Suppose Trump had not paid off anyone in regard to his sex life. Would that have made any difference at all in the 2016 election?
From a legal perspective the point is moot. There appears to be (or at least, is alleged) an illegal contribution to a campaign which raises the misdemeanour charges to the level of a felony.
However, the evidence that is floating around is that following on from the Access Hollywood tape, another sex scandal was one the Trump campaign could ill afford. It's all conjecture, of course but it's worth remembering how narrow Trump's victory was. A few thousand votes in the right place is all it would have taken to change the outcome.
More interestingly to me, the Trump campaign appeared to believe another sex scandal at that moment would have lost them the election.
AFZ
But Access Hollywood involved
sexual assault.
Whereas as far as I know, his affair with Daniels was just consensual sex. I guess if they thought that one more mention of sex(in any context) would be the proverbial straw on the camel's back, the payoffs made sense. But, in retrospect, Republican and swing-voters gave Donald J. such a degree of leeway on these matters, he likely didn't need to worry much anyway, and it is rather tragicomic that he went through with the payoffs, thus landing himself in his current legal predicament.
Suppose Trump had not paid off anyone in regard to his sex life. Would that have made any difference at all in the 2016 election?
From a legal perspective the point is moot. There appears to be (or at least, is alleged) an illegal contribution to a campaign which raises the misdemeanour charges to the level of a felony.
However, the evidence that is floating around is that following on from the Access Hollywood tape, another sex scandal was one the Trump campaign could ill afford. It's all conjecture, of course but it's worth remembering how narrow Trump's victory was. A few thousand votes in the right place is all it would have taken to change the outcome.
More interestingly to me, the Trump campaign appeared to believe another sex scandal at that moment would have lost them the election.
AFZ
But Access Hollywood involved
sexual assault.
Whereas as far as I know, his affair with Daniels was just consensual sex. I guess if they thought that one more mention of sex(in any context) would be the proverbial straw on the camel's back, the payoffs made sense. But, in retrospect, Republican and swing-voters gave Donald J. such a degree of leeway on these matters, he likely didn't need to worry much anyway, and it is rather tragicomic that he went through with the payoffs, thus landing himself in his current legal predicament.
Remember, he did lose the popular vote.
I think what saved his ass was the Russians releasing the Clinton tapes they had. If it had not been for that release, the Access Hollywood recording would have had more of an impact.
Suppose Trump had not paid off anyone in regard to his sex life. Would that have made any difference at all in the 2016 election?
From a legal perspective the point is moot. There appears to be (or at least, is alleged) an illegal contribution to a campaign which raises the misdemeanour charges to the level of a felony.
However, the evidence that is floating around is that following on from the Access Hollywood tape, another sex scandal was one the Trump campaign could ill afford. It's all conjecture, of course but it's worth remembering how narrow Trump's victory was. A few thousand votes in the right place is all it would have taken to change the outcome.
More interestingly to me, the Trump campaign appeared to believe another sex scandal at that moment would have lost them the election.
AFZ
But Access Hollywood involved
sexual assault.
Whereas as far as I know, his affair with Daniels was just consensual sex. I guess if they thought that one more mention of sex(in any context) would be the proverbial straw on the camel's back, the payoffs made sense. But, in retrospect, Republican and swing-voters gave Donald J. such a degree of leeway on these matters, he likely didn't need to worry much anyway, and it is rather tragicomic that he went through with the payoffs, thus landing himself in his current legal predicament.
Remember, he did lose the popular vote.
I think what saved his ass was the Russians releasing the Clinton tapes they had. If it had not been for that release, the Access Hollywood recording would have had more of an impact.
Suppose Trump had not paid off anyone in regard to his sex life. Would that have made any difference at all in the 2016 election?
From a legal perspective the point is moot. There appears to be (or at least, is alleged) an illegal contribution to a campaign which raises the misdemeanour charges to the level of a felony.
However, the evidence that is floating around is that following on from the Access Hollywood tape, another sex scandal was one the Trump campaign could ill afford. It's all conjecture, of course but it's worth remembering how narrow Trump's victory was. A few thousand votes in the right place is all it would have taken to change the outcome.
More interestingly to me, the Trump campaign appeared to believe another sex scandal at that moment would have lost them the election.
AFZ
But Access Hollywood involved
sexual assault.
Whereas as far as I know, his affair with Daniels was just consensual sex. I guess if they thought that one more mention of sex(in any context) would be the proverbial straw on the camel's back, the payoffs made sense. But, in retrospect, Republican and swing-voters gave Donald J. such a degree of leeway on these matters, he likely didn't need to worry much anyway, and it is rather tragicomic that he went through with the payoffs, thus landing himself in his current legal predicament.
Remember, he did lose the popular vote.
I think what saved his ass was the Russians releasing the Clinton tapes they had. If it had not been for that release, the Access Hollywood recording would have had more of an impact.
Yep. Definitely. And I've read the Mueller report...
What we're talking about is two slightly separate things. It's an illegal act to falsify business records. It's a felony because it was done in the context of covering up in a political campaign. The only question for the jury, really is whether Trump was involved himself. The motive was because they believed the campaign needed to avoid such a story at that point. Whether that's true or not doesn't matter legally, the belief led to the act.
As to whether they were right or not, I offer three thoughts.
1. Whilst it's true that Trump's core base gave him a free pass on everything (and still do) that's not everyone who voted for Trump. Many saw him as flawed (and maybe he was exaggerating and boasting as men do in male-only spaces*) and Hillary had her issues too...
2. The release of Hillary dirt by Russia was probably more significant
3. In a very close race, another sex story on top of the Access Hollywood one would build a picture and maybe in the minds of those key floating voters make Trump's flaws greater than Hillary's.
