Criminal Charges Against Trump / Trump Indicted / Hush Money Part III

Status
Not open for further replies.

smartcooky

Penultimate Amazing
smartcooky
Joined
Oct 26, 2012
Messages
28,081
Location
Nelson, New Zealand
Continued from here.
Posted By: Agatha




Its hilarious that The Fat Orange Turd's lawyers are trying to say Cohen cannot be trusted because he lied under oath before Congress, when the fact is that he lied on behalf of that very same Fat Orange Turd.

Of course, when Cohen decided to come clean and recant, he brought the receipts, boxes of them - the testimony will not be just Cohen's word.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
slyjoe said:
It's because the defense has two witnesses. One guy slated to testify is to discuss terminology, not Trump's specific actions.



https://www.cnn.com/2024/04/14/politics/prosecutors-trump-trial-new-york/index.html
Click to expand...

From your link:

Merchan has limited the scope of Smith’s testimony to describing the role and function of the FEC and defining certain terms, such as campaign contributions, but has blocked him from testifying about whether the law was violated in this case.
Click to expand...

It's not up to Trump's lawyer to decide if a law has been broken. It's up to Merchan.
 
smartcooky said:
Its hilarious that The Fat Orange Turd's lawyers are trying to say Cohen cannot be trusted because he lied under oath before Congress, when the fact is that he lied on behalf of that very same Fat Orange Turd.

Of course, when Cohen decided to come clean and recant, he brought the receipts, boxes of them - the testimony will not be just Cohen's word.
Click to expand...

After reading Cohen's book and his actions since his release from prison, I do believe that he realizes what a shmuck he was.
 
acbytesla said:
Garten is the Trump Organization’s Chief Legal officer.

My guess is Garten will be trying to refute Cohen's testimony somehow. Not sure how though.
Click to expand...

Well, the guy's a convicted felon! That absolutely negates any testimony he has to offer!

(Note: although this is sarcasm, I don't doubt that card will be played anyway.)
 
Stacyhs said:
After reading Cohen's book and his actions since his release from prison, I do believe that he realizes what a shmuck he was.
Click to expand...

I hate the expression but Cohen had a real "come to Jesus moment." Cohen had spent years being Trump’s cleanup and bag man. And didn't mind it because it paid well. He probably would still be doing it if Trump had stuck to real estate.
 
acbytesla said:
I hate the expression but Cohen had a real "come to Jesus moment." Cohen had spent years being Trump’s cleanup and bag man. And didn't mind it because it paid well. He probably would still be doing it if Trump stuck to real estate.
Click to expand...

Probably. But he did have a real wake up moment when he realized that Trump dropped him like a hot potato once he was charged. Trump has no loyalty to anyone but himself. I believe he'd throw his own kids under the bus if it was to his advantage.
 
alfaniner said:
Well, the guy's a convicted felon! That absolutely negates any testimony he has to offer!

(Note: although this is sarcasm, I don't doubt that card will be played anyway.)
Click to expand...

Of course it will be. But I'm sure Bragg has worked out the narrative dealing with that. I expect Bragg will point this out to the jury. Make it clear that Cohen went to prison for lying on Trump’s behalf.
 
acbytesla said:
Of course it will be. But I'm sure Bragg has worked out the narrative dealing with that. I expect Bragg will point this out to the jury. Make it clear that Cohen went to prison for lying on Trump’s behalf.
Click to expand...

You mean Ivana, Marla and Meliani's children?
 
Stacyhs said:
After reading Cohen's book and his actions since his release from prison, I do believe that he realizes what a shmuck he was.
Click to expand...

Oh, I have seem him openly admit this in interviews with Ari Melber, Alex Wagner, Ben Meiselas, Anderson Cooper and others. It takes quite a special kind of person to elocute the wrong they have done in public on TV in from of an audience of a million plus.
 
Cohen got off easy. Pandemic sent him to home arrest. Plus he made the round of talk shows.
Wiki: On December 12, 2018, U.S. District Judge William H. Pauley III sentenced Cohen to three years in prison and a $50,000 fine, and additionally ordered Cohen to pay $1.4 million in restitution and to forfeit $500,000.
Cohen filed suit complaining that his re-arrest was an attempt to prevent him from releasing a tell-all book about Trump titled Disloyal: A Memoir. On July 23, a judge found in his favor and ordered that he be returned to home confinement. Cohen was released from home confinement and his sentence expired on November 22, 2021.
 
