Just like when posting in these threads. 
Thank you all three, I guess that make sense. I wondered why a whole day was used on that kind of sordid story.
If it was completely unnecessary the judge wouldn’t have allowed it at all.
As it was, the story had some unnecessary details which the judge commented on, and also mentioned that the defense was lax in not objecting when it would have been appropriate to do so, and then the defense tried to game the court by requesting a mistrial. (Which the judge would have no part of.)
It’s the legal equivalent of buying a sandwich, pulling out a dead fly from a little bag right in front of the waiter and putting it in the sandwich, then demanding your meal be free because there is a fly in it.
I realize this is the millionth time some tiny unpublicized facet of a trump scandal should on its own be enough to rule out him being POTUS, and pointing it out won’t stop from being POTUS… But FFS…
Regardless of the facts of the case either of these things ON THERE OWN should be fatal for a presidential campaign. Being able to react calmly and rationally in a crisis and not… I dunno… starting physical altercation with your female lawyer (and only your female lawyer not your male lawyers) is one of the primary characteristics a POTUS should have
“If I have to warn you again you may force me to warn you again!”
Actually, at that time, he was not running against Biden. His opponent was a woman, which could have made the salacious details that much more problematic.
More like, buying a sandwich, seeing it’s got lettuce on it, eating half the sandwich, then complaining, “Hey! I didn’t want lettuce on my sandwich!” They didn’t alter her testimony, they just let it go on longer than they wanted it to before complaining.
Minor correction - Clinton, not Biden.
You have proof beyond a reasonable doubt that Trump instructed Hanna to make that statement? Because without that, the court has no power to jail someone.
Yeah. Total brain fart. Thanks for correcting it 
I do not. Does Trump have to have specifically told her to say something in order for it to violate the gag order? If she is his official spokesperson, shouldn’t the gag order apply to her as well as him?
I don’t know. I’m not a lawyer. I guess it depends on the specifics of the gag order. But it seems to me like most competent attorneys would know better than to stick their foot in it like she did.
(And of course, some of it is just wishful thinking.)
They would.
There’s something very weak and pathetic about this crime. Candidates are allowed unlimited contributions to their own campaign: David Koch used that loophole to run for Vice President under the Libertarian ticket.
Trump had his company pay Cohen $420,000 to pass $130,000 to Stormy, fraudulently claiming the larger amount as a deduction. Trump could have made this a campaign contribution, reportable after the campaign was over. Yes, it would have looked weird having an “NDA agreement” line item next to the name “Stormy Daniels”, but the regulatory filing deadline was after the inauguration, on the last weekday of January. (Cite).
Not ideal, but Trump didn’t care too much about what happened after the election. He’s a liar: he could have just made something up.
It feels like it’s taken so long for this to reach Court that I wouldn’t be surprised if you meant Bill rather than Hillary.
Would that have been a deductible business or personal expense? If he would have had to pay tax on it, he wouldn’t have done it.
Campaign contributions are not deductible.
The pitfall for DJT was his being convinced that he should not even need to “lie about it later”. That he should just never be asked about what is this.
What confuses me, is why all this is just a misdemeanor, absent some other crime. Surely by misrepresenting these payments disgraced former president Trump has understated this business’s profits, which feels like it should be tax evasion, which should be a felony. It feels like it should be a felony even if in the end it didn’t change the tax payable, since it must count as an attempt to evade tax.
What am I missing?
I got something wrong in this comment (mine, to which I’m currently replying), and I think it’s material.
Michael Cohen did NOT plead guilty to falsifying business records. He pleaded guilty to making false statements to the US Congress.
Which, IMNALHO, means that Cohen’s crime (as well as other state and federal election and tax crimes) could be used as the predicate crime that upped Trump’s misdemeanors into felonies.
So there 
This is New York. Big business takes place in New York. If fraudulent accounting records, for any purpose, including tax evasion, was a felony, the entire US economy would collapse.
There’s a case for potential tax fraud for sure, but the falsification of the records is not necessarily indicative that the revenue figures were wrong.
There are potentially some ethical (and certainly some potential legal) issues with how a repayment is made, but that doesn’t automatically mean the company revenue numbers were wrong.
This isn’t even limited to Trump. I am allowed to use my company issued credit card for personal expenses, but each month, I have to tag such expenses and repay the company from my own funds. And reportedly, Trump signed checks drawn from a personal account to cover the payments.
As long as the bookkeeping is correct, there shouldn’t be a problem. But if I used the card to pay for “legal services” that never occurred and paid back the money anyway, there is still a potential legal issue, even if the money was repaid from my personal account.