My point here is that it was a very close race and whilst none of us can prove a counterfactual, the fear that it might have mattered is at least rational. One merely has to imagine a media narrative in which the Stormy story breaks and the headlines run "Trump's campaign is in more trouble today as following the Access Hollywood story, another potential sex scandal has come out today...." I believe that media narratives are really important in shaping how democracies behave but that's a whole different thread.
Anyway, the point of all my waffle is that I don't know. When you look and see how close the race was, and how the narratives were running, if Stormy had broken then, it might have led to a Clinton win, for the reasons outlined. Equally, I agree it's wonderfully tragicomic if Trump's unnecessary reaction is the root of his current legal difficulties.
It's interesting that it's reported that Ms Daniels herself believed it had made a critical difference. I'd love to hear what the news editors were thinking: the release of the DNC-hacked emails at just the right time changed the media focus. If they'd had Stormy's story instead, what would the news agenda have looked like?
AFZ
*To be clear, I do not think this is a defence. I do not think this is remotely true. But exit polling shows that it was how many of Trump's voters in 2016 thought.
A sleepy, smelly, crooked, traitorous, egotistical old fart still seems to have a slight edge over Joe Biden. With the help of the electoral college system as well as belief in "alternative facts".
As a UK citizen, it looks to me that the trials and tribulations of the ex President are still working slightly in his favour. Some victim! And yet that narrative seems to have continuing power. And the SCOTUS are heading towards a constitutionally novel solution to at least help him out over delay.
I wonder? I really hope this cannot be happening. A US election on a self destructive path?
What directly links him to the payments? Anything? I mean, yer know, follow the money? Cohen paid Daniels. Trump didn't pay Cohen. Not guilty.
Well, given that Cohen has a check (cheque) signed by Trump when Trump paid him back, I'll say that your argument is slightly off. There is a lot to corroborate the argument that the payment was directed by, and done on behalf of, and at the behest, Mr D J Trump. I believe there are even tapes....
If you want you can read the daily transcript of the trial, but the prosecution is presenting a body of evidence that links Mr Trump to the payment, and more importantly to the falsifying of business records.
How much is the cheque for? To a lawyer. By their client. Any invoices? Remittance notes? Receipts? Guilty by a lot of corroboration? And mythical tapes? Not guilty.
@Martin54Here is a list from CNN on the emails, side agreements, lawyer demands, Trump's pseudoname, and, yes, receipts that were covered today in the trial.
It is really too early to come to a conclusion as to whether the man is guilty or not guilty. We just have to leave that to the jury.
How much is the cheque for? To a lawyer. By their client. Any invoices? Remittance notes? Receipts? Guilty by a lot of corroboration? And mythical tapes? Not guilty.
How much is the cheque for? To a lawyer. By their client. Any invoices? Remittance notes? Receipts? Guilty by a lot of corroboration? And mythical tapes? Not guilty.
If you say so.
What would you find on the basis of the evidence, with the lowest possible weight on hearsay? Where is the documentary evidence?
How much is the cheque for? To a lawyer. By their client. Any invoices? Remittance notes? Receipts? Guilty by a lot of corroboration? And mythical tapes? Not guilty.
If you say so.
What would you find on the basis of the evidence, with the lowest possible weight on hearsay? Where is the documentary evidence?
Oh Martin, I think you know that I really like you. I hope so. But this is a very stupid post.
Neither of us know what the jury will do. But I do know that there is A LOT of evidence linking Trump to the payments, not least the fact that he paid Cohen back. If you think there isn't, then you're not paying attention.
Of course it's your right not to. But to assert that there is no case because you've decided not to look, is not a credible argument. Once again, I invite you to look at the transcripts. Or find a good legal analyst's summary.
My personal view is that Cohen's version of events; that Trump instigated and authorised the payments and was responsible for the false book-keeping that went with that, is true. There are very good, logical reasons to think that. Of course, that's not sufficient to prove beyond reasonable doubt.
However, I also know that the NY prosecutors have spent two years building a case so they can reach that threshold. And they have a helluva lot of documents.
2006 July: Trump and Daniels allegedly had an affair.
ten years later. Eighteen years ago.
2016 October 27: Cohen wires $130,000 from his LLC to Daniels' attorney.
2018 February 13: He said that neither the Trump Organization nor the campaign reimbursed him.
March 5, 2018: On March 5, The Wall Street Journal cited anonymous sources recounting Cohen as saying he missed two deadlines to pay Daniels since Cohen "couldn't reach Mr. Trump in the hectic final days of the presidential campaign" and that he complained that he had not been reimbursed for the payment after Trump's election. Cohen described this report as "fake news"
April 5, 2018: Trump said he did not know about the $130,000 payment Cohen made to Daniels on Air Force One. He also said he was not aware of why Cohen had made the payment or where he got the money.
May 2, 2018: Trump's personal lawyer Rudy Giuliani said on Fox News that "the president repaid" Cohen the $130,000 that Cohen had paid to Daniels. He also said that Trump "did know the general arrangement" of Cohen's payment, but not "the specifics". This contradicts Trump's claim of April 5 that he had no knowledge of the payment.
May 3, 2018: Trump tweeted that Cohen entered into a non-disclosure agreement with Daniels. He tweeted that Cohen reimbursed for the $130,000 through monthly $35,000 retainer payments to him and wrote that "Money from the campaign, or campaign contributions, played no roll [sic] in this transaction".
May 4, 2018: Trump contradicted Giuliani's statements, saying that Giuliani "wasn't familiar with everything" and that "He started yesterday. He'll get his facts straight." Giuliani later released a statement saying "the payment was made to resolve a personal and false allegation in order to protect the President's family".
