In the Trump hush money trial, David Pecker, publisher of the National Enquirer, testified today about paying off informants to hush up sex scandals:
Before court adjourned for the day, Mr. Pecker testified that Mr. Cohen and Mr. Trump had asked him what he and his magazines could do “to help the campaign,” a crucial statement that supports the prosecution’s argument that the men were not just protecting Mr. Trump’s personal reputation, but aiding his presidential bid.
This is critical. The prosecution is arguing that Trump paid off Stormy Daniels for her silence, but that's not illegal. They're also arguing that the Trump Organization eventually logged the payments as "legal expenses" in the company's books. That's potentially illegal but only barely.
The key to the prosecution is why Trump did all this. They've continued to be a little cagey about their plan, but apparently they intend to argue that it was all done to help Trump's presidential campaign, which would make it an illegal campaign contribution that he then covered up. That's a federal offense and makes the recordkeeping violation a felony.
This is more or less what prosecutors tried to pin on John Edwards a decade ago over payments to keep his affair with Rielle Hunter secret. It was a novel interpretation of the law back then, and the jury didn't buy it. They couldn't reach a verdict and eventually the charges were dropped.
Will it work better this time? Is it even what the prosecutors have in mind? Or are they going to argue something a little different? Stay tuned.
As I recall the John Edwards payments began before he properly had a campaign while the Trump payments occurred near the end of the campaign at a critical moment.
I also don't think there were recordings and testimony showing that edwards payments were about helping the campaign, which do exist for trump.
US Dollar 2,000 in a Single Online Day Due to its position, the United States offers a plethora of opportunities for those seeking employment. With so many options accessible, it might be difficult to know where to start. You may choose the ideal online housekeeping strategy with the help vz-06 of this post.
Begin here>>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://lifeimproveds01.blogspot.com/
Actually, Edward's case payments occurred after the campaign had ended. Recall that Edward's didn't even meet the baby mon til the campaign was under way.
My memory is, increasingly --what is the word? --I've no idea.
Whether he's convicted of the prosecution's charges or not, the trial will only help his 2024 campaign. I'm very sorry they pursued this for so long.
Neither Trump nor his own campaign staffers believe that. He is spending four days a week sitting in a courtroom when he needs to be on the campaign trail. He is spending millions of dollars of campaign funds per week on lawyers.
And, this might end with him becoming a convicted felon, a prospect that would absolutely push a boatload of swing voters into Biden's column.
Don't be so sure about that. Because people answered a polling question along the lines of "If Trump were proven a felon would you still vote for him?" doesn't mean they actually will change their vote if and when that happens. Anyone who wouldn't vote for a felon probably already has decided against Trump, and a courtroom decision won't make much difference to them or to the bulk of MAGA supporters.
You're delusional. It helped him with the tiny minority of people who are republican primary voters but hurt him with everyone else.
The only people who will be more supportive of Trump as a result of this trial are the far-gone MAGAts who were certain to vote for him any way. In other words, it won't gain him a single vote.
Donald is stuck on the horns of a dilemma. If he testifies he will likely melt down under cross examination. If he doesn’t testify all his loyal minions will be screaming “WHY DIDN’T YOU TELL THEM YOU WERE INNOCENT?”
you over estimate his loyal minions. They never question anything he does, or when they do the answer is always "BECAUSE DEEP STATE!"
I don't see how this will help Trump. He clearly tried to delay and stop the trial. Even if the jury acquits, I don't see how the testimony fails to hurt him. These issues (sex, money) are something people understand and care about (maybe too much).
I wonder if Peckker’s testimony will serve to tar the reputations of the MSM in general. That they all have agendas and pursue them in the same way that the National Enquire does.
No one with any intelligence is going to equate the national enquirer with main stream media. People don't even equate faux news with the national enquirer.
“With any intelligence” is doing a lot of work in the age of Trump. It amazes me that there are people out there who aren’t sure whether or not to vote for him. But here we are.
Now I'm more curious about D. Pecker. He has quite the air about him.
He seems to be the rare co-conspirator of Don's who didn't get in too deep. Whether that's because he's smart or just can spot someone just like him, I can't say. But it helps my theory that Don depends on corrupting people who have moral sensibilities, somewhere. That's an essential aspect - he keeps other manipulators away, probably out of fear that they'll do it better than he does.
