Posted on 05/14/2024 6:14:28 AM PDT by MtnClimber
Wikimedia Commons
Former Donald Trump attorney Michael Cohen is the only witness who has the slightest chance of proving anything in New York District Attorney Alvin Bragg’s highly publicized hush money case. But Cohen’s recycled plea-deal testimony still won’t be enough to convict the former president.
Trump was charged by Bragg with using false business records to cover up another crime. But, as I pointed out in Chronicles last month, the indictment failed to identify the underlying crime.
Based on media coverage of this tawdry sham, it does not appear that the district attorney has been able to fill this gaping hole in the logic of his case. Yet Bragg will almost certainly attempt to shoehorn the plea agreement from Cohen in another case into the Trump trial. This, Bragg must believe, is a way of relieving himself of any burden to prove that underlying crime.
Let’s start by reviewing the Trump-connected crime Cohen is convicted of. In November 2018, Michael Cohen pleaded guilty to five counts of tax evasion, making a false statement to a bank, and campaign finance violations.
It turned out that Cohen had earned approximately $2.4 million from a side hustle involving Chicago taxi cab medallions. Cohen got in trouble with the law because he did not report or pay taxes on this income stream, which had nothing to do with Trump. Facing a huge prison sentence for that crime, Cohen then agreed to also plead guilty to something involving his work for the Trump campaign. Had the campaign finance violation been the only reason he was in legal trouble, he easily could have knocked down this charge with a semi-competent lawyer. But he had other problems so Cohen’s value to the get-Trump prosecutor in 2018 became his ability to dirty Trump.
According to the indictment, Cohen “caused and made payments” to porn star Stormy Daniels “to influence the 2016 election” and “coordinated with one or more members of the campaign.” Trump then reimbursed Cohen for these payments. So, is that illegal? This argument was tried in federal court. After Michael Cohen’s plea deal admitting to this supposed campaign finance violation, get-Trump lawyers attempted to force the FEC to fine Trump for his role in the payments. In Free Speech For People v. FEC a district court dismissed this attempt. While some have argued that the split decision before the FEC and later procedural dismissal by the district court do not constitute an exoneration, their logic is backwards. Bragg needs to show Trump entered the false business records to further or conceal a crime. The burden is on Bragg to show an underlying crime took place.
The “contribution” only becomes a crime if Trump failed to report it to the Federal Elections Commission. But Trump did disclose the payment in an FEC filing. Here is the document. Yet even if he had failed to report the payment to the FEC, or if he should have reported the nature of the payment more explicitly, Trump cannot be held liable for failing to report an expenditure of his own money. As I wrote here last year:
If Trump reimbursed Cohen, long-standing precedent provides that Cohen is no longer the one making the contribution for purposes of the FEC reporting. FEC regulations say, “A loan, to the extent it is repaid, is no longer a contribution.” Thus, if Trump reimbursed Cohen for the Stormy Daniels payment, it can no longer be considered a contribution on behalf of Cohen. This is devastating to the prosecution’s theory because individuals who are not the candidate (e.g., Cohen, but not Trump) are subject to the $2,700 per individual contribution limit. But Trump could give as much money as he wanted to his own campaign, without limits, so long as he disclosed it—which he did.
It’s worth remembering that Hillary Clinton campaign donors apparently committed the mirror image of what Trump is accused of doing here. As I wrote in The Federalist in 2018, “Remember all those women who came out around that same time (October of 2016) accusing candidate Trump of sexual harassment? Turns out that a lawyer sympathetic to candidate Clinton contacted Clinton donors for money with which to pay some of these women to accuse Trump right before the election.”
I will not be surprised by a unanimous verdict of not guilty clearing Donald Trump of all charges in Bragg’s absurd prosecution. Nor will I be surprised if Trump declines to take the stand in an effort to avoid unnecessarily extending the farce. This case is a two-legged stool, unable to stand on its own merits.
I think there are a lot fewer who would do this than you think.
It is what the democrats are hoping for, but I do believe Trump will actually get a boost from such a one-sided conviction that is so blatantly political.
I believe the attorneys can turn any straggling jurors. And...chances are...the two attorneys know each other.