May 9, 2018: CNN reported that Mueller's team questioned Russian oligarch Viktor Vekselberg about hundreds of thousands of dollars in payments his company's US affiliate made to Cohen.[94] The US Treasury Department opened an investigation into the leak of Michael Cohen's private bank records.
I wonder how he'll pay his buddy Vlad, who's got the St Petersburg golden shower tapes, back next January?
May 10, 2018: Newsweek reported that Michael Cohen's lawyers argued that some of the small transactions that Avenatti reported were for a different Michael Cohen but did not deny that the large transactions were for their client. Greenberg Traurig, the former law firm of Giuliani, released a statement against Giuliani's claim that it was common practice for lawyers to make secret payments to individuals.
May 16, 2018: Trump acknowledged that Cohen was paid between $100,000 and $250,000 last year, out of which potentially came the $130,000 payment for Daniels, in his annual disclosure of personal finances required by the Office of Government Ethics. The form reports on page 45, "Mr. Cohen sought reimbursement of those expenses and Mr. Trump fully reimbursed Cohen in 2017. The category of the value would be $100,001 to $250,000 ..."
August 21, 2018: Cohen officially surrendered to the FBI. He pleaded guilty to eight charges that afternoon: five counts of tax evasion, one count of making false statements to a financial institution, one count of willfully causing an unlawful corporate contribution, and one count of making an excessive campaign contribution at the request of a candidate or campaign. The plea deal reportedly does not include any agreement to cooperate with investigators. However, the plea includes both jail time and a substantial monetary fine. Cohen implicated Trump, but not identified him by name, in his plea. Daniels said she felt "vindicated" following the plea. It was also specified that Cohen had requested a reimbursement of $180,000, which Trump Organization officials doubled and added a bonus of $60,000 for a total payment of $420,000.
August 22, 2018: The New York Times reported that Cohen court documents revealed that two senior Trump Organization executives also involved in the hush-money payments, and that Cohen "coordinated with one or more members of the campaign, including through meetings and phone calls" about the payments.
August 23, 2018: Trump said the payment funds came from him personally and not from campaign funds during a Fox & Friends interview. He also said that he only knew about the payments "later on". These comments contradict earlier statements that Cohen gave while under oath. Cohen's lawyer Lanny Davis suggested that Trump be prosecuted for the crimes that he instructed Cohen to commit.
December 11, 2018: Daniels was ordered to pay $293,052.33 in attorney's fees, costs, and sanctions, less than half the amount demanded by Trump's lawyers, in relation to the defamation lawsuit that Judge Otero dismissed in October 2018.
December 12, 2018: Cohen was sentenced to three years' imprisonment for having paid $130,000 hush money (characterized in the charges as an "excessive campaign contribution") to Daniels during Trump's election campaign.
Why is Cohen so loyal? So far. I used to admire Poindexter...
August 1, 2020: Daniels lost her appeal in the defamation lawsuit against Trump
February 22, 2021: The Supreme Court declined to take up the defamation case, making Daniels's loss final.
None of that supports your implication that the case is very weak.
The conflicting stories of Cohen are well known to everyone involved. More importantly, the DA clearly believes that he has sufficient documentation to make clear which story is true and which one isn't.
My opinion does not matter. You can form whatever view you wish. But all you've done there is linked to a timeline of events and how the story was reported. You've skipped the key point that the DA conducted a 2 year investigation before bringing charges. There are a LOT of documents. We shall see what the jury makes of it.
The case is iron clad as far as I'm concerned. But juries are funny things.
This seems different from what you've just been saying, which was that the case was NOT ironclad.
Where is the documentary evidence?
For me it is. But even if the jury were a bunch of card holding democrats, they could just be perverse enough, against their own bias, to be biased against the obvious, and go for a forensic finding. Not guilty.
@Martin54Here is a list from CNN on the emails, side agreements, lawyer demands, Trump's pseudoname, and, yes, receipts that were covered today in the trial.
It is really too early to come to a conclusion as to whether the man is guilty or not guilty. We just have to leave that to the jury.
I think it may be too early for the jury to reach any conclusion. The rest of us are not so restricted. "The world must construe according to its wits; this court must construe according to the law", to borrow a quote from A Man for All Seasons.
Even from way over this side of the pond the court cases are viewed as somewhat of a formality. Innocent until proven guilty true, I suspect the truth will be easy to get at.
Even from way over this side of the pond the court cases are viewed as somewhat of a formality. Innocent until proven guilty true, I suspect the truth will be easy to get at.
As I've remarked in the past, people draw conclusions about all kinds of things without the benefit of a jury trial, which is good since most things in life aren't adjudicated by a court of law. For example, no one was ever put on trial for the assassination of John F. Kennedy, but most people are still able to conclude that he was assassinated, without a court case to help them draw that conclusion.
Yikes, that is very VERY interesting. Also interesting that it's attracted a great deal of notice, to judge by the thread-unroll rank--which makes me wonder if anyone is going to pick this up and run with it beyond this tweet series.
The writer is drawing on his own past experience covering the 2016 Trump campaign, if I remember correctly, and he talks in detail about Trump's strategy for that campaign--most notably that Trump never expected or intended to win, the whole thing was set up to gain him leverage with various foreign interests including of course Russia and the Saudis--influence, loans, and deals he could parlay into a prosperous future after LOSING the presidency to Clinton. Though naturally he didn't explain this to those foreign interests. He was intending to prosper from those connections after losing to Clinton...
But the illegal manipulation from abroad and from various creatures in the U.S. (notably Cohen and what the thread writer calls "rogue FBI elements") resulted in him winning, much to his dismay... and now he's committed to getting and staying (permanently) in the presidency to keep his butt out of jail.
