Below is my column in the New York Post on the closing arguments scheduled for today in the trial of former President Donald Trump. The column explores the key elements for a closing to bring clarity to the chaos of Judge Juan Merchan’s courtroom.
Here is the column:
With the closing arguments set for Tuesday in the trial of former president Donald Trump, defense counsel are in a rather curious position.
There is still debate among legal experts as to the specific crime that District Attorney Alvin Bragg is alleging.
Trump’s lawyers are defending a former president who is charged under a state misdemeanor which died years ago under the statute of limitations. It was then zapped back into life in the form of roughly three dozen felonies by claiming that bookkeeping violations — allegedly hiding payments to Stormy Daniels to ensure her silence about a supposed affair with Trump — were committed to hide another crime.
But what is that second crime?
Even liberal legal analysts admitted that they could not figure out what was being alleged in Bragg’s indictment. Now, after weeks of trial, the situation has changed little.
Originally, Bragg referenced four possible crimes, though he is now claiming three: a tax violation or either a state or federal campaign financing violation. The last crime is particularly controversial because Bragg has no authority to enforce federal law and the Justice Department declined any criminal charge. The Federal Election Commission (FEC) did not even find grounds for a civil fine.
Judge Merchan has ruled that the jury does not have to agree on what that crime is. The jury could split into three groups of four on which of the three crimes were being concealed and Merchan will still treat it as a unanimous verdict.
The jury has been given little substantive information on these crimes, and Merchan has denied a legal expert who could have shown that there was no federal election violation.
This case should have been dismissed for lack of evidence or a cognizable crime. The jury will be reminded that the burden is on the government, not the defense.
However, the presumption of innocence is often hard to discern in criminal cases. Most jurors believe that clients are sitting behind the defense table for a reason. That is why many prosecution offices have conviction rates in the 80%-90% range.
That presumption is even more difficult to discern when the defendant is named Trump and the jury sits in Manhattan.
Three-legged Stool
A classic closing pitch by lawyers is to use a physical object like a three-legged stool. If any leg is missing, the stool collapses.
In this case, the government needs to show that there was a falsification of business records, that the records were falsified to conceal another crime and that Donald Trump had the specific intent to use such “unlawful means” to influence the election.
Even a cursory review of the evidence shows this case does not have a leg to stand on.
The First Leg: Falsification of Records
The dead misdemeanor that is the foundation for this entire prosecution requires the falsification of business records. It is not clear that there was such falsification or that Trump has any knowledge or role in any falsification.
Witnesses testified that Trump would sign checks prepared by others and that the specific checks in this case were signed while Trump was serving as president. Some of these checks, labeled “legal expenses,” were allegedly for attorney Michael Cohen to pay off Stormy Daniels.
Most importantly, Jeffrey McConney, the Trump Organization’s retired controller and senior vice-president, testified that it was not Trump who designated these payments as “legal expenses.” Rather, the corporation used an “antiquated” drop-down menu where any payments to lawyers were designated “legal expenses.” There is a plausible reason why payments to an attorney were listed as legal expenses.
The government also cites the designation of payments to Cohen as part of his “retainer,” which included reimbursement for the payment of the Daniels non-disclosure agreement. However, that designation was the result of discussions between Cohen and former Trump Organization CFO Allen Weisselberg, who is sitting in a jail cell in New York City. The government could have called Weisselberg, but did not.
The government has made a big deal over the fact that retainer agreements are supposed to have written contracts. However, that was the failure of Cohen, who was later disbarred as an attorney.
For a businessman like Weisselberg, monthly payments to an attorney could have seemed perfectly logical. Once again, there was no evidence that Trump knew of how the payments were denoted.
The Second Leg: The Secondary Crime
The government must also show that any falsification was done to further or conceal another crime.
This is where the defense needs to bring greater clarity to its own narrative. Trump’s team needs to drive home that a non-disclosure agreement is common in political, business and entertainment circles. The payment of money to quash a story before an election is neither unlawful nor unusual.
Indeed, Keith Davidson, Stormy Daniels’ attorney, described the NDA as routine and said that it was not hush money but a simple contractual transaction: “It wasn’t a payoff. It wasn’t hush money. It was consideration.”
This is where the testimony of David Pecker, the former publisher of the National Inquirer, was particularly damaging to the government.