Fox is—and has been—providing excellent coverage of this “trial”, and is quite clearly PRO TRUMP!
It wouldn’t be me, but I think there are some willy nillies out there who are very on the fence, and are befuddled when they needn’t be.
Bragg doesn’t care about the absurd case the WH script reads guilty.
:: Heck, even the RNC might decide that they can’t allow a convicted felon to be on the ticket. ::
Which is why no Republican is saying ANYTHING in support of Trump; they do not want him in office.
Think about this...even the Republicans Trump has ENDORSED are saying \nothing\!
How can the judge block this critical information? More evidence that this first trial is all about a conviction at any cost and let the appeals court clean it up.
When a star witness who is a convicted purjuror, liar, all around creep si their best witness, then it proves how bad their case really is
He doesn’t have to….the jury members convicted Donald Trump when they were sworn in.
On appeal though…
I’m torn between the Defense ripping Cohen to shreds on the stand and using him to show that Trump committed no crimes and that the State’s case is an empty sham.
The State foolishly played Cohen’s perfidious “recording” of his discussion with Trump in court yesterday. Cohen claims it was the only time he ever recorded Trump. Why did he pick that conversation? To have something to hold over Trump with in the future? But the content only proved that Trump knew very little about details of what Cohen was doing with the NDAs, and nothing about Cohen’s stupid idea to pay via Cohen’s home equity line of credit (Trump says “What financing? We should just pay cash.” After which Cohen says “I have this handled” and Trump acquiesces. Trump obviously relied on his lawyer for proper legal advice.) Thank you Prosecution, for the exonerating testimony.
Ask Cohen how the electorate would know how Trump booked October 2020 business payments in time for it to effect voters before the Nov 5 2020 election. Were you working for Trump as an attorney? Were the NDAs wih Daniels and McDougal “legal agreements”? Since there is no way the public would know either way, does it make any sense that Trump would conspire to obfuscate payments for “legal agreements” as ... “legal expenses”?
It only “makes sense” in the context of assuming a rigged show trial with a pre-ordained conclusion by corrupted officials. Sadly, our system of government indeed only functions with justice and protections equal under law if those being governed consent and agree to be honest and responsible. The less honesty and responsibility present, the more corrupt and perverse the system becomes. Has anyone here opined or posted what others such as J. Turley, have opined as to the inevitable conclusion for the USA is if we slide to one polarized party changing everything in their favor each election and then the other changing it back again, albeit temporarily? We are rather far along this path and now have blatant efforts to prevent the other side from being able to have a fair election and return to power?
If the majority finds they cannot fairly vote their way out of this mess, then what?
I think a lot of establishment government officials and supporters have gone in these efforts to get Trump because they thought that Trump would be the only target of this practice. But the Democrats have been doing this kind of stuff since at least the time of the Clarence Thomas hearings. It's getting worse now that they are actually using the FBI, the CIA, and the DoJ to do their legwork. Why would anyone think this is ever going to stop?
.
I’m not impressed with trumps lawyers. They let stormy get away with everything she said. Just say there enthralled by the tale.
A judge may limit cross-examination concerning matters not testified to on direct examination. So, attorneys avoid bringing up a subject in direct examination of their witnesses if the subject does not help their case.
But because the truthfulness of a witness is always at issue, usually questions about former perjury would be allowed. However, this judge has continuously proven his willingness to stretch the boundaries of all legal standards and normalcy, beginning with allowing this case to go to trial in the first place.
As I understand it, Cohen decided on his own to buy off Daniels.
xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
it’s been reported that cohen was having his own affair with stormy.
my question is was cohen attemping to shake trump down or extort money from trump to cover his deal with stormy (kinda like fani & wade?)
A hung jury will just result in a new trial in a month or two.
Yes.
Yes they have been. I just hope they pull the crap they pulled last presidential election.
There is no evidence with texts, emails, paper trail of this supposedly sexual encounter.
Just recently Bill Maher brought up his interview with Daniels in 2018 where she confidently says, she wasn’t afraid, wasn’t held in the room, by Trump that it was a good time.
How did Trumps lawyers not have this to show?
I emailed both his lawyers with the video. I am not sure if it too late to show it now in court.
Is defense done with Daniels can they bring her back?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.