There's a discussion of exactly how the Comey thing (about Clinton's emails, yeah?) went down, and how influential that was in his unexpected win. Also a lot of concern for the FBI corruption and that not being properly investigated or corrected.
But the primary thing the writer points his readers to is the sheer amount of illegal, nefarious dealings Trump had going on with Russia, China, Arab countries, etc. and how extremely likely he is to be doing the exact same thing right now, as we speak, because he's basically riding the tiger and can't get off. The current trial is of interest because it focuses on 2016 and the very period where the writer thinks there's a ton of dirt that needs digging through concerning the devil's deal Trump made with foreign influences, which would likely lead to current goings on, which are obviously super important to THIS election and to us keeping a democratic country at all.
For those who are avoiding Xitter, or who have trouble reading threads in the current incarnation (which is most non-subscribers), a thread reader version can be found here.
But I will summarise the case the prosecution is building here:
Ms Daniels and Mr Trump had a sexual encounter*
In the wake of the Access Hollywood tape, many in the Trump campaign were really worried that if this story broke as well, then the campaign was doomed.
Michael Cohen paid Ms Daniels a large sum to buy her silence.
This payment was deliberately misrepresented in Trump's accounting
Mr Trump definitely knew about this** and was part of the conspiracy.
So, the criminal case NY are building against Mr Trump is one of false accounting to cover up an illegal contribution to an election campaign. (Note, that is the lack of declaration that makes it an illegal contribution). The connection with the election makes the NY charge rise to the level of a felony rather than just a misdemeanour.
The jury will make up their mind, but even though there are undoubted problems with the witnesses' credibility, Cohen especially, the picture they paint is one of a series of facts that make this a criminal act. I foresee a conviction. Before the trial, I heard experienced prosecutors reckoned it was 70/30 in favour of the prosecution. I wonder if that needle has moved?
AFZ
*The details of this account illustrate Trump is a sexual predator and it was not an entirely voluntary act on Ms Daniel's part
**If the standard if beyond reasonable doubt then we cannot say for certain that Mr Trump knew about the payment before it was made. At least there might be some wriggle room on this point.*** However, it is clear that he knew what he was paying for and thus he remains criminally liable. He knowingly falsified the records.
***(He did know, but I'm worst-casing it here for the prosecution, based on the evidence so far. I think that the prosecution has not yet shown definitively that Trump knew at the early stage. It does not matter, as he knew and falsified to records, which blows his defence out of the water - the Cohen was a rogue agent theory).
Just reading this makes me feel as if I have a dead worm in my brain that died after eating most of my grey matter. It might be a sign I am destined for the presidency...
Suddenly, three of the four Trump criminal trails have been delayed.
The Florida Documents trial has been delayed indefinitely because Judge Cannon has said, in essence, there are too many pretrial decisions to make. In other words, she is intentionally slow walking the trail.
SCOTUS is also slow walking the presidential immunity decision. Look for it to be handed down on the last day of the term, and it will likely be referred back to a lower court for a "clarification."
And the Georgia Vote interference case is being referred to the state court of appeals on the question of whether AG Fani Williams should proceed with the prosecution because of an affair with a team member.
Suddenly, three of the four Trump criminal trails have been delayed.
Other than the fact that Judge Cannon removed the Florida case from the trial calendar on the same day that the Georgia Court of Appeals agreed to hear Trump’s appeal of the trial court order on Fani Willis (the case was appealed to the Court of Appeals, not “referred” to the Court of Appeals), there’s really nothing “sudden” about the delays of these three cases. It’s been obvious for weeks if not months that Trump would likely succeed in delaying these cases, and that the New York case was the only case against him that would go to trial prior to the election.
Just reading this makes me feel as if I have a dead worm in my brain that died after eating most of my grey matter. It might be a sign I am destined for the presidency...
Perfect!
I guess the brain-eating worm only keeps one from paying alimony!
Just reading this makes me feel as if I have a dead worm in my brain that died after eating most of my grey matter. It might be a sign I am destined for the presidency...
I guess the brain-eating worm only keeps one from paying alimony!
Suddenly, three of the four Trump criminal trails have been delayed.
Other than the fact that Judge Cannon removed the Florida case from the trial calendar on the same day that the Georgia Court of Appeals agreed to hear Trump’s appeal of the trial court order on Fani Willis (the case was appealed to the Court of Appeals, not “referred” to the Court of Appeals), there’s really nothing “sudden” about the delays of these three cases. It’s been obvious for weeks if not months that Trump would likely succeed in delaying these cases, and that the New York case was the only case against him that would go to trial prior to the election.
Trumps ability to avoid justice by expensive (in terms of legal fees) manoeuvres which are enabled by compromised, political judges whilst at the same time whining constantly that everything is unfairly stacked against him is pathetic and galling in equal measure.
However, whilst justice delayed may well be justice denied, I am coming to a slightly different view. All the legal experts I've heard, considered the NY case (this one) to be the least threat to Trump. This is based on an assessment that the likelihood of conviction by a jury is lowest in this one and the consequences of a conviction being so little, relatively. Trump is after all (legally but not actually) a first-time offender and hence a custodial sentence for this crime is very unlikely. The evidence in the other three cases is extremely compelling and very likely to result in a conviction if a jury ever gets to hear it. The likely sentences are variable but, even for a first time offender, should be custodial.
The thing is though, that I think the way Trump is going about this is making things a whole lot worse for himself and this NY trial is looking like a significant threat to him. It is possible that this blows open the whole Trump façade to a much wider audience if and when he's convicted.
