 |
| The Scandalous Trump Hush Money Stormy Daniels trial it's dominating the NEWS for 24 hours on mostly all news networks . AS of writing , CNN is hosting a debate between Trump and Biden . Is this the last ditch effort to send Trump to Prison ? |
“Donald has had a few tough days lately. You might call it Stormy weather”....Biden cracks Stormy Daniels joke aimed at Trump during White House dinner. NEEDLESS to say the " Conspiracy " to get Trump out of the race is at full swing right now .Trump lost the election in 2020 as president, but now will be there again in 2024. Which in itself is a rare thing, that someone loses his presidency but still will be the candidate of the same party for the next presidential election.So if Trump loses a second time in a row, what would that mean for the future direction of the Republican Party? Would Trump try it again in 2028 (and would Republican voters want that)? Would a guy similar to Trump rise to prominence for the 2028 election? Would they turn their back on Trumpism and MAGA? THE ELECTION IS ALREADY RIGGED . Without a Republican alternative to to Trump, and the likelihood of Trump going to prison as we approach November , is by all means going to create chaos in America . Now on Stormy Hush Trail. Trump’s extraordinary inability to keep his mouth shut has been costly this year — and it could get a lot worse. I think he did conspire to pay Stormy Daniels hush money to keep her quiet. ANY WAY THIS IS OLD NEWS , he was investigated about this when he was in office . Hes' just being tried twice for it . It's not LIKE WHAT BILL CLINTON DID ! He did NOT conspire in Georgia to find extra votes and overturn the results. He’s guilty to a certain degree and should not face consequences. Who cares if he was president? No one is above the law.This all being said, I totally buy the argument that Alvin Bragg did this for political reasons. He’s a elected district attorney in a deep blue jurisdiction. I think he totally had a legitimate and valid case brought to his desk, but he focused on this more then others because of political pressures. If he hadn’t of indicted Trump it would of been used as a campaign attacked against him.This seems like a hindsight problem. Yes, his supporters don't care, but his early candidacy was a lot more precarious than his current candidacy. People remember "Grab 'em by the pussy." But that was well into the campaign - if Republicans dropped him, they just wouldn't have had a candidate at that point.If the Stormy story had leaked in the early days of his campaign, there's no way to know for sure how it would have played out. But Trump had reason to think Republicans cared a lot about sexual propriety, and that it would have been easier to quash the story. He's quashed lots of stories, after all, but he's never convinced the republican party that he should be allowed to cheat on his wife while she was recovering from child birth.Besides which, who knows what Melania was going to think about it. She was a major ally in those early days, the person closest to Trump did a lot of work humanizing him. If she had left, again there's no way to predict what would have happened, but no candidate has ever had a wife leave during a campaign before. So if nothing else, his calculus was that quashing the story was more predictable than pushing his wife to respond to it. It’s a great summary of what the prosecution needs to prove, and it also hints at Trump’s most likely factual defense to the felony charge - that his motivation for killing the Stormy Daniels story was something other than a desire to promote his political campaign. I’m not sure what defense Trump really has to the misdemeanor business records falsification charge, so I suspect much of the trial will focus on why Trump wanted to kill the story, which is how this case is elevated to a felony.For an ordinary defendant, I think there’s a pretty strong (and highly plausible) defense: “I didn’t falsify business records to hide a hush money payment to promote my presidential campaign. I did it because I didn’t want my wife and kids to learn that I had an affair with a porn star, because that would be embarrassing, emotionally devastating for them, and put strain on my family and marriage.” That’s a very plausible argument for most people, and would serve as a defense to the conspiracy/election fraud allegations.But I’m not sure it’s nearly as plausible an argument for Donald Trump, who strikes me as the kind of person who would ordinarily brag about sleeping with a porn star, regardless of his marital status at the time. It’s hard to imagine Trump will stop railing against the case on social media and at his campaign rallies, but it’s possible that he can manage just enough impulse control to stay on the right side of the court’s orders going forward.Unfortunately for Trump and his lawyers, he has already materially damaged his own legal defense in at least two distinct ways. First, he may have created more evidence that prosecutors might be able to use against him in the case.Second, and much more importantly, Trump is increasing the odds that he will have to spend some time in prison if he is convicted and loses his reelection bid. The fact that Judge Merchan has ruled this morning that evidence of the National Enquirer's involvement in killing the story about Trump's affair with Ms. McDaniel and NI's subsequent stories critical of other candidates for the 2016 nomination will certainly help establish a pattern of conduct that appears to have been targeted at helping Trump win in 2016. In my opinion, that greatly strengthens the prosecution case , which we KNOW is made of sorts political mud that was being used against Trump while he was in office.Trump's lawyers very much want to argue that the whole thing is just salcious attention-seeking or blackmail. The judge is motivated to keep this focused on the hush money, not the sex. I think that might be what you're picking up when you're viewing her testimony here through an SA lens.All the salacious details aren't relevant to whether Trump paid her off in a way he's not allowed to do. All that really needs to be established is that they did the thing he paid hush money for.There were already a lot of Republicans trying to distance themselves from Trump after 2020. They'll try harder after a 2024 loss. A big part of Trump's brand is that he "always wins, he wins so much that he gets tired of winning". That brand cracked after 2020. Another loss will destroy it. There's a large chunk of the population that will always support Trump no matter what. There's a larger chunk that realize that in order to implement the policies they want, they actually have to win. A twice-loser isn't the way to do that. Trump would announce his candidacy for POTUS on January 21, 2025 (i.e. the day after Biden would be inaugurated for his second term). This would be for a number of reasons, both to maintain his grip on the Republican party, but also make any and all criminal trials against him more challenging