I fail to understand how paying a “lover” to keep an affair quiet is illegal, but what do I know? If they were prostituting themselves, then they must have been simply lovers, right? So what is the big deal?
3 Likes
I think this prediction is likely to be proved right:
2 Likes
Quote from Law Professor Jonathan Turley:
The case is legally pathetic. Bragg is struggling to twist state laws to effectively prosecute a federal case long ago rejected by the Justice Department against Trump over his payment of “hush money” to former stripper Stormy Daniels. In 2018 (yes, that is how long this theory has been around), I wrote how difficult such a federal case would be under existing election laws. Now, six years later, the same theory may be shoehorned into a state claim.
It is extremely difficult to show that paying money to cover up an embarrassing affair was done for election purposes as opposed to an array of obvious other reasons, from protecting a celebrity’s reputation to preserving a marriage. That was demonstrated by the failed federal prosecution of former presidential candidate John Edwards on a much stronger charge of using campaign funds to cover up an affair.
In this case, Trump reportedly paid Daniels $130,000 in the fall of 2016 to cut off or at least reduce any public scandal. The Southern District of New York’s U.S. Attorney’s office had no love lost for Trump, pursuing him and his associates in myriad investigations, but it ultimately rejected a prosecution based on the election law violations. It was not alone: The Federal Election Commission (FEC) chair also expressed doubts about the theory.
Prosecutors working under Bragg’s predecessor, Cyrus Vance Jr., also reportedly rejected the viability of using a New York law to effectively charge a federal offense.
More importantly, Bragg himself previously expressed doubts about the case, effectively shutting it down soon after he took office. The two lead prosecutors, Carey R. Dunne and Mark F. Pomerantz, resigned in protest. Pomerantz launched a very public campaign against Bragg’s decision, including commenting on a still-pending investigation. He made it clear that Trump was guilty in his mind, even though his former office was still undecided and the grand jury investigation was ongoing.
Pomerantz then did something that shocked many of us as highly unprofessional and improper: Over Bragg’s objection that he was undermining any possible prosecution, Pomerantz published a book detailing the case against an individual who was not charged, let alone convicted.
He was, of course, an instant success in the media that have spent years highlighting a dozen different criminal theories that were never charged against Trump. Pomerantz followed the time-tested combination for success — link Donald Trump to any alleged crime and convey absolute certainty of guilt. For cable TV shows, it was like a heroin hit for an audience in a long agonizing withdrawal.
And the campaign worked. Bragg caved, and “America’s Got Trump” apparently will air after all.
However, before 12 jurors can vote, Bragg still has to get beyond a series of glaring problems which could raise serious appellate challenges later.
While we still do not know the specific state charges in the anticipated indictment, the most-discussed would fall under Section 175 for falsifying business records, based on the claim that Trump used legal expenses to conceal the alleged hush-payments that were supposedly used to violate federal election laws. While some legal experts have insisted such concealment is clearly a criminal matter that must be charged, they were conspicuously silent when Hillary Clinton faced a not-dissimilar campaign-finance allegation.
Last year, the Federal Election Commission fined the Clinton campaign for funding the Steele dossier as a legal expense. The campaign had previously denied funding the dossier, which was used to push false Russia collusion claims against Trump in 2016, and it buried the funding in the campaign’s legal budget. Yet, there was no hue and cry for this type of prosecution in Washington or New York.
A Section 175 charge would normally be a misdemeanor. The only way to convert it into a Class E felony requires a showing that the “intent to defraud includes an intent to commit another crime or to aid or conceal the commission thereof.”. That other crime would appear to be the federal election violations which the Justice Department previously declined to charge.
The damage to the legal system is immense whenever political pressure overwhelms prosecutorial judgment. The criminal justice system can be a terrible weapon when used for political purposes, an all-too-familiar spectacle in countries where political foes can be targeted by the party in power.
The season opener of “America’s Got Trump” might be a guaranteed hit with its New York audience — but it should be a flop as a prosecution.
3 Likes
Yes, the fact that they all thought the case was too weak before, but are going ahead with it now, proves they are just grasping at straws with which to construct a “straw man”, in order to once again try to destroy Trump and keep him out of the race.
And as they enact “an all too familiar spectacle in countries where a political foe can be targeted by the party in power” - they are showing their true colors - an authoritarian dictatorship.
2 Likes
Honestly, I don’t get the Left’s reasoning. What is it they hope to gain by arresting Trump? If there is anyone directing the past couple of years, where is it they think they are driving the country?
Is this a distraction from the war? From the economy? From the resistance to Woke? Are they hoping that this will bury Trump? And then what? Republicans will vote for…?
Or is this just a loose cannon acting in his own self interest and fame-seeking? Could be all of these…
3 Likes
The left doesn’t reason. They think with their emotions.