This from Seth Abrahamson is a very long TwiX thread. It is not for the faint-hearted but he does argue convincingly that Trump's defence team is hamstrung from running an effective legal defence by Trump himself and the approach he's made them take. As a consequence all sorts of prurient and embarrassing details have become relevant to the case. The truth about how Trump behaves and operates is now entered into the record. To save you reading 180 odd tweets with a lot of unpleasant detail the short version is this is because Trump will only allow his team to approach this as They're all liars attacking poor innocent Donald. There's a few problems with this, not least that it isn't true. But more importantly for our purposes here, it means that all sorts of things that otherwise could not be entered into the record or even heard in court because they would be prejudicial are now all allowed.
This is bad. If Trump is convicted, then there's a whole potential media shitstorm about how he's operated over the years and what kind of person he really is.
Obviously, his MAGA base won't care but they're not the ones who will decide this election - there's not enough of them. Trump's key legal strategy is to get re-elected, in order to quash the investigations and trials he is facing. The problem is that his stupid defence in this case is likely lead to a conviction and to a big blow to his campaign. What I'm getting at here is the soft republicans. I don't think they'll vote for Biden but (as discussed on the election thread, there'a very good chance a lot of them will stay at home).
This from Seth Abrahamson is a very long TwiX thread. It is not for the faint-hearted but he does argue convincingly that Trump's defence team is hamstrung from running an effective legal defence by Trump himself and the approach he's made them take.
Thread reader version version for Xitter non-subscribers. It's a different Seth Abramson thread than the previous one.
This from Seth Abrahamson is a very long TwiX thread. It is not for the faint-hearted but he does argue convincingly that Trump's defence team is hamstrung from running an effective legal defence by Trump himself and the approach he's made them take.
Thread reader version version for Xitter non-subscribers. It's a different Seth Abramson thread than the previous one.
This from Seth Abrahamson is a very long TwiX thread. It is not for the faint-hearted but he does argue convincingly that Trump's defence team is hamstrung from running an effective legal defence by Trump himself and the approach he's made them take.
Thread reader version version for Xitter non-subscribers. It's a different Seth Abramson thread than the previous one.
Ah, didn’t catch it was a different thread. Thanks.
This from Seth Abrahamson is a very long TwiX thread. It is not for the faint-hearted but he does argue convincingly that Trump's defence team is hamstrung from running an effective legal defence by Trump himself and the approach he's made them take.
Thread reader version version for Xitter non-subscribers. It's a different Seth Abramson thread than the previous one.
Ah, didn’t catch it was a different thread. Thanks.
Suddenly, three of the four Trump criminal trails have been delayed.
Other than the fact that Judge Cannon removed the Florida case from the trial calendar on the same day that the Georgia Court of Appeals agreed to hear Trump’s appeal of the trial court order on Fani Willis (the case was appealed to the Court of Appeals, not “referred” to the Court of Appeals), there’s really nothing “sudden” about the delays of these three cases. It’s been obvious for weeks if not months that Trump would likely succeed in delaying these cases, and that the New York case was the only case against him that would go to trial prior to the election.
Did I say "Suddenly" sarcastically? They will never know.
Sorry for the double post. Nature interfered in my editting.
When we are talking about the tapeworm, we are talking about Robert Kennedy Jr., aren't we? It is not as rare as one would think. Over a billion people likely have one in their brains. Story here
Following up on this from a year and a half ago, Trump's 2016 campaign manager (and last heir of House Harkonnen) Steve Bannon 05635-509 has lost his appeal of his conviction.
A federal appeals court on Friday upheld the contempt-of-Congress conviction of Steve Bannon, the ex-adviser to former President Donald Trump who was found guilty after failing to comply with a subpoena from the House January 6 committee.
<snip>
The US DC Circuit Court of Appeals unanimously rejected several challenges Bannon made to the case, including his claim that the trial court excluded evidence he should have been allowed to put before the jury in his defense.
Bannon was sentenced to four months in federal prison, and that sentence was also upheld Friday by the appeals court. The ruling could pave the way for Bannon to eventually report to prison, though the timing is unclear.
The judge who presided over Bannon’s trial previously agreed to let him hold off from serving his sentence while his appeal played out. In its ruling Friday, the three-judge appeals panel gave Bannon time to appeal its ruling to the full DC-based appeals court before it formally notifies the trial judge that the conviction was upheld.
Bannon could also turn directly to the Supreme Court for additional appeals, possibly further delaying when he needs to start serving his prison term.
Any further appeals by Bannon shouldn't take long to resolve, but I've long ago abandoned "should" and "shouldn't" as a guide for predicting what federal courts will actually do.
Having followed some expert coverage on Trump's NY trial over the last couple of days, I think the odds of Trump being convicted are very high, maybe something like 95%.
Jury's will deliberate and a mistrial is of course possible but to summarise:
The prosecution has laid out an excellent case that Trump falsified his business records as part of a scheme to ensure an illegal contribution to an election campaign.
I think he's going to be found guilty and quite quickly.
My gut just from following the trial from a distance as best I can is that the jury will convict. But getting to a guilty verdict is only part of what the prosecution needs to be doing. The prosecution also needs to be creating a strong record for appeal. Because Trump will appeal if he’s convicted by the jury.
So the prosecution needs to make sure they have presented sufficient evidence of every element of every offense to support a guilty verdict from the jury. And the prosecution also needs to be avoiding as best they can doing anything that an appeals court could latch onto to find that Trump didn’t receive a fair trial. (They were skirting very close to this line last week when Stormy Daniels testified in some detail about her sexual encounters with Trump. There is a point where that kind of evidence can cross the line by being so salacious that any legitimate probative value is outweighed by prejudicial effect.)
Comments
But Access Hollywood involved
Remember, he did lose the popular vote.