Pecker detailed how killing such stories was a common practice at the National Inquirer and that he had done so for Trump for over a decade before he ran for president. He also killed stories for an impressive list of other celebrities, including Tiger Woods, Mark Wahlberg, Rahm Emanuel and Arnold Schwarzenegger.
Merchan has allowed the jury to repeatedly hear of “election violations,” while blocking a legal expert to explain that there is no federal election law violation. The payment of hush money is not a campaign contribution and, again, the federal government not only declined to bring any criminal charge, but found no basis for even a civil fine.
Had he been allowed to testify, Bradley Smith, the former Federal Election Commission (FEC) chairman, would have explained that, even if it were a campaign contribution, it would not have been needed to be filed until after the election — demolishing the notion that this was an effort to influence an election that would have run before any filing had to be made.
The defense has to hammer away on the fact that no one has testified that it was a federal campaign violation.
Various witnesses, including former Trump aide Hope Hicks, testified that Trump was motivated to protect his family from embarrassment. She recounted how Trump even “wanted me to make sure the newspapers weren’t delivered to their residence that morning.”
Pecker testified that he previously killed stories about Trump going back over a decade. That included stories that were demonstrably untrue, such as a claim of a doorman that he fathered a child out of wedlock.
In addition to being a married man, Trump was the host of a major television program subject to a scandal clause. He was also an international businessman. Given all of those interests, it is impossible to claim absolutely that the campaign was the reason for the NDA, which was chump change for a billionaire.
The Third Leg: Criminal intent
The government spent considerable time proving facts not in dispute. There is no dispute that there was a NDA or that Trump signed checks on these payments. It is like repeatedly telling a court that a driver drove 55 miles an hour down a highway and elected to change lanes with a signal. The intent is to convince the jury that somehow proving that an NDA was paid and that an affair occurred is proof of an offense. It is not.
The supervisor in charge of processing payments said that permission to cut Cohen’s checks came not from Trump, but from Weisselberg and McConney. Trump’s White House secretary, Madeleine Westerhout, testified that it was common for Trump to sign checks in the White House without reviewing them.
The entire basis for the alleged criminal intent is Michael Cohen, a disbarred lawyer and serial perjurer.
Yet even Cohen did not offer a clear basis for showing a criminal intent to use unlawful means to influence the election.
Everything Cohen described could be true and only show a desire to kill an embarrassing story before an election — again, not a crime.
Cohen described the mechanics on the payments, but the only person who discussed these payments in detail with Cohen was Weisselberg.
Even liberal experts on CNN admitted that Cohen was trashed on the stand. The only crime that was clearly established in this trial was the grand larceny that Cohen admitted to under oath (after the statute of limitations had run out). Cohen said that he stole tens of thousands from the Trump corporation, a crime far more serious than the dead misdemeanor or even the felonies alleged against Trump.
However, the most significant testimony by Cohen may be his latest alleged perjury in front of the jury.
Many of us guffawed when Cohen claimed that he secretly taped Trump to protect him and keep Pecker honest. No one can explain how that could possibly be true. If it were, he would have told Trump. There is nothing in the call that would have any impact on Pecker, and Cohen admitted to regularly taping others without telling them.
Another alleged perjury came with the key telephone call in which Cohen claimed Trump was informed that the Daniels deal was concluded. The defense showed that that 96-second-long call was to Trump’s bodyguard, Keith Schiller, in late October 2016. It was preceded and followed by text messages that clearly shows that the conversation was about a teenager harassing Cohen, not the NDA.
Other witnesses trashed Cohen as unprofessional, prone to exaggeration, bitter against Trump, at times suicidal over being denied positions like attorney general and simply “a jerk.” Hope Hicks, a former aide to Trump, said that Cohen “used to like to call himself Mister Fix It, but it was only because he first broke it.”
Those were the government’s witnesses.
Cohen’s lack of credibility and his admitted financial interest in attacking Trump only highlight again the absence of Weisselberg, whom Cohen references repeatedly as the key person making decisions on how these payments were made and described.
If what Cohen said was true, corroboration was sitting a car ride away in Rikers Island. Traffic may be bad but it is not that bad. The only reason not to call Weisselberg was that he would contradict Cohen.
The prosecution preferred to use a serial perjurer who roughly half of the country views as dishonest as almost the entirety of their case. Even beyond Weisselberg, there is no corroboration for Cohen’s vague allegations on the record.
