ChiGoose

Going for entertaining over facts explains quite a lot.

Poor dementia Irv is confused about what people did or didn’t say. What a mess!

When did I condemn Butker?

What did you think of McConney and Tarasof’s testimony?

Yeah, I guess explaining reality is very inconvenient for the MAGA crowd.

I’m not sure you grasp the actual facts of this case

Remember when a bunch of a-holes were making a big joke of this and insisting it was an affair gone wrong?

The prosecution has almost certainly proven the case for the falsification of business records. The step up is a bit more challenging. I think they got there but it’s really hard to tell without watching the jury. I’m a bit surprised the prosecution didn’t put on an expert witness to talk about the election law violations but it sounds like they have one ready as a rebuttal if the defense moves forward on their plan for such a witness.

The only way Trump takes the stand is if he forces his legal team to let him. Would be a terrible idea. I hope he does it.

I don’t know what to make of the clerks quitting. One I believe was pregnant and decided she couldn’t keep up with the workload. I don’t blame Cannon for that. The rest of it? No idea. The Trump era really puts Hanlon’s Razor to the test. If Cannon really wanted to help Trump, she could get the trial to the point where a jury is empaneled and then approve a motion for directed verdict of acquittal. Double jeopardy will have attached and Trump would escape totally free with the government unable to refile the charges. Maybe she’s stupid like a fox and building to that. Maybe she’s just stupid and hoping this goes away. Either is possible. I just lean towards the latter (for now).

Not sure I agree. Cannon is under-qualified and in way over her head. I think she’s just delaying everything hoping that eventually the case goes away. She hasn’t really been ruling for Trump. She hasn’t really been ruling at all. The handful of times she made a substantial ruling, they generally go for the special counsel. I don’t think her delaying the case is out of loyalty for Trump. I think it’s because she just doesn’t want to deal with it. I know it’s effectively the same result but there are ways she could seriously end this case in Trump’s favor that she doesn’t seem to be pursuing. Generally the whole “Trump judges” thing isn’t really a thing. Judges appointed by Trump tend to be very conservative (and a number of them have weak credentials, appointed just for ideology and age), but Trump constantly loses cases before judges he appointed.

Not really. You’ve mostly just stated that the judge and jury are biased but failed to cite any applicable precedent that would lead one to think an appeal on such grounds would be successful. Then you loudly and clearly misstated the law applicable to this case. Gotta say, not very convincing stuff.

Simply because you think everyone is biased? What objections raised by Trump’s team are going to be successful on appeal? Do you have any cases or precedent you can point to that would support this case being thrown out on appeal due to bias? Should be very easy to answer if you are 100% convinced of an overturn.

On what issue do you believe Trump’s team will be successful on appeal?

Tommy Eyerolls playing to the script as usual. Maybe one day he’ll contribute something of value, maybe even an actual original thought. Just don’t hold your breath.

It’s actually not. The prosecution has put on a pretty strong case.

It’s not a very intuitive case. When it was first filed, the general consensus was that it was weird and weak. But it’s important to remember that most of the legal commentariat are federal practitioners. Which I why I really liked the work done by Just Security to look into how this law is typically charged and prosecuted by the state. They found that it is very common and that several politicians have been prosecuted for similar facts. As the trial has gone on, people have started to see that it’s actually a pretty strong case (though not impervious) even if most wouldn’t consider it the most important Trump case.

If Trump had paid from his campaign, there would be no need to falsify the Trump Org business records (since it wouldn’t have been involved at all), so the NY case could not exist. As people have pointed out, there’s nothing inherently illegal about an NDA. But campaigns are required to report information about contributions and spending. If Trump paid through the campaign, he’d have to report it, which would be public information so people could find out, defeating the entire purpose of the exercise. So if he wanted to do a little crime and still achieve his goal, he could have paid through the campaign (thus avoiding the NY business records issue) but lie about the purpose in the FEC filings. By the time it would be discovered, the campaign would likely have been over anyway. Plus, the FEC is a broken institution so the worst he’d face is a fine. Instead, he paid through the Trump Org, falsified business records to conceal it, for the intent of benefiting his campaign.

Ironically, they would be in less trouble if they had used campaign funds.

Violation of election laws for an undisclosed contribution. The intent to conceal to avoid disclosure to the FEC is a crime.

Yes, Hicks testified that Trump was concerned about Melania. She also testified that he was worried it would hurt the campaign. Does that mean that burying the story would benefit the campaign? I don’t understand this question. Are you asking about Hicks claiming Cohen’s payment on her taxes?

Hope Hicks, ex-Trump adviser, recounts fear in 2016 campaign over impact of ‘Access Hollywood’ tape “Donald Trump’s 2016 campaign was seized with worry about the potential political damage from a tape that showed Trump bragging about grabbing women sexually without their permission, longtime Trump adviser Hope Hicks testified Friday at his hush money trial.” *** “Once one of Trump’s closest confidants, Hicks provided a window into the chaotic fallout over the tape’s release just days before a crucial debate with Democrat Hillary Clinton. It was recorded in 2005 but was not seen by the public until Oct. 7, 2016, about a month before Election Day. Hicks described being stunned and huddling with other Trump advisers after learning about the tape’s existence from the Washington Post reporter who broke the story. Hicks forwarded the reporter’s request to campaign leadership with the recommendation to “deny, deny, deny,” she said.” *** ““I had a good sense to believe this was going to be a massive story and that it was going to dominate the news cycle for the next several days,” Hicks testified. “This was a damaging development.” She added: “This was just pulling us backwards in a way that was going to be hard to overcome.”” *** “But, Hicks said, Trump eventually came to believe that burying Daniels’ story was prudent, saying he thought “it would have been bad to have that story come out before the election.” *** “But when asked if Trump was also worried about the story’s impact on the campaign, Hicks responded that everything they spoke about during that time was viewed through the lens of the campaign. Trump would often asking her, “How is it playing?” as a way of gauging how his appearances, speeches and policies were landing with voters, she said.” Wow. When you read what she actually said it does seem that Trump was concerned about the impact to the campaign, not just Melania. If you find Hope Hicks believable, I’m guessing you might now be thinking Trump did violate election laws…

FBI: We know you did this crime. Would you like to admit to it or commit another crime by lying to us? FBI Internal Monologue: I sure hope he doesn’t clam up and have a lawyer take over… Criminal: I would like to commit an additional crime, if you please. *later* Criminal: Upon reflection of all of the crimes I’ve done, I would like to plead guilty. MAGA: This is a travesty of justice! I’m sure MAGA would also believe this was a travesty if it was somebody who robbed some stores…

They already did. Though cross of Cohen is ongoing and will continue on Thursday.