I think what saved his ass was the Russians releasing the Clinton tapes they had. If it had not been for that release, the Access Hollywood recording would have had more of an impact.
Valid points.
Yep. Definitely. And I've read the Mueller report...
What we're talking about is two slightly separate things. It's an illegal act to falsify business records. It's a felony because it was done in the context of covering up in a political campaign. The only question for the jury, really is whether Trump was involved himself. The motive was because they believed the campaign needed to avoid such a story at that point. Whether that's true or not doesn't matter legally, the belief led to the act.
As to whether they were right or not, I offer three thoughts.
1. Whilst it's true that Trump's core base gave him a free pass on everything (and still do) that's not everyone who voted for Trump. Many saw him as flawed (and maybe he was exaggerating and boasting as men do in male-only spaces*) and Hillary had her issues too...
2. The release of Hillary dirt by Russia was probably more significant
3. In a very close race, another sex story on top of the Access Hollywood one would build a picture and maybe in the minds of those key floating voters make Trump's flaws greater than Hillary's.
My point here is that it was a very close race and whilst none of us can prove a counterfactual, the fear that it might have mattered is at least rational. One merely has to imagine a media narrative in which the Stormy story breaks and the headlines run "Trump's campaign is in more trouble today as following the Access Hollywood story, another potential sex scandal has come out today...." I believe that media narratives are really important in shaping how democracies behave but that's a whole different thread.
Anyway, the point of all my waffle is that I don't know. When you look and see how close the race was, and how the narratives were running, if Stormy had broken then, it might have led to a Clinton win, for the reasons outlined. Equally, I agree it's wonderfully tragicomic if Trump's unnecessary reaction is the root of his current legal difficulties.
It's interesting that it's reported that Ms Daniels herself believed it had made a critical difference. I'd love to hear what the news editors were thinking: the release of the DNC-hacked emails at just the right time changed the media focus. If they'd had Stormy's story instead, what would the news agenda have looked like?
AFZ
*To be clear, I do not think this is a defence. I do not think this is remotely true. But exit polling shows that it was how many of Trump's voters in 2016 thought.
As a UK citizen, it looks to me that the trials and tribulations of the ex President are still working slightly in his favour. Some victim! And yet that narrative seems to have continuing power. And the SCOTUS are heading towards a constitutionally novel solution to at least help him out over delay.
I wonder? I really hope this cannot be happening. A US election on a self destructive path?
Well, given that Cohen has a check (cheque) signed by Trump when Trump paid him back, I'll say that your argument is slightly off. There is a lot to corroborate the argument that the payment was directed by, and done on behalf of, and at the behest, Mr D J Trump. I believe there are even tapes....
If you want you can read the daily transcript of the trial, but the prosecution is presenting a body of evidence that links Mr Trump to the payment, and more importantly to the falsifying of business records.
The jury will make a determination, of course.
AFZ
It is really too early to come to a conclusion as to whether the man is guilty or not guilty. We just have to leave that to the jury.
If you say so.
What would you find on the basis of the evidence, with the lowest possible weight on hearsay? Where is the documentary evidence?
Oh Martin, I think you know that I really like you. I hope so. But this is a very stupid post.
Neither of us know what the jury will do. But I do know that there is A LOT of evidence linking Trump to the payments, not least the fact that he paid Cohen back. If you think there isn't, then you're not paying attention.
Of course it's your right not to. But to assert that there is no case because you've decided not to look, is not a credible argument. Once again, I invite you to look at the transcripts. Or find a good legal analyst's summary.
My personal view is that Cohen's version of events; that Trump instigated and authorised the payments and was responsible for the false book-keeping that went with that, is true. There are very good, logical reasons to think that. Of course, that's not sufficient to prove beyond reasonable doubt.
However, I also know that the NY prosecutors have spent two years building a case so they can reach that threshold. And they have a helluva lot of documents.
AFZ
ten years later. Eighteen years ago.
2016 October 27: Cohen wires $130,000 from his LLC to Daniels' attorney.
2018 February 13: He said that neither the Trump Organization nor the campaign reimbursed him.
March 5, 2018: On March 5, The Wall Street Journal cited anonymous sources recounting Cohen as saying he missed two deadlines to pay Daniels since Cohen "couldn't reach Mr. Trump in the hectic final days of the presidential campaign" and that he complained that he had not been reimbursed for the payment after Trump's election. Cohen described this report as "fake news"
April 5, 2018: Trump said he did not know about the $130,000 payment Cohen made to Daniels on Air Force One. He also said he was not aware of why Cohen had made the payment or where he got the money.
May 2, 2018: Trump's personal lawyer Rudy Giuliani said on Fox News that "the president repaid" Cohen the $130,000 that Cohen had paid to Daniels. He also said that Trump "did know the general arrangement" of Cohen's payment, but not "the specifics". This contradicts Trump's claim of April 5 that he had no knowledge of the payment.
May 3, 2018: Trump tweeted that Cohen entered into a non-disclosure agreement with Daniels. He tweeted that Cohen reimbursed for the $130,000 through monthly $35,000 retainer payments to him and wrote that "Money from the campaign, or campaign contributions, played no roll [sic] in this transaction".
May 4, 2018: Trump contradicted Giuliani's statements, saying that Giuliani "wasn't familiar with everything" and that "He started yesterday. He'll get his facts straight." Giuliani later released a statement saying "the payment was made to resolve a personal and false allegation in order to protect the President's family".
May 9, 2018: CNN reported that Mueller's team questioned Russian oligarch Viktor Vekselberg about hundreds of thousands of dollars in payments his company's US affiliate made to Cohen.[94] The US Treasury Department opened an investigation into the leak of Michael Cohen's private bank records.