Why do you think he didn’t get in too deep? He has an immunity agreement. That seems more like an escape hatch.
Because he positioned himself to have that escape hatch.
Dude famously has a safe full of blackmail material. Based on what we've seen - and not seen, like the usual public attacks on him - it appears he's navigated playing with Don while not getting burned. The only other people I can think of in that category are certain heads of state and (arguably) family members.
He needed an immunity agreement. That indicates to me that he was in deep enough to be in jeopardy.
I do agree that he has positioned himself to not get attacked by Trump. I was watching CNN and one of the commentators indicated there would be a blistering cross examination of Pecker by Trump’s lawyers. We’ll see, but I agree with you that they might be playing with fire if they attack Pecker. I think it is kind of like an old Twilight Zone episode. “My name is David Pecker, and you’d better be nice to me!”
Well, that sounds like in deep, but smart.
Being able to con a con is a specific skill set.
Pecker had good corporate lawyers who prevented him from accepting Trump's reimbursements and prevented him from continuing the scam with Daniels.
After his blithely evading any comeuppance for the Access Hollywood tapes, he is not going to suffer much for this even if convicted on all counts. Yeah, it's borderline illegal. But yeah, he's a notorious playboy, and this kind of stuff is expected. His supporters will be fine with it, and his detractors appalled ... i.e., business as usual.
The Defendant's supporters are capable and more than willing to believe
(1) it wasn't a sin for him - sorry; "Him" - to do it
(2) he didn't actually do it.
The hardcore (heh!) maganuts won't be swayed. The rest of the country ... well, we can hope. However, I fear that only the coverage will have any negative impact: he won't get so much as a wrist slap for violating his gag orders over and over and over, and maybe the case will be too abstract for the jury, even though they are New Yorkers.
You do realize if convicted he's going to prison for a long time.
Wait, there's mandatory minimum sentences for these crimes?
"It was a novel interpretation of the law back then, and the jury didn't buy it." It wasn
t remotely novel. And the jury didn;t buy it because the donors swore, literally on their death beds, that they didn't give the money to aid the campaign, but to protect Edwards dying wife. (There was a lot of death from natural causes in that case.) In Trump's case, the donors are all swearing they gave the mney solely to help the campaign. Which is night and day different.
"The Trump Organization eventually logged the payments as "legal expenses" in the company's books. That's potentially illegal but only barely."
Really? A $420,000 phoney tax deduction is only barely i!legal? I wish I'd known that all these years
The bigger the dollar amount, the less illegal it is. Your $42 phoney tax deduction is definitely illegal.
To convict Trump of falsification of business records in the first degree, the prosecutor has to prove that the purpose of falsifying the business records was to conceal another crime. (If Trump falsified business records for some other reason, the crime would be falsifying business records in the second degree, and the statute of limitations has run out for that crime.) However, the prosecution can suggest multiple possibilities for what that other crime might be. The prosecution may argue that Trump falsified business records to cover up multiple crimes, including:
- Violation of Federal campaign laws (U.S.C. § 30101 and subsequent sections)
- Violation of New York election law (§ 17-152)
- Violation of New York tax law (§§ 1801(a)(3)) by making the business records match false information in New York tax filings.
The judge will then instruct the jury that to convict they need to find beyond a reasonable doubt that Trump falsified business records in order to cover up at least one of those crimes. If the jury concludes that the prosecution was wrong about two of the three crimes, it can still convict.
The Edwards case was a prosecution for violation of Federal campaign laws. The outcome of that case may explain why the prosecution is keeping its options open.
“In the Trump hush money trial…“
Anyone else remember KD referring to the “hack gap?” The Republican hacks are more willing to carry water for the team while ours are focused more on being factually accurate. So, Democrats end up being at a disadvantage.
If KD doesn’t want to be a cheerleader for the Democrats, that’s fine and his prerogative. However, would it kill him to call this case what it actually is an election interference case and not use the RW and corporate media’s narrative to minimize this case as much as possible? He can wail all he wants about the damage that Fox does, but in things that he can actually control, he’s sloppy and unhelpful.