In the end, this three-legged stool is the very thing that all of us must stand on when accused. Who on the jury would want to stand on this stool with their own liberty at stake?
In the end, the defense needs to be honest with these jurors. The question is whether hatred for this man is enough to ignore the obvious injustice in this case. They may have come to this case with little doubt about Donald Trump, but the question is whether there is not any reasonable doubt about the crimes alleged against him.
In the end, we are all standing on that wobbly stool when the government seeks to convict people without evidence or even a clear crime. If we allow a conviction, it is more than a stool that will collapse in this Manhattan courtroom.
Jonathan Turley is an attorney and professor at George Washington University Law School.
Representative Stefanik (R-NY), has filed a complaint to determine whether the required process to randomly assign judges was followed, as Judge Merchan is overseeing 3 of the cases against Donald Trump. The allegation is that Judge Merchan was selected in order to increase the chance of conviction.
https://www.dailywire.com/news/stefanik-files-complaint-over-trump-hush-money-case-questions-whether-judge-selection-was-random
In NYC, we are witnessing the abuses of a Single Party State. No one would be safe from such abuse of power. A state prosecuted federal election law, regarding alleged falsification of business records, years past the statute of limitations, which allegedly was perpetrated to commit a second crime. The state apparently rested without ever naming that crime. President Trump could go to prison for committing a crime the prosecutor never named.
We saw multiple perjurer Michael Cohen repeatedly get caught in lies on the stand. Democrat activist Judge Merchan disallowed a defense witness expert on federal election law, who would have testified that no crime occurred. Instead, Judge Merchan allowed perjurer Michael Cohen to essentially instruct the jury on election law. At every turn, Judge Merchan ran interference for the prosecution, and hamstrung the defense. This violated the defense’s right to a fair trial. The judge even allowed the prosecution to claim that Cohen’s plea deal meant that Trump’s violation of election law was a fact, a de facto conviction without a trial.
There is a very high risk that any jury in a Democrat supermajority state like NY would convict Trump, regardless of exculpatory evidence. We are to believe that Trump should be sentenced to up to 134 years in prison, for a NDA, yet it’s not a problem for Hillary Clinton to plant fake stories like the Russian Collusion hoax, to influence the 2016 election.
This is frightening.
We have seen Democrats abuse positions of authority, even drumming up false criminal charges, to interfere with Trump’s presidential campaign, yet we are to believe that questioning the integrity of an election is treason. It’s only treason when Republicans are concerned about election interference and fraud, but patriotic for Democrats. One, single, small riot on January 6 is supposed to be viewed as an attempt to overthrow the entire US government, treason, yet nationwide riots and “autonomous zones” are proper.
There is no justice. The US is now a banana republic.
By abusing authority, Democrats may very well be able to convict Trump on false charges. The facts of the case, or that it will be overturned on appeal, won’t matter. Democrats will then pile on Trump as a convicted felon.
Joe Biden had nothing to stand on in any possible debate. He’s overseen the total route of American forces in Afghanistan, abandoned Americans in Afghanistan, Haiti, and Israel, actively interferes with Israel rescuing Israeli and American hostages from mass murdering, mass raping terrorist organization Hamas, and his doddering weakness may have encouraged Russia to invade Ukraine, Hamas to rape and murder Israelis Oct 7, China to prepare to invade Israel, and Haiti to fall into chaos. His policies led to the influx of over 10 million illegal immigrants, including terrorists, massive inflation, higher gas prices, the draining of US strategic oil reserves, and increases in crime.
What could Biden possibly say in defense of his time in office?
He’s got nothing. So Democrat activists in positions of authorities are trying to gift him with the comeback that Trump is a convicted felon.
My God. This could happen to any conservative. This is a country where one party has surged to power, and is destroying political foes.
Why did Obama and the communists (liberals, progressives, socialists, democrats, RINOs, AINOs) try Real President Donald J. Trump in New York City?
76% to 23%.
That’s why.
That’s how they expect their corrupt New York City jury to vote.
_____________________________________________________________________
“Overall in New York City, Biden received 2,321,759 votes, 76%, to Trump’s 691,682 votes, or 23%; a margin of 1,630,077.”
– Gotham Gazette
Jonathan: Following up from my comment yesterday (@3:51pm), the closing arguments by prosecutor Josh Steinglass ended last night about 8 pm. It took over 4 hours. It was the jury that asked for Steinglass to complete his closing. A sign the jury was paying close attention. And Steinglass did not disappoint. He went through every piece of evidence–the phone calls, the photos, the checks by DJT, the handwritten notes by Allen Weisselberg, everything. For every argument by Todd Blanche, Steinglass had a rebuttal.
