This will help everyone, and keep Marauder's plethora of paragraphs a little easier to wade through .
Judge said Tuesday, he was reserving decision on a request by the defense to tell the jury that Mr. Trump must have acted willfully to be found guilty. Either way, the reality is that hush money is not illegal..... disguising the bookkeeping is a misdemeanor, that has passed its statute of limitations. AND, Mr Bragg jury-rigged the felonies, using an alleged 2nd crime that doesn't look like a crime. This is why we keep asking...WHAT is the Crime?
This case simply should not have been brought. If it somehow finds him guilty, know for a fact an appeals court will fix it.
@AverageJoe1 saidI realize this is what the talking heads at Fox News keep telling you but it is incorrect. A third party paying "hush money" to benefit a candidate's campaign IS illegal (it's a campaign contribution over legal limits). IF the jury is convinced that Trump authorized the payment and promised to reimburse Cohen for it, that will satisfy the element of felony Falsifying Business Records that "his intent to defraud includes an intent to commit another crime or to aid or conceal the commission thereof." https://law.justia.com/codes/new-york/2022/pen/part-3/title-k/article-175/175-10/
This will help everyone, and keep Marauder's plethora of paragraphs a little easier to wade through .
Judge said Tuesday, he was reserving decision on a request by the defense to tell the jury that Mr. Trump must have acted willfully to be found guilty. Either way, the reality is that hush money is not illegal..... disguising the bookkeeping is a misdemeanor, that has pa ...[text shortened]... ot have been brought. If it somehow finds him guilty, know for a fact an appeals court will fix it.
Your "what is the crime" question has been answered dozens of times on this board.
The case will be in the jury's hands soon; we'll see what they say.
The post that was quoted here has been removedIt's up to the jury to assess witness credibility.
Almost all of Cohen's story is backed up by documents and other witness testimony, however. I expect that is a point which will be hammered home in the prosecutor's closing arguments with the documents being paraded again in front of the jury on nice, big screens.
For those interested, here's the standard Jury Instruction on Witness Credibility given by the Judge in NY criminal cases: https://view.officeapps.live.com/op/view.aspx?src=https%3A%2F%2Fnycourts.gov%2Fjudges%2Fcji%2F1-General%2FCJI2d.Credibility.docx&wdOrigin=BROWSELINK
It begins:
"As judges of the facts, you alone determine the truthfulness and accuracy of the testimony of each witness."
"You must decide whether a witness told the truth and was accurate, or instead, testified falsely or was mistaken. You must also decide what importance to give to the testimony you accept as truthful and accurate. It is the quality of the testimony that is controlling, not the number of witnesses who testify.2"
@no1marauder said“A buffoon is someone whose ridiculous behavior is a source of amusement to others.”
I realize this is what the talking heads at Fox News keep telling you but it is incorrect. A third party paying "hush money" to benefit a candidate's campaign IS illegal (it's a campaign contribution over legal limits). IF the jury is convinced that Trump authorized the payment and promised to reimburse Cohen for it, that will satisfy the element of felony Falsifying Busi ...[text shortened]... zens of times on this board.
The case will be in the jury's hands soon; we'll see what they say.
😂
https://www.vocabulary.com/dictionary/buffoon
@no1marauder saidIf I may, you seem to just discount Trump telling everyone that he wanted to Hush the hore because he did not want his wife Melania to find out about it. You see, it would ruin his marriage to Melania. It was the only way that he could see clear to keep his affair under wraps
I realize this is what the talking heads at Fox News keep telling you but it is incorrect. A third party paying "hush money" to benefit a candidate's campaign IS illegal (it's a campaign contribution over legal limits). IF the jury is convinced that Trump authorized the payment and promised to reimburse Cohen for it, that will satisfy the element of felony Falsifying Busi ...[text shortened]... zens of times on this board.
The case will be in the jury's hands soon; we'll see what they say.