I wonder how he'll pay his buddy Vlad, who's got the St Petersburg golden shower tapes, back next January?
May 10, 2018: Newsweek reported that Michael Cohen's lawyers argued that some of the small transactions that Avenatti reported were for a different Michael Cohen but did not deny that the large transactions were for their client. Greenberg Traurig, the former law firm of Giuliani, released a statement against Giuliani's claim that it was common practice for lawyers to make secret payments to individuals.
May 16, 2018: Trump acknowledged that Cohen was paid between $100,000 and $250,000 last year, out of which potentially came the $130,000 payment for Daniels, in his annual disclosure of personal finances required by the Office of Government Ethics. The form reports on page 45, "Mr. Cohen sought reimbursement of those expenses and Mr. Trump fully reimbursed Cohen in 2017. The category of the value would be $100,001 to $250,000 ..."
August 21, 2018: Cohen officially surrendered to the FBI. He pleaded guilty to eight charges that afternoon: five counts of tax evasion, one count of making false statements to a financial institution, one count of willfully causing an unlawful corporate contribution, and one count of making an excessive campaign contribution at the request of a candidate or campaign. The plea deal reportedly does not include any agreement to cooperate with investigators. However, the plea includes both jail time and a substantial monetary fine. Cohen implicated Trump, but not identified him by name, in his plea. Daniels said she felt "vindicated" following the plea. It was also specified that Cohen had requested a reimbursement of $180,000, which Trump Organization officials doubled and added a bonus of $60,000 for a total payment of $420,000.
August 22, 2018: The New York Times reported that Cohen court documents revealed that two senior Trump Organization executives also involved in the hush-money payments, and that Cohen "coordinated with one or more members of the campaign, including through meetings and phone calls" about the payments.
August 23, 2018: Trump said the payment funds came from him personally and not from campaign funds during a Fox & Friends interview. He also said that he only knew about the payments "later on". These comments contradict earlier statements that Cohen gave while under oath. Cohen's lawyer Lanny Davis suggested that Trump be prosecuted for the crimes that he instructed Cohen to commit.
December 11, 2018: Daniels was ordered to pay $293,052.33 in attorney's fees, costs, and sanctions, less than half the amount demanded by Trump's lawyers, in relation to the defamation lawsuit that Judge Otero dismissed in October 2018.
December 12, 2018: Cohen was sentenced to three years' imprisonment for having paid $130,000 hush money (characterized in the charges as an "excessive campaign contribution") to Daniels during Trump's election campaign.
Why is Cohen so loyal? So far. I used to admire Poindexter...
August 1, 2020: Daniels lost her appeal in the defamation lawsuit against Trump
February 22, 2021: The Supreme Court declined to take up the defamation case, making Daniels's loss final.
From.
He's guilty as sin. There is no proof. Or reasonable doubt.
But who's telling the best story?
And Trump loses, a small price to pay for nothing but good publicity.
The conflicting stories of Cohen are well known to everyone involved. More importantly, the DA clearly believes that he has sufficient documentation to make clear which story is true and which one isn't.
My opinion does not matter. You can form whatever view you wish. But all you've done there is linked to a timeline of events and how the story was reported. You've skipped the key point that the DA conducted a 2 year investigation before bringing charges. There are a LOT of documents. We shall see what the jury makes of it.
That's an entirely different point.
AFZ
This seems different from what you've just been saying, which was that the case was NOT ironclad.
For me it is. But even if the jury were a bunch of card holding democrats, they could just be perverse enough, against their own bias, to be biased against the obvious, and go for a forensic finding. Not guilty.
I think it may be too early for the jury to reach any conclusion. The rest of us are not so restricted. "The world must construe according to its wits; this court must construe according to the law", to borrow a quote from A Man for All Seasons.
As I've remarked in the past, people draw conclusions about all kinds of things without the benefit of a jury trial, which is good since most things in life aren't adjudicated by a court of law. For example, no one was ever put on trial for the assassination of John F. Kennedy, but most people are still able to conclude that he was assassinated, without a court case to help them draw that conclusion.
https://twitter.com/SethAbramson/status/1787543910509666332
But the illegal manipulation from abroad and from various creatures in the U.S. (notably Cohen and what the thread writer calls "rogue FBI elements") resulted in him winning, much to his dismay... and now he's committed to getting and staying (permanently) in the presidency to keep his butt out of jail.
There's a discussion of exactly how the Comey thing (about Clinton's emails, yeah?) went down, and how influential that was in his unexpected win. Also a lot of concern for the FBI corruption and that not being properly investigated or corrected.
But the primary thing the writer points his readers to is the sheer amount of illegal, nefarious dealings Trump had going on with Russia, China, Arab countries, etc. and how extremely likely he is to be doing the exact same thing right now, as we speak, because he's basically riding the tiger and can't get off. The current trial is of interest because it focuses on 2016 and the very period where the writer thinks there's a ton of dirt that needs digging through concerning the devil's deal Trump made with foreign influences, which would likely lead to current goings on, which are obviously super important to THIS election and to us keeping a democratic country at all.
For those who are avoiding Xitter, or who have trouble reading threads in the current incarnation (which is most non-subscribers), a thread reader version can be found here.
Amazing how much has been forgotten in just a few years. I remember many of the questions asked and strategic timing, but had forgotten the details.
https://mswmedia.com/show/clean-up-on-aisle-45/ Episode 172.
But I will summarise the case the prosecution is building here:
Ms Daniels and Mr Trump had a sexual encounter*
In the wake of the Access Hollywood tape, many in the Trump campaign were really worried that if this story broke as well, then the campaign was doomed.
Michael Cohen paid Ms Daniels a large sum to buy her silence.