For example, Steinglass addressed Blanche’s argument in his closing that all the checks DJT signed were for “legal expenses”. Steinglass showed the jury DJT’s own US Govt. Ethics Report that he signed on 5/15/2018, In a footnote under Part 8 it states: “In the interests of transparency, while not required to be disclosed as reportable liability on Part 8, in 2016 expenses were incurred by one of Trump’s attorneys, Michael Cohen. Mr. Cohen sought reimbursement for those expenses. Mr. Trump fully reimbursed Mr. Cohen in 2017…”. That and other docs demolished Blanches’s argument!
Then Steinglass led the jury through the flurry of phone calls leading up to the payment to Stormy Daniels at the end of October 2016. Steinglass told the jury and to paraphrase: “There’s a reason that the sex happened in 2006, and the payoff happened in October 2016. That’s because the concern was the election, not Trump’s family”.
At the end of his summation Steinglass faced the jury and said–and to paraphrase again: “Very soon it will be time to deliberate…In the interests of justice, and in the name of the State of New York, I ask you to find the defendant Donald J. Trump guilty”.
Today Justice Merchan will give jury instructions and they will begin their deliberations. Is there anyone on this blog who would like to make a prediction on what the jury will find?
Dennis – You say you are a trained lawyer? You should be embarrassed by this communist show trial, but of course, you are defending the misconduct of the prosecutors and the corrupt judge.
“The magnitude of this judicial scandal cannot be overstated. Merchan BARRED Trump defense from explaining to jury that no campaign finance violation occurred but ALLOWED prosecutors to assert as fact in their closing, without rebuttal, that a campaign violation was committed.” @StephenM
“Lord, please 🙏 bless @realDonaldTrump & protect him from the Evil being wrought against him for political gain. Please bless & protect jurors & their families the Left is trying to coerce & intimidate, & give them courage & strength to stand up against the #SovietShowTrial ✝️”
Andrew Weismann is super gay, right? I mean my God, he has a ‘man crush’ on Juan the Marxist. Weismann is gay as gay can be.
DM –
1. You say: “For every argument by Todd Blanche, Steinglass had a rebuttal.” Do you not find your statement strange? Trump is the Defendant. He does not need to “make an argument.” It is the burden of the Plaintiff, the Prosecutor, to lay out the elements of the crime and the evidence supporting each of those elements beyond a reasonable doubut. It is only then that the Defendant is required to say anything. The reversal of the burden of proof shows how rigged this trial was.
2. You say: “There’s a reason that the sex happened in 2006, and the payoff happened in October 2016. That’s because the concern was the election, not Trump’s family”. First, the timing of the payoff to the blackmailer was determined by the blackmailer, who saw the chance for a big-payday. (Time was wasting her natrual asseets.) Second, Trump COULD have been concerned about the election, and his family, and his business reputation, and his personal reputation, and his TV contract. What evidence was presented to negate multiple concerns? None, except the speculation of Michael Cohen. Third, even if Trump was solely concerned about his election prospects, he still had the right to be so. Spending his own money to further his election prospects by paying off a blackmailer is NOT a “campaign contribution” in the considered opinion of the FEC. Who says otherwise? Fourth, a state jury has no right to consider what is or is not a “campaign contribution” under federal law. Fifth, if a state jury has a right to consider what is a campaign contribution under federal law, then the judge had a duty to tell the jury, or let an expert tell the jury, that the FEC has considered this matter and refused to sanction Trump. An adminstrative agency’s opinion as to the law it adminsters is usually given deference at the very least.
I think the judge sent the jurors home last Tuesday so as to give Democrat operatives time to contact the ones deemed to favor acquittal and threaten them and their families with ruin.
For Democrats, Trump is an existential threat and they will do anything to protect themselves.
Trump will be remanded in custody to await sentencing.
Probably share a cell with Weisselberg.
He should take his toothbrush and make-up with him tomorrow.
And his hair spray
Possibly, but that merely demonstrates the fascism of the left.
You do not seem to understand – it is NOT Trump on Trial – it is the left.
And you have been found guilty.