@no1marauder saidMarauder, you appear to WANT Cohen to be seen as a credible witness. Why? If he lied so much, you see, then Trump cannot be considered guilty based on lies, so all of his testimony, by logical, common sense rationale, would mean zero. So, since we all know he is a serial liar, we should all be rational and logical, including Sonhouse, and fall on the side of a jury disregarding his testimony.
It's up to the jury to assess witness credibility.
Almost all of Cohen's story is backed up by documents and other witness testimony, however. I expect that is a point which will be hammered home in the prosecutor's closing arguments with the documents being paraded again in front of the jury on nice, big screens.
So this is curious. Marauder is saying the jury might think he is not lying??? Why is Marauder saying that? Would Marauder, with common sense, more likely say that the Jury has seen many lies, some right on the stand last week, that there is no way that they could find him credible.
What is your game, Marauder. Are we supposed to believe YOUR comments all the time?
What in the hell, Marauder? You libs are so conflicted. Pitiful
@no1marauder saidThanks you make my point. You see, if we were the jury, the logical reasonable men among us would discount this serial liar. I would, you would,, Shouse would,,,,,the judge would.
For those interested, here's the standard Jury Instruction on Witness Credibility given by the Judge in NY criminal cases: https://view.officeapps.live.com/op/view.aspx?src=https%3A%2F%2Fnycourts.gov%2Fjudges%2Fcji%2F1-General%2FCJI2d.Credibility.docx&wdOrigin=BROWSELINK
It begins:
"As judges of the facts, you alone determine the truthfulness and accuracy of the tes ...[text shortened]... . It is the quality of the testimony that is controlling, not the number of witnesses who testify.2"
Can you tell us why you think it will not go that way for the jury? Why would they find his testimony credible, but we would not?
@AverageJoe1
As to predictions, the law of averages would say that at least one of 12 people would Hate Trump, regardless of this case. What if Shouse had faked his way into the jury box. So, one of these people will vote guilty on any counts they can think of. I don't think everyone will vote willy nilly guilty, I just cannot see it. There is no crime as far as some smart people can tell. Certainly, there is reasonable doubt. So if EVERY ONE of the other 11 jurors votes innocent, the Trump Hater will hang the jury.
Further, I sayeth not.
@AverageJoe1 saidThe testimony from Pecker was rather clear that the National Enquirer only agreed to "catch and kill" stories for Trump after he was running for President and with the express purpose of aiding his campaign. There is a tape where Trump and Cohen discuss the payment to McDougal.
If I may, you seem to just discount Trump telling everyone that he wanted to Hush the hore because he did not want his wife Melania to find out about it. You see, it would ruin his marriage to Melania. It was the only way that he could see clear to keep his affair under wraps
Hope Hicks testimony was that after the Access Hollywood "pussy grabbing" tape the campaign was frantic to kill any further possible scandals. The payment to Daniels came about a week before the election though there was testimony that Trump wanted to stall until after the election when "it wouldn't matter anymore".
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/donald-trump-said-he-wouldnt-be-single-long-if-melania-left-him-over-affair-with-stormy-daniels-michael-cohen-testifies/ar-BB1msCEz
The idea that Trump was only concerned about his marriage is far-fetched.
@AverageJoe1 saidAs I said, virtually everything Cohen testified to was corroborated by documents or others' testimony.
Marauder, you appear to WANT Cohen to be seen as a credible witness. Why? If he lied so much, you see, then Trump cannot be considered guilty based on lies, so all of his testimony, by logical, common sense rationale, would mean zero. So, since we all know he is a serial liar, we should all be rational and logical, including Sonhouse, and fall on the side of a jury disr ...[text shortened]... e YOUR comments all the time?
What in the hell, Marauder? You libs are so conflicted. Pitiful
Not many facts seem to be in serious dispute; Cohen made the payment right before the election, Trump reimbursed him for it under a schedule laid out by the Trump's organization Chief Financial Officer and most of the checks were signed by Donald Trump (paid out of his personal funds) and stated "Retainer" on them though there was no retainer agreement.
So what exactly did Cohen lie about that has relevance to the 34 felony charges here against Trump?