to execute. This will continue until Trump is either put in jail (which could be a very long time, as he may get to remain free during the appeals process) or he dies (which is a nonzero chance, considering he is currently 77 years old and does not live a particularly healthy lifestyle).Republicans had the chance to remove Trump from their party following Jan. 6 and chose not to remove him out of fear of losing his fervent base. Now, they have no chance of remaining politically relevant without holding that base. It's just unfortunate that Trump didn't simply acknowledge it as fact that sex did take place, because there has been zero evidence introduced here to suggest that anyone at any point believed it hadn't. Everyone who helped him cover this up 1000% knew he had slept with Stormy Daniels. I don't think they even had any evidence where he denied it at the time. And even if they did, Hicks testimony showed what his denials are worth...I read somewhere that the judge is likely trying to avoid that same fate, because (as you mentioned) the sexual encounter is not the subject of this case. The only reason it's become such a focal point is because of Trump's refusal to admit that it even happened (which then sows discord amongst the jury)The prosecution needs to first establish (without a shadow of a doubt) that this sexual encounter did infact happen and that there was a financial transaction attatched to it.But beyond that, Pecker made clear yesterday that the catch-and-kill arrangement was solely to the benefit of the Trump campaign, because it would have benefited the Enquirer to actually run those stories. All about the campaign. Which was illegal. Every fake story run by the Enquirer (knowingly fake, and therefore libel) was an in-kind contribution to the Trump campaign worth millions of dollars that Trump legally had to report and did not. And by the way, now that we know for sure The Enquirer published knowingly false and defamatory claims that are by definition no longer First-Amendment protected political speech, it's time for everyone in the 2016 election from Ted Cruz to Hillary Clinton to sue them into absolute bankruptcy. THEN they can focus on the crime that is the subject of this case: the falsification of records to make it appear as if hush-money to keep Stormy quiet during his campaign for presidency was actually just some random business expense. Such a case would have hinged on the assumption that Trump, in paying off Daniels, was trying to promote his election rather than trying to avoid embarrassment. While the first interpretation is plausible, proving it beyond a reasonable doubt would have been difficult, as illustrated by the unsuccessful 2012 prosecution of Democratic presidential candidate John Edwards, which was based on similar but seemingly stronger facts. And that base is so enamored with Trump that they are loyal to him over the Republican party. The only way the Republicans have a chance of holding onto them following Trump being politically relevant is if another force removes Trump as an option for them. Because he will not go away on his own.I see a lot of talk right now of wanting any of the judges in Donald Trump's ongoing court cases to put their money where their mouths are and jail him for contempt. And while I absolutely understand this sentiment, I can't help but think that would be viewed by the population at large as an act of political persecution against him. Considering that at this point he has not actually been convicted of of the crimes for which he is accused, and that the contempt charges all stem from him speaking publicly on topics which are subject to gag order, I worry that jailing him right now would be seen not as genuine consequences from the legal system but as an act of a politically biased judge to silence the Republican frontrunner in the election from speaking out. And thus his whole potential voter base may then be energized to lend him their support this November.The judge is supposed to be politically neutral. The election should have no influence on his decision. Therefore even if he knew with 100% certainty that jailing Trump would hand him the election, he’s prohibited from considering that as a factor in his decision. The judge is supposed to make a decision to jail or not jail Trump strictly on what he believes is necessary to get Trump to comply with the gag order. Obviously the repeated fines are doing nothing to force him to comply, so the judge either lets Trump freely violate it or jails him. How that factors in electorally should have no weight in it. Him being behind bars wouldn't be for what he's on trial for, it's for threats against court members families, and the headlines from everyone but fox would honestly report that. "Trump jailed for contempt of court for continuous threats on social media towards court staff's family after repeated warnings". There would be no lie there. Being locked up is something that would lose him some voters, and not gain him any. Where he's at right now, losing the popular vote two times in a row, he needs to be gaining voters to have a chance, because his cult doesn't have the numbers to back him up, he's losing republican moderate votes, democrats will never vote for him, and he's becoming more repulsive to independents every time any media outlet shows what he himself says and does on his (poorly named) off-brand Twitter. I'm not a legal expert, I'm just summarizing what I've read and heard So only read on with that context in mind, and be sure to do your own reading outside of this comment.I'd say the closest to a slam dunk is the documents case, except that Judge Cannon is immensely inexperienced and is making myriad errors. I would say the case in DC is second strongest, and is buoyed by a competent judge. But in both cases, we're assuming that Trump doesn't win in November, and order his AG to end both prosecutions.The Georgia case should've been strong on its merits, but Fanni Willis' professional mistakes has stymied the suit. If she gets booted off the case, it might not recover. Since the NY case is based on a more novel legal theory, I would've said that it's still the weaker of the two, but Alvin Bragg has thus far maintained the professionalism that such a high profile case demands, so I'd place it ahead of Georgia at this time. The news is disappointingly shit at covering legal proceedings despite all the lawyers-turned-anchors.This makes far more sense. Trump either falsified business records or not - the business records will add up or they won't - and all they would need to prove intent to conceal is potentially just the word of Michael Cohen (Trump's lawyer at the time) and Allen Wessielberg (Trump's accountant at the time), both working with the prosecution.This means the trial could also proceed far faster than initially laid out, though Trump prosecution will likely drag it out to delay a potential guilty verdict as long as possible.
NOTES AND COMMENTS:Sounds like it was Cohen trying to hide an affair.