Last edited:
Tero said:
Cohen got off easy. Pandemic sent him to home arrest. Plus he made the round of talk shows.
Wiki: On December 12, 2018, U.S. District Judge William H. Pauley III sentenced Cohen to three years in prison and a $50,000 fine, and additionally ordered Cohen to pay $1.4 million in restitution and to forfeit $500,000.
Cohen filed suit complaining that his re-arrest was an attempt to prevent him from releasing a tell-all book about Trump titled Disloyal: A Memoir. On July 23, a judge found in his favor and ordered that he be returned to home confinement. Cohen was released from home confinement and his sentence expired on November 22, 2021.
Click to expand...

Yes and No.

Compared to the length of time of his Federal sentence, yes. Cohen spent only a year in actual prison of his prison sentence. Normal Federal guidelines would have been about 2 and a half.

But compared to what he was sentenced for and what other MAGA turds have faced, Cohen did not get off easy. In fact, the opposite is true.
 
acbytesla said:
Of course it will be. But I'm sure Bragg has worked out the narrative dealing with that. I expect Bragg will point this out to the jury. Make it clear that Cohen went to prison for lying on Trump’s behalf.
Click to expand...

This is a well-established pattern. If you step back and forget that it's Trump, this is just two guys who conspired to commit a crime, and one of them turned state's evidence. That your witness participated in the crime and the crime involved lying to the authorities is not an insurmountable impediment.

alfaniner said:
I'm laughing. The FPDJT looks like absolute **** today in his first criminal trial court appearance.
Click to expand...

Wow, he really does. Puffy eyes, disheveled "hair."
 
JayUtah said:
This is a well-established pattern. If you step back and forget that it's Trump, this is just two guys who conspired to commit a crime, and one of them turned state's evidence. That your witness participated in the crime and the crime involved lying to the authorities is not an insurmountable impediment.
Click to expand...

There are some witnesses, you should never believe on their testimony alone. Not that they are lying. Just that their reputation proceeds them. They seem incapable of telling the truth. Even if Cohen is one of those people, (Which I don't think he is.) you still listen to what they have to say and the context in which they say it.

Does it make sense?

What is the motivation for lying?

What is the motivation for telling the truth?

And most important, what kind of corrobation does their testimony have?

Bragg would not put a witness who has been convicted of multiple felonies on the stand unless the testimony made sense and is corroborated by other evidence. If it came down to Cohen's testimony alone, Bragg would never have charged Trump.

And that appears to be Trump's problem. The evidence isn't just Cohen and Stormy Daniels.
 
Last edited:
Rightwing now having a meltdown because the judge told the criminal defendant that he had to attend his trial.

Last week the complaint was that the FBI interviewed someone who used to work for Trump without notifying Trump ahead of time.

As Franklin Veaux says, 90% of right wing outrage is in hearing about how things work for the first time.

Meanwhile, Don fell asleep in court today.

I admit, actual trials are as boring as all get out, but when you make a living calling your political opponent Sleepy Joe, you might want to avoid falling asleep at your trial.
 
pgwenthold said:
Rightwing now having a meltdown because the judge told the criminal defendant that he had to attend his trial.

Last week the complaint was that the FBI interviewed someone who used to work for Trump without notifying Trump ahead of time.

As Franklin Veaux says, 90% of right wing outrage is in hearing about how things work for the first time.

Meanwhile, Don fell asleep in court today.

I admit, actual trials are as boring as all get out, but when you make a living calling your political opponent Sleepy Joe, you might want to avoid falling asleep at your trial.
Click to expand...
Maybe a reporter could get close enough to him to see if the rumors about him stinking are true. Then we could call him the Sleepy, Stinking Don.
 
Trump's lie-a-thon this morning on TS:

"I want my VOICE back. This Crooked Judge has GAGGED me. Unconstitutional! The other side can talk about me, but I am not allowed to talk about them! Rigged Trial!"

"Why didn’t they bring this totally discredited lawsuit 7 years ago??? Election Interference!"

“As virtually every legal scholar has powerfully stated, the Biden Manhattan Witch Hunt Case is, among other things, BARRED by the Statute of Limitations. This ‘trial’ should be ended by the highly conflicted presiding Judge.”k

In the courthouse this morning, Trump continued his lie-a-thon:

"Every legal scholar said this this case is nonsense, it should never have been brought."

And MAGA idiots will swallow it all while nodding their heads in agreement with Dear Leader. Because the Chosen One never lies.
 
I am mulling over the jury selection, as to whether I'd be a candidate. More than half the pool has been excused for not being able to be impartial or for scheduling conflicts. (No info on percentages of which.) Now, I absolutely hate the guy, but I know I could be impartial and weigh the case on the basis of the evidence. This may seem like an oxymoron and I know right-wing MAGArats would claim bias, but I know I could be fair.

