Re: Stormy Daniels Gave "Disastrous" Testimony In Trump Trial, CNN Legal Analyst Says

In article <v200c2$89tl$1@dont-email.me>,
 "Adam H. Kerman" <ahk@chinet.com> wrote:

Crosspost to newsgroups Ubi doesn't read cut
 
suzeeq <suzeeq@imbris.com> wrote:

On 5/14/2024 4:25 AM, NoBody wrote:

Sun, 12 May 2024 04:30:46 -0400, Ubiquitous <weberm@polaris.net> wrote:

 
The article that Ubi the shithead plagarized is this:
 
Stormy Daniels Gave 'Disastrous' Testimony In Trump Trial, CNN Legal
Analyst Says
By Daniel Chaitin
The Daily Wire
May 8, 2024
https://www.dailywire.com/news/stormy-daniels-gave-disastrous-testimony-in-tru
mp-trial-cnn-legal-analyst-says
 

. . .

 

The prosecutors have yet to produce ANY evidence that Trump committed
any crime.

 

He's charged with covering up payments to her for killing her story to
interfere with his 2016 campaign. That's the crime and they have proved
it with other witnesses.

 
Just a moment. You need to explain this in full.
 
She was looking for a payout. She approached people close to Trump
seeking money and wanted to speed the process along by threating to sell
her story to someone else if she didn't receive her payout.
 
That's extortion. No one has yet explained why her actions couldn't have
been prosecuted under state law.
 
Trump's first instinct was to treat her like he treated subcontractors
on developments: Stall the payment or not pay at all. At first he wanted
to wait till after the election, for if he lost, nothing she was selling
would be of value. He was advised to spend the money to make problem go
away.
 
None of this is criminal.
 
I'm not even sure if paying extortion is a criminal act on the part of
the victim.
 
The payment to her was a crime, not because buying rights so she won't
publish what she claimed was her story is a crime, but because keeping
it from being published was of some benefit to Trump as a candidate and
it wasn't disclosed as required in federal law.

If that's the standard, then Democrats have all broken that law by not
disclosing MSNBC and CNN, which are a lot more than just some benefit to
Democrats as candidates.

What Trump is being prosecuted for is ordering that the payment to
reimburse Cohen be written from one of the companies Trump controlled
and taken as a business expense of that company.

They're saying it boils down to Trump notating the payment to Cohen as
"legal expenses", which is falsifying a business record. This in a city
that's a violent hellhole where thugs are making a sport out of walking
up to random women and punching them so hard, the bones in their faces
are shattered. And when caught, they're released on no bail almost
immediately. Alvin Bragg won't aggressively prosecute *that* but Trump
putting a vague term in the memo line on a check to Cohen is apparently
worth spending millions of dollars of prosecution resources.

But don't say this is weaponizing the courts against political
opponents. That means you're a conspiracy theorist!

Trump should have just written "reimbursement" on the memo line. That
would have been completely truthful and yet in no way revealing.

The coverup was illegal in and of itself but if there was an underlying
crime being covered up, it was extortion committed by her. There was no
underlying crime committed by Trump to cover up.