@John Say,
No. It’s Trump who is on Trial. It’s interesting how much denial from the right pervades this issue when the facts are being laid out for all to see. The prosecution had plenty of evidence to show the jury and plenty of rebuttals explaining in detail why they were wrong. Even the phone call issue was explained that it was not the only phone call Cohen made. It took four hours for the prosecution to present evidence, rebuttals, and presentations explaining in the plainest terms why Trump broke the law.
It was odd that the defense used the prosecution’s evidence to show Cohen was a liar but it seemed to undermine their argument and inexplicably gave the prosecution an easy rebuttal. It didn’t look good for the defense and you could tell by Trump’s silence after closing arguments ended. He didn’t do his usual ranting and whining in front of the press. He likely knew it was not looking good on his end.
It seems very likely that Trump will be found guilty. The prosecution’s closing arguments ran for 4 hours. They had a lot of evidence and some good rebuttals. We might find out as soon as tomorrow.
They went on for four hours BECAUSE they have NO CASE. Jeezus.
@anonynous,
No, they went for four hours because they had evidence on their side. More detail. Better rebuttals. They even explained why the defense was wrong on their argument that there is no evidence by presenting evidence. Their argument was more substantive than the defense which only focused on Cohen. It’s all they could do.
I read through those arguments by them.
There were laughable and ridiculous.
You sound like a partisan hack and a prostitute. It must suck to be you.
There’s a misconception what it said.
What evidence – they do not have a crime ?
The constitution and due process require that you can only be convicted of a crime that you are charged with.
The very fact that the prosecution and judge are VAGUELY alluding to crimes other than those in the indictment and the charges all the way at the end of the case is proof of the unconstitutionality of this prosecution.
In fact we are beyond merely unconstitutional and well into violations of civil rights under color of law – a federal crime.
The idiotic allegation of the prosecutor is that Trump did this to win the election – weak tea – But SO WHAT. That is what Campaigns do – they try to win elections.
Are we going to
Try Joe Biden for supressing the Hunter Biden laptop story to win in 2020 ?
Are we going to Try Joe and Bragg and Colangelo and Merchan from election interferance in 2025 ?
Those of you on the left NEVER think of how the idiotic claims you make will be applied to YOU.
Biden allegedly spoke regarding the trial today – a very stupid move.
First it is actually an error that can result in a case being dissmissed for a President to remark on a prosecution before the Jury decides.
But more importantly – It Strengthens the conclusion that this is an election strategy not a real criminal prosecution.
You constantly like to Claim that Trump is a criminal – and you MAY yet get your verdict.
But it is YOU who are on trial, and you have convicted yourself.
You say there is good evidence ?
No there is not.
There are no charges of tax evasion – there actually can not be – regardless of what the purpose of the payment was taxes were properly paid.
Calling it an election expenxe, a NDA payment or legal expenses does not alter taxes.
In point of Fact the prosecution should never have been allowed to Argue, or put on evidence of crimes that were not charged.
Right in the middle of this Case the NY Supreme court dismissed the Harvey Weinsten Conviction specifically because evidence was presented of crimes not charged.
But what is a little thing like the constitution.
But even after Trying Trump for crimes that have through to this moment never been identified, You have failed to provide the required elements of ANY crime. That is part of the reason for requiring that a person is charged of violating a specific statute and only prosecuted for that specific statutue. Because every crime has very specific required elements that must be proven. Miss a single one and that charge can not go to the jury.
Doing so is unconstitutional – it is also CORRUPT.
So please list what specific statutes Trump has been charged with violating, Eliminate all evidence that is not a required element for one of those statues, and you have nothing left.
But it is worse than that.
Even the vaguely alleged crimes are not crimes.
Has there been ANY evidence of tax evasion been presented ? There has not – therefore it is a violation of the law to allow anything related to tax evastion to go to a jury.
What election laws has been violated – cite the specific law, and the statutory requirements for a conviction under than law, and show me actual evidence of ANY of those elements.
Turley notes that MErchan did not allow Trump’s expert to testify regarding the federal law – that is actually probably proper. Because This court has no jurisdiction over the federal law and can not try a federal crime in a state court.
But Even if that were not true – the Judge is obligated to inform the jury of the required elements of the law – given that neither the prosecutor nor the judge have actually identified REAL LAWS, that have been violated. Much less the required elements for those crimes – that can not go to the jury.
