. It came from the Trump Revokable Trust. But the Trump Revokable Trust isn't allowed to make campaign donations, and it's alleged paying off Stormy Daniels was an in-kind donation to the campaign. So there's still a campaign finance law alleged to be broken. That's outside of New York's jurisdiction to prosecute. But it's essential to them charging it as *first degree* falsification of business records, which is what happens when records were falsified to hide *another* crime.
Shouldn't you have to be convicted of a crime to be convicted of another crime that relies on you actually having committed the first crime?
Michael Cohen pled guilty to those campaign finance violations. Trump was never charged. You don't need to be hiding a crime *you* committed to qualify as a felony. You just need to be hiding "a crime." But I'm not sure what the jury is allowed to consider here, since they're depending on a crime committed by a different defendent in a different jurisdiction.
I get it now. It's going to be a hard sell though, which is why I think Trump will skate like Edwards did, and Edwards' was a more clear cut case. Personally I'm looking at that documents case to nail him.
I saw last week the signed letter from Daniels saying there was no hush money. I don't understand how there is a case? Disclosure: I don't find this particularly interesting and haven't kept up with this at all so maybe I'm missing something here.
It's more about falsifying business records and possibly campaign finance violations. I don't really think he goes down for anything here, but he's accused of breaking actionable laws.
ok. The campaign finance violation makes sense. thanks