This payment was deliberately misrepresented in Trump's accounting
Mr Trump definitely knew about this** and was part of the conspiracy.
So, the criminal case NY are building against Mr Trump is one of false accounting to cover up an illegal contribution to an election campaign. (Note, that is the lack of declaration that makes it an illegal contribution). The connection with the election makes the NY charge rise to the level of a felony rather than just a misdemeanour.
The jury will make up their mind, but even though there are undoubted problems with the witnesses' credibility, Cohen especially, the picture they paint is one of a series of facts that make this a criminal act. I foresee a conviction. Before the trial, I heard experienced prosecutors reckoned it was 70/30 in favour of the prosecution. I wonder if that needle has moved?
AFZ
*The details of this account illustrate Trump is a sexual predator and it was not an entirely voluntary act on Ms Daniel's part
**If the standard if beyond reasonable doubt then we cannot say for certain that Mr Trump knew about the payment before it was made. At least there might be some wriggle room on this point.*** However, it is clear that he knew what he was paying for and thus he remains criminally liable. He knowingly falsified the records.
***(He did know, but I'm worst-casing it here for the prosecution, based on the evidence so far. I think that the prosecution has not yet shown definitively that Trump knew at the early stage. It does not matter, as he knew and falsified to records, which blows his defence out of the water - the Cohen was a rogue agent theory).
I think that was the scariest thing I've ever read anywhere I my entire life.
I'm sitting in a patch of autumn sunlight with 4 layers of clothing on and I feel chilled to the bone.
Sorry @Lamb Chopped - all I can offer from this distance is to pledge to pray for the USA every day, and I do.
(Sorry, this isn't really a Purgatorial response - I feel really shaken).
The Florida Documents trial has been delayed indefinitely because Judge Cannon has said, in essence, there are too many pretrial decisions to make. In other words, she is intentionally slow walking the trail.
SCOTUS is also slow walking the presidential immunity decision. Look for it to be handed down on the last day of the term, and it will likely be referred back to a lower court for a "clarification."
And the Georgia Vote interference case is being referred to the state court of appeals on the question of whether AG Fani Williams should proceed with the prosecution because of an affair with a team member.
Typical Trump maneuvering: delay, delay, delay.
I guess the brain-eating worm only keeps one from paying alimony!
Trumps ability to avoid justice by expensive (in terms of legal fees) manoeuvres which are enabled by compromised, political judges whilst at the same time whining constantly that everything is unfairly stacked against him is pathetic and galling in equal measure.
However, whilst justice delayed may well be justice denied, I am coming to a slightly different view. All the legal experts I've heard, considered the NY case (this one) to be the least threat to Trump. This is based on an assessment that the likelihood of conviction by a jury is lowest in this one and the consequences of a conviction being so little, relatively. Trump is after all (legally but not actually) a first-time offender and hence a custodial sentence for this crime is very unlikely. The evidence in the other three cases is extremely compelling and very likely to result in a conviction if a jury ever gets to hear it. The likely sentences are variable but, even for a first time offender, should be custodial.
The thing is though, that I think the way Trump is going about this is making things a whole lot worse for himself and this NY trial is looking like a significant threat to him. It is possible that this blows open the whole Trump façade to a much wider audience if and when he's convicted.
This from Seth Abrahamson is a very long TwiX thread. It is not for the faint-hearted but he does argue convincingly that Trump's defence team is hamstrung from running an effective legal defence by Trump himself and the approach he's made them take. As a consequence all sorts of prurient and embarrassing details have become relevant to the case. The truth about how Trump behaves and operates is now entered into the record. To save you reading 180 odd tweets with a lot of unpleasant detail the short version is this is because Trump will only allow his team to approach this as They're all liars attacking poor innocent Donald. There's a few problems with this, not least that it isn't true. But more importantly for our purposes here, it means that all sorts of things that otherwise could not be entered into the record or even heard in court because they would be prejudicial are now all allowed.
This is bad. If Trump is convicted, then there's a whole potential media shitstorm about how he's operated over the years and what kind of person he really is.
Obviously, his MAGA base won't care but they're not the ones who will decide this election - there's not enough of them. Trump's key legal strategy is to get re-elected, in order to quash the investigations and trials he is facing. The problem is that his stupid defence in this case is likely lead to a conviction and to a big blow to his campaign. What I'm getting at here is the soft republicans. I don't think they'll vote for Biden but (as discussed on the election thread, there'a very good chance a lot of them will stay at home).
AFZ
Thread reader version version for Xitter non-subscribers. It's a different Seth Abramson thread than the previous one.
Thanks
Yeah, this one is even longer...
Did I say "Suddenly" sarcastically? They will never know.
When we are talking about the tapeworm, we are talking about Robert Kennedy Jr., aren't we? It is not as rare as one would think. Over a billion people likely have one in their brains. Story here
Any further appeals by Bannon shouldn't take long to resolve, but I've long ago abandoned "should" and "shouldn't" as a guide for predicting what federal courts will actually do.
Jury's will deliberate and a mistrial is of course possible but to summarise:
The prosecution has laid out an excellent case that Trump falsified his business records as part of a scheme to ensure an illegal contribution to an election campaign.
I think he's going to be found guilty and quite quickly.
We shall see.
AFZ
So the prosecution needs to make sure they have presented sufficient evidence of every element of every offense to support a guilty verdict from the jury. And the prosecution also needs to be avoiding as best they can doing anything that an appeals court could latch onto to find that Trump didn’t receive a fair trial. (They were skirting very close to this line last week when Stormy Daniels testified in some detail about her sexual encounters with Trump. There is a point where that kind of evidence can cross the line by being so salacious that any legitimate probative value is outweighed by prejudicial effect.)
We shall indeed see.