Neither Civil nor criminal cases in this country are – allow a biased judge and one party to slander and malign the other for 6 weeks and then ask the jury to decide having only been allowed to hear vague half truths and allegation whether they think the accused is a bad person.
We already know that those of you on the left think Trump is a bad person – Because he has won two elections, and is likely to crush you on a third.
First it is actually an error that can result in a case being dissmissed for a President to remark on a prosecution before the Jury decides.
That is not true. Not in a case being tried in a court of law. It is only true in cases being tried not in courts but by military tribunals, for offenses under military law.
Turley notes that MErchan did not allow Trump’s expert to testify regarding the federal law – that is actually probably proper. Because This court has no jurisdiction over the federal law and can not try a federal crime in a state court.
There has been no attempt to try a federal crime in this trial. The federal crime has merely been advanced as an element in a state crime. The state crime references “another crime”, which need not be one in NY. It could be a federal crime, it could be a crime in another state, or even a crime in another country. All that’s required is that it be a crime somewhere in the world. And it needn’t have been committed at all; it could merely have been contemplated.
Bradley Smith wasn’t allowed to testify because it’s standard not to allow experts to tell the jury what the law is. It’s up to the judge to do so, and Smith should have written a brief to the judge to educate him on an area of law in which he has no expertise. But really Merchan should have made an exception and allowed Smith to educate the jury directly.
@John Say,
“ What evidence – they do not have a crime ?”
Where you not paying attention? The prosecution presented evidence and the indictment shows exactly what the charges are. Falsifying business records in the first degree. 34 counts. Those are the charges.
“ The idiotic allegation of the prosecutor is that Trump did this to win the election – weak tea – But SO WHAT. That is what Campaigns do – they try to win elections.”
They did this by illegally hiding information that it’s a crime in NY. The whole thing has been explained during closing arguments.
“ So please list what specific statutes Trump has been charged with violating, Eliminate all evidence that is not a required element for one of those statues, and you have nothing left.”
NY penal code 175.10. It’s right there in the indictment. Falsifying business records in the first degree. All you have to do is read the indictment. It’s all there.
“ Has there been ANY evidence of tax evasion been presented ?”
Yes, they presented it in closing arguments. You didn’t know?
The 1099 forms Trump filed which reported payments to Cohen as “legal fees” when they were really Reimbursements is unlawful. Why were the payments not made through Trump’s legal department instead of his personal account? The prosecution walked through every detail of the scheme and showed the jury why this was indeed a crime.
So yes, there is a crime. There is evidence, and there are real charges spelled out in the indictment. It’s all there for you to see. Pretending they don’t exist is harder for you to prove.
The jury may be influenced more by out of court arguments and intimidation than any argument or testimony in the courtroom.
There should have been a change of venue [and judge] and the jury should have been sequestered.
But others, not excluding members of the state and federal governments, may want the jurors vulnerable and exposed to external measures. I am not sure they will want to risk everything on a jury pool only biased in their favor, maybe look for a bit of insurance.
It will take a very courageous juror to vote fairly on the law and the evidence.
Young, there are 2 attorneys in the jury.
So?
David:
Robespierre was an attorney.
David,
Judge Jefferies and Roland Freisler were also attorneys.
David,
Now you have me thinking about history and the lawfare against the President, it does seem that the government decided to stock up on a lot of Titus Oates replicas.
The case should never have seen the inside of a court. There was never anything here.
Assuming all FACTS in favor of the prosecution. Trump and Cohen conspiring to buy Daniels silence, and then hiding that they did that, is NOT A CRIME.
This garbage is typical of the left.
Acts that are legal without the election – are legal with an election.
Buying someone’s silence – if they are willing to pay for it is legal.
Hiding that you did so not only is legal – but it has to be – otherwise there would be no purpose to buying silence.
If killing a news story is a election crime – that the entire Biden campaign team needs to go to jail for killing the Hunter Biden story.
@John Say,
“ Assuming all FACTS in favor of the prosecution. Trump and Cohen conspiring to buy Daniels silence, and then hiding that they did that, is NOT A CRIME.”
Yes it is a crime. It’s the hiding part that is the crime. If Trump just paid Daniels out of his own pocket without the use of a fake LLC and reimbursements he would have never been charged with a crime.
