betting markets say there's a 76% chance of a conviction in the NY case.
but no not even a conviction would change the election results much.
I feel like being in jail would only help him. "This is a political witch hunt. The establishment is afraid of me. I am a man of the people and the swamp can't handle it." That sort of thing
yeah agreed but he wouldn't be in jail until well after the election even on a fast track.
appeals, sentencing etc will take forever.
and that's IF the penalty is jail. It could be probation or maybe even cash? not sure.
fun point that both cohen and pecker already pleaded guilty to the campaign finance crime involved here.
Even more fun that you don't understand what that even means.
Hush money is not a campaign expense.
why did cohen plead guilty to campaign finance crimes related to this?
Michael Cohen was sentenced to 36 months in prison on Wednesday, in part for “brazen violations of the election laws” when he orchestrated hush money payments on behalf of President Donald Trump during the 2016 election, according to federal prosecutors.
This post was edited 3 minutes after it was posted.
Even more fun that you don't understand what that even means.
Hush money is not a campaign expense.
why did cohen plead guilty to campaign finance crimes related to this?
Michael Cohen was sentenced to 36 months in prison on Wednesday, in part for “brazen violations of the election laws” when he orchestrated hush money payments on behalf of President Donald Trump during the 2016 election, according to federal prosecutors.
As I said Cohen literally testified in this trial that he only plead guilty because the government threatened to put his wife in prison for his tax crimes because her name was on their joint tax returns.
When the full weight of the government comes down on people almost all of them will plead guilty even if they didn't do it because the government doesn't actually want to prosecute them it wants them to flip on their actual target.
why did cohen plead guilty to campaign finance crimes related to this?
Michael Cohen was sentenced to 36 months in prison on Wednesday, in part for “brazen violations of the election laws” when he orchestrated hush money payments on behalf of President Donald Trump during the 2016 election, according to federal prosecutors.
As I said Cohen literally testified in this trial that he only plead guilty because the government threatened to put his wife in prison for his tax crimes because her name was on their joint tax returns.
link?
here cohen said he pleaded guilty because he was sick of Republican lies forcing him to lie for a bunch of liars.
Cohen says he plead guilty because he "would not lie for President Trump anymore" Michael Cohen says he made his move to plead guilty after talking to his family and deciding he would no longer lie for Trump. "I made a decision based again on the conversation I had with my family that I would not lie for President Trump anymore," he says.
This post was edited 50 seconds after it was posted.
As I said Cohen literally testified in this trial that he only plead guilty because the government threatened to put his wife in prison for his tax crimes because her name was on their joint tax returns.
When the full weight of the government comes down on people almost all of them will plead guilty even if they didn't do it because the government doesn't actually want to prosecute them it wants them to flip on their actual target.
the crime is falsifying business records. According to NY law, you need not prove that the defendant committed all aspects of that crime. This is logical. A wire fraud case, the defendant could have told his workers to do the wire. In a bank robbery, the defendant might not have had the gun. Someone else did.
There is plenty of evidence that these were not attorney fees. David Pecker's testimony laid out the scheme and what all these funds moving hands was all about. And there are texts, emails and a tape that support that purpose. Hope Hicks as well.
Trump's defense should be focusing on a narrow line. That Trump did not know anything about the book keeping. That he is the President for Chrissakes. He has people for that. But Trump is forcing his attorneys to sink his ship by keeping that narrow line of defense obscured from the jury. And making the Jury hate the defense for multiple reasons.
the crime is falsifying business records. According to NY law, you need not prove that the defendant committed all aspects of that crime. This is logical. A wire fraud case, the defendant could have told his workers to do the wire. In a bank robbery, the defendant might not have had the gun. Someone else did.
There is plenty of evidence that these were not attorney fees. David Pecker's testimony laid out the scheme and what all these funds moving hands was all about. And there are texts, emails and a tape that support that purpose. Hope Hicks as well.
Trump's defense should be focusing on a narrow line. That Trump did not know anything about the book keeping. That he is the President for Chrissakes. He has people for that. But Trump is forcing his attorneys to sink his ship by keeping that narrow line of defense obscured from the jury. And making the Jury hate the defense for multiple reasons.
I am not suggesting that Trump did not know about the falsification. Of course he did.
I am just saying this is a weak point in the prosecution's case. All they have is Cohen's testimony on that.
As I said Cohen literally testified in this trial that he only plead guilty because the government threatened to put his wife in prison for his tax crimes because her name was on their joint tax returns.
When the full weight of the government comes down on people almost all of them will plead guilty even if they didn't do it because the government doesn't actually want to prosecute them it wants them to flip on their actual target.
the crime is falsifying business records. According to NY law, you need not prove that the defendant committed all aspects of that crime. This is logical. A wire fraud case, the defendant could have told his workers to do the wire. In a bank robbery, the defendant might not have had the gun. Someone else did.
There is plenty of evidence that these were not attorney fees. David Pecker's testimony laid out the scheme and what all these funds moving hands was all about. And there are texts, emails and a tape that support that purpose. Hope Hicks as well.
Trump's defense should be focusing on a narrow line. That Trump did not know anything about the book keeping. That he is the President for Chrissakes. He has people for that. But Trump is forcing his attorneys to sink his ship by keeping that narrow line of defense obscured from the jury. And making the Jury hate the defense for multiple reasons.
Calling a legal expense a legal expense isn't falsifying business records.
The defense hasn't made it's case yet. The prosecution hasn't rested yet.
In your TDS delusion you are declaring the defense is bad when you literally have no idea what it is yet.
not until both sides agree on format and dates and moderator.
trump is just marketing here.
'heck yeah I'll debate'
then later he'll say 'no way am I debating under the most fixed conditions ever'
To be fair, biden made a proposal. trump will make a counter proposal. they have to agree in order for there to be debates and I don't think they will agree.
- Todd Blanche’s opening gambit in his cross of Michael Cohen will go down in the annals of oratory, eclipsing Clarence Darrow, Daniel Webster—nay, Cicero himself: “You went on Tik Tok and called me a ‘crying little sh!t ,’ didn’t you?”
- Teachable moment for aspiring lawyers: cross-exam is not about you. Trump lawyer Blanche’s opening question drew sustained objection and warning from judge. Have a plan for the witness — elicit helpful admissions or impeach their credibility, and then sit down. The rest is noise that dilutes the plan.
- Todd Blanche’s opening gambit in his cross of Michael Cohen will go down in the annals of oratory, eclipsing Clarence Darrow, Daniel Webster—nay, Cicero himself: “You went on Tik Tok and called me a ‘crying little sh!t ,’ didn’t you?”
- Teachable moment for aspiring lawyers: cross-exam is not about you. Trump lawyer Blanche’s opening question drew sustained objection and warning from judge. Have a plan for the witness — elicit helpful admissions or impeach their credibility, and then sit down. The rest is noise that dilutes the plan.
Imagine being dumb enough to think that question was about Blanche or his feelings.