3 Likes
Suppose that Trump has planned for this? That this is to bring the attention of the country…all the country…back on him? Suppose that he knows that a court would “laugh” this out of existence? This is not tax fraud. This is…I don’t know what this is? Is it illegal to pay hush money to a lover to keep quiet about the affair to protect oneself for any reason except for actual criminal behavior?
Barely serious, here…just wondering how this is going to pan out.
1 Like
So I read this after my post and it was news to me
Oh, this is what the charges are:
If Trump is charged with felony falsification of business records, he would be forced to surrender to New York authorities and make an appearance in a Manhattan courthouse. The former president allegedly coordinated a transfer of $130,000 to pornstar Stormy Daniels through former attorney Michael Cohen.
"The payments were made to a lawyer, not to Stormy Daniels. The payments were made to Donald Trump's lawyer, which would be considered legal fees," the lawyer told MSNBC earlier this week, adding that Cohen "was his lawyer at the time and advised him that this was the proper way to do this to protect himself and his family from embarrassment. It's as simple as that. That is not a crime."
I don’t understand what happened here, but to read the quote…scroll to the right.
2 Likes
I don’t know what’s going on, besides leftist Trump derangement syndrome. But someone pointed out that when Clinton paid hush money to one of his many escapades, nobody made a peep.
I kind of wish Trump wouldnt call for protests, though. That’s just asking for another set-up by the Feds.
1 Like
Oh, I would like to see tens of millions of citizens turning out at his home and at the courthouse, if the FBI comes to arrest him. If they filled the streets for miles, furious protestors (non-violent of course), loud and persistent. That would really frighten the vicious freaks that rule us. Would the national guard fire on tens of millions? Or police try to arrest anyone? I don’t think so.
2 Likes
Yes, i would love to see that, too. But its a pretty sure bet the Feds would infiltrate it and try to instigate some violence.
2 Likes
I would, also, love to have hundreds of thousands of protesters, but as Liz suspects, it could become a trap that would “confirm” that “white” extremists Trump supporters are violent and deranged insurrectionists.
1 Like
Both Speaker McCarthy and MTG are urging that no protests be held if Trump is arrested - I’m sure for that very reason - to avoid leftist staged violence.
Also, on Gateway Pundit, just read that there were many planned marches and protests on Jan 5 and 6, they even had flyers with maps, most were “prayer marches”, etc. (Obviously non-violent)
The Feds tracked all these people on their phones.
They had permits to be at these locations, including the areas where they are now being accused and jailed for trespassing.
2 Likes
So Trump supporters should be afraid? And therefore NOT protest?
1 Like
No, but they should be most wary of where they are and with whom they are. Better perhaps, to call and email their elected leaders about their concerns. And don’t take the kids, if you go. Go in a group you know well and have a plan for where and with whom you will exercise your 1st Amendment rights, but stick to the plan and help each other stick to the plan.
This is not the same place we lived in a couple of years ago.
2 Likes
All very prudent. But not a shaking of the pillars of the Western World, which is what is needed.
1 Like
Quote;
Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg’s reported impending prosecution of former President Donald Trump is based on “made-up laws,” according to prominent legal expert Alan Dershowitz.
But even so, Dershowitz said he thinks that Trump would unlikely receive a fair trial in a city that leans heavily blue.
2 Likes
Yes, that’s the problem - all their bogus prosecutions are a sham - but in a place where the corrupt rule, they get away with it anyway.
Just like the persecution of the Jan.6 prisoners - they were set up, the charges were bogus, and they weren’t even given access to evidence on tape that would have helped their defence - yet they’ve been rotting in prison for years now, anyway.
2 Likes
The people who really run the United States of America have made it clear that they can’t, and won’t, if they can help it, allow Donald Trump to be president again. What will the deep state do to prevent Trump from winning? [There are] Anton several possibilities from having Trump declared ineligible because he allegedly sparked an “insurrection” on January 6, 2021 to simple cheating at the ballot box.
Then there is Plan F.
What happens then? Well, in the words of the ‘Transition Integrity Projec’, a Soros-network-linked collection of regime hacks who in 2020 gamed out their strategy for preventing a Trump second term, the contest would become ‘a street fight, not a legal battle’. Their words, not mine. But allow me to translate: The 2020 summer riots, but orders of magnitude larger, not to be called off until their people are secure in the White House.
I think that is eminently possible. And while I would rue the day it happened, I also believe that groveling and capitulating because you are intimidated by the possibility would be even worse.
2 Likes
Oh yes, they’ll do all of that - the lawsuits, the cheating, the riots, all of it, all over again.
And I think at that point Trump voters won’t be willing to put up with it again, which would lead to violent chaos, martial law, and the crushing of all dissent by force. So we’re screwed either way.
2 Likes