Trump made the stupid decision to falsify records to hide the purpose of the payments. Pecker helped Trump hide the story after the p—sy grabbing tape came out. They were panicking about it and the RNC was seriously considering dropping Trump from the nomination. They didn’t want the Stormy Daniels story to reinforce the ugly narrative that unfolded from the leaked audio of Trump bragging about sexual assault. So they chose to hide the purpose of the payments intending to avoid any damage to his election chances. That’s why it was filed as a first degree felony and not a misdemeanor. This was explained in detail during closing arguments.
Buying someone’s silence is absolutely legal. But that’s not what Trump did. He went further. He chose to HIDE the purpose of the payments by falsely reporting the reimbursement to Cohen as a legal expense when it wasn’t. THAT is the crime. Trump reimbursing Cohen was not payment for legal services. Cohen stated that it wasn’t on the stand. Weisselberg admitted that they were reimbursements. Not legal expenses.
“ If killing a news story is an election crime – that the entire Biden campaign team needs to go to jail for killing the Hunter Biden story.”
It wasn’t just killing a news story. It was how the money was used and the “favor” Pecker did for Trump. Trump claims he was protecting his family, that was a lie. He was protecting his chances of getting elected. This was coordinated with Trump’s PAC which is a campaign violation. It was done to benefit Trump and you know that a Benefit is to the campaign in the form of a favor is an election law violation.
All this was laid out in closing arguments. How did you miss it?
Robert Di Niro is just pissed because all of his pedophiliac friends in Hollywood are being exposed by Republicans. He knows exactly what’s going on in Hollywood and they’re keeping him from finding his easy prey.
Mad as a hatter.
I like DeNiro as a actor.
But I pay ZERO attention to Actors remarks on politics.
I do not judge any actors performances by their politics.
Nor do I weigh the perfomances of an actor when considering their political remarks.
DeNiro is a great actor and a political moron.
Donald Trump wants to destroy New York City, the country and the world. So says Robert Di Niro. While Trump was President the border was under control inflation was under control and we weren’t involved in any wars. My 401K plan was growing like there was no tomorrow. And I’m going to listen to the likes of Robert Di Niro. I don’t think so.
When this is all over there will be revenge and it will be severe. Democrats will pay more dearly for their crimes than they can imagine.
ROFL Now that’s a dream utopia that is not going to happen.
Why not ? Do you honestly think Republicans are not capable of doing to democrats what Democrats are doing to republicans ?
Maybe you think this will tip the election – while I doubt it – So what ? Are you going to win all elections everywhere forever ?
What is to stop a Republican AG in a red state from Going after Joe for EXACTLY the same thing ?
Joe buried the hunter Biden laptop story.
It could be very easy to get an indictment and a Red State Jury to convict after this.
It would be wrong – for the same reason this is wrong.
H311 suppressing the Hunter Biden laptop is far worse than this – there were real prostitutes and massive amounts of illegal drugs, and violations of the man act and gun law violations that were part of the Hunter Biden laptop – not to Mention the Biden family political corruption.
Please explain to me why attempting to kill an alleged evening with a porn star is an illegal campaign act – and killing the Hunter Biden Laptop story is NOT ?
Explain to me why if NY Courts can go after Trump for this – why can’t red states go after Biden ?
Turn about is fair play
@John Say,
“ Explain to me why if NY Courts can go after Trump for this – why can’t red states go after Biden ?”
Because Trump committed a crime. Biden did not. Red states cannot go after someone who did not commit a crime. This should be self explanatory.
Trump has been shown to have falsified business records by the prosecution and has been charged accordingly based on NY law.
This eye for eye mentality is does not benefit anyone except those too petty to let things go. This whole “turnabout is fair play” BS is what impedes any progress and focus on far more important things. This is why the Republican Party has nothing to campaign on besides petty grievances from the past. This is why republicans in the house have been losing their majority consistently and will very likely lose the house in the next election.
The Hunter Biden laptop was “suppressed” for a grand total of 24 hrs. That’s it. Big deal. They had to verify its authenticity and there were serious doubts about it when it first came to light.
Hunter Biden has his due process rights and is going to defend himself against the charges just like Trump. If people think he’s getting away with a crime then it would be no different than Trump getting away with a crime. Both have good lawyers and if they succeed in getting away with it then it’s because they had good lawyers. Not because of corruption.
And DiNiro did not say why Biden is better. He only had threats of why in his little mind that Trump may be worse. I would need to know why the other choice is better. He couldn’t say we are better off. Look at how much money is being spent on housing, feeding, and schooling for immigrants.