There was a big trial a few years ago (I forget which) where the consensus was that the guy was guilty, but the prosecution was not able to make the case. (Note: it wasn't the Simpson one.) I had to grudgingly agree with the legal decision but morally and mentally I hated to see the guy get off.

That being said, I'd probably never get on the jury anyway. Nor would I want to.
 
alfaniner said:
I am mulling over the jury selection, as to whether I'd be a candidate. More than half the pool has been excused for not being able to be impartial or for scheduling conflicts. (No info on percentages of which.) Now, I absolutely hate the guy, but I know I could be impartial and weigh the case on the basis of the evidence. This may seem like an oxymoron and I know right-wing MAGArats would claim bias, but I know I could be fair.

There was a big trial a few years ago (I forget which) where the consensus was that the guy was guilty, but the prosecution was not able to make the case. (Note: it wasn't the Simpson one.) I had to grudgingly agree with the legal decision but morally and mentally I hated to see the guy get off.

That being said, I'd probably never get on the jury anyway. Nor would I want to.
Click to expand...

The ability to distinguish between your desires and your obligations and act accordingly is a hallmark of maturity. Sadly, an enormous percentage of the population never reaches this stage of development. Come to think of it, it's the reason we have crimes and trials in the first place.
 
alfaniner said:
I am mulling over the jury selection, as to whether I'd be a candidate. More than half the pool has been excused for not being able to be impartial or for scheduling conflicts. (No info on percentages of which.) Now, I absolutely hate the guy, but I know I could be impartial and weigh the case on the basis of the evidence. This may seem like an oxymoron and I know right-wing MAGArats would claim bias, but I know I could be fair.

There was a big trial a few years ago (I forget which) where the consensus was that the guy was guilty, but the prosecution was not able to make the case. (Note: it wasn't the Simpson one.) I had to grudgingly agree with the legal decision but morally and mentally I hated to see the guy get off.

That being said, I'd probably never get on the jury anyway. Nor would I want to.
Click to expand...

I can't stand Trump. But I KNOW I wouldn't be biased. I would evaluate the evidence and the law. The problem for Trump is there is significant documentary evidence. There is no question that Trump somehow created false business records.

But what I haven't seen as of yet, is whether Trump knew that he was creating them.
 
CNN: More than half of 96 prospective jurors let go from first panel after saying they couldn't be fair and impartial.
 
William Parcher said:
CNN: More than half of 96 prospective jurors let go from first panel after saying they couldn't be fair and impartial.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure about this statistic's implications. What is the "first panel"? Is it a smaller group of the 96? Or the entire bunch? How many have been excused? (My question is with CNN's chyron reporting, exactly as you stated.)

I think the danger is more in hidden Trump supporter lying, and getting on the jury, rather than someone who admits disliking him but claiming they can be fair.
 
Last edited:
For anyone just joining us:

The charges center on $130,000 in payments that Trump’s company made to Cohen. He paid that sum on Trump’s behalf to keep Daniels from going public, a month before the election, with her claims of a sexual encounter with the married mogul a decade earlier.

Prosecutors say the payments to Cohen were falsely logged as legal fees in order to cloak their actual purpose. Trump’s lawyers say the disbursements indeed were legal expenses, not a cover-up.

After decades of fielding and initiating lawsuits, the businessman-turned-politician now faces a trial that could result in up to four years in prison if he’s convicted, though a no-jail sentence also would be possible. Trump would also be expected to appeal any conviction.
Click to expand...

https://apnews.com/article/8da8759352478be8effd3d5734aae35e
 
Orphia Nay said:
For anyone just joining us:

The charges center on $130,000 in payments that Trump’s company made to Cohen. He paid that sum on Trump’s behalf to keep Daniels from going public, a month before the election, with her claims of a sexual encounter with the married mogul a decade earlier.

Prosecutors say the payments to Cohen were falsely logged as legal fees in order to cloak their actual purpose. Trump’s lawyers say the disbursements indeed were legal expenses, not a cover-up.

After decades of fielding and initiating lawsuits, the businessman-turned-politician now faces a trial that could result in up to four years in prison if he’s convicted, though a no-jail sentence also would be possible. Trump would also be expected to appeal any conviction.
https://apnews.com/article/8da875935...fd3d5734aae35e
Click to expand...
Click to expand...

This seems a reach. Will be interesting watching them make this argument.

Are they going to say that payoffs are legitimate legal expenses? Or are they going to say that these payments made to Cohen were for something else entirely?
 
And right on cue.

Right Wing Broadcaster Asks Trump Fans In NYC To Do Something Very Illegal.

A right-wing broadcaster is asking Donald Trump supporters in New York to do the wrong thing.

