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

On Tue, 14 May 2024 15:35:30 -0000 (UTC), "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-trump-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.

Because that's not how the story has been told. Instead it is Trump
approaching her through Cohen to keep the story a secret while he was
running for office. So if it was Trump's people approaching her then
she did nothing wrong. If it was as you said then she did something
wrong, but there may be a limitation on how long they had to charge
her for that crime.

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.

My understanding is that his paying her off to keep the information
secret because he was running for office is exactly what he is being
charged with. Trump has had his people say he was paying her just to
protect his wife, but all the testimony from various people suggests
Trump only cared about keeping the information about the sex/affair
secret because he was running for office.

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. This is what Michael
Cohen was convicted of, but Trump was not prosecuted for this.

It always seemed like Trump should have been tried for this back when
Cohen was convicted as there's no way for Cohen to be guilty and Trump
to be innocent given how much of a micro-manager Trump has been
reported to be.

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.
>
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.

Again my understanding was that she didn't extort him and that Trump's
trying to hide the payment while running for office is the crime that
he committed.