The former president’s hush money trial got underway on Monday, and right-wing broadcast Clay Travis took to X, formerly Twitter, to implore Trump fans in the Big Apple to commit a felony to help their fearless leader.

Travis suggested that any Trump supporter “who is a part of the jury pool, do everything you can to get seated on the jury and then refuse to convict as a matter of principle, dooming the case via hung jury.”

He added: “It’s the most patriotic thing you could possibly do.”

It is a federal crime to lie to get on a jury. Since jurors are only supposed to make a verdict based solely on evidence presented during a trial, many people on social media pointed out Travis’ suggestion may count as jury tampering, a felony.
Click to expand...

Party of Law & Order.
 
Stacyhs said:
Probably. But he did have a real wake up moment when he realized that Trump dropped him like a hot potato once he was charged. Trump has no loyalty to anyone but himself. I believe he'd throw his own kids under the bus if it was to his advantage.
Click to expand...

Yea. This is where Trump showed how fast Trump will turn against someone. Cohen was not only a long time associate, but a long time friend. Or as much of a friend Trump has ever had.

It was also penny wise and pound stupid.
 
Last edited:
pgwenthold said:
Meanwhile, Don fell asleep in court today.
I admit, actual trials are as boring as all get out, but when you make a living calling your political opponent Sleepy Joe, you might want to avoid falling asleep at your trial.
Click to expand...

Stacyhs said:
Trump's lie-a-thon this morning on TS:
"I want my VOICE back. This Crooked Judge has GAGGED me. Unconstitutional! The other side can talk about me, but I am not allowed to talk about them! Rigged Trial!"

"Why didn’t they bring this totally discredited lawsuit 7 years ago??? Election Interference!"

“As virtually every legal scholar has powerfully stated, the Biden Manhattan Witch Hunt Case is, among other things, BARRED by the Statute of Limitations. This ‘trial’ should be ended by the highly conflicted presiding Judge.”k

In the courthouse this morning, Trump continued his lie-a-thon:

"Every legal scholar said this this case is nonsense, it should never have been brought."

And MAGA idiots will swallow it all while nodding their heads in agreement with Dear Leader. Because the Chosen One never lies.
Click to expand...

Sleep-posting...?
 
pgwenthold said:
Meanwhile, Don fell asleep in court today.

I admit, actual trials are as boring as all get out, but when you make a living calling your political opponent Sleepy Joe, you might want to avoid falling asleep at your trial.
Click to expand...

Staying awake in court is often monumentally difficult. I've been fortunate to have very accommodating judges who generally call a ten-minute recess every two hours or so. But yeah, Trump is not looking good today in any sense.
 
plague311 said:
Hung Jury just means they'd have to try him again, and this time they'd probably screen a bit more. I wonder if he knows that a hung jury doesn't mean an acquittal?
Click to expand...

A re-trial isn't a cetainty. Also too, what sort of screening would guarantee an absolutely objective jury?

I'd venture a great many U.S. voters don't understand what a hung jury means, and might feel a re-trial is unfair to Trump; his cult members certainly would.
 
Falling asleep happens mainly to the guilty. Innocent, falsely accused persons would be terrified during proceedings.
 
zorro99 said:
Falling asleep happens mainly to the guilty. Innocent, falsely accused persons would be terrified during proceedings.
Click to expand...

Even so, jury selection is exceedingly tedious.

Apropos, bar exam results dropped last night so it's going to be a busy night at the ol' watering hole. Congratulations and condolences tend to polarize toward consumption either way. Utah law prevents me from giving away discounted drinks, but it doesn't stop me from giving out free food. :D
 
JayUtah said:
Staying awake in court is often monumentally difficult. I've been fortunate to have very accommodating judges who generally call a ten-minute recess every two hours or so. But yeah, Trump is not looking good today in any sense.
Click to expand...

I know damn well that if I was in court for my own trial, I'd be awake for it.
 
I think we'd like to believe we could be impartial, but I don't believe most of us could. Not from what's been posted in ISF for several years now. I know I couldn't be. Our biases affect our thinking subconsciously whether we recognize it or not.
 
Stacyhs said:
I think we'd like to believe we could be impartial, but I don't believe most of us could. Not from what's been posted in ISF for several years now. I know I couldn't be. Our biases affect our thinking subconsciously whether we recognize it or not.
Click to expand...

I absolutely believe I could and would be impartial. That doesn't mean I don't have an opinion at this moment. Frankly, I hate this case. Unlike the insurrection and the documents case, I need more information than I presently have.

I don't doubt for a second that Trump slept around on his wife. But that isn't a crime. And neither is buying silence. I need to understand why and how the business records were made.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom