I believe the statute of limitations had expired for some of the potential crimes he could have been charged with (including misdemeanor falsification of records). So that could be a potential reason for this charge and not others.
It would have been a non-deductable campaign donation of $130,000, rather than a fraudulent tax deductible business expense of $420,000. Cohen wanted the higher figure because it was income that Cohen would have had to pay taxes on. I doubt whether the tax deduction was worth the $290,000 difference (even if you needed a separate line item to pay for Cohen’s negotiation work).
I’m going to tack this onto the threads for all four of Trump’s criminal trials:
https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/4651130-trump-new-york-hush-money-gag-order/
trump knocks gag order, saying ‘sleazeballs, lowlifes, and grifters’ can speak out
This is actually good logic on the part of trump
IF sleazeballs, lowlifes, and grifters’ can speak out.
and given that trump is a sleazeball, lowlife, and grifter
The trump should be allowed to speak out.
Logic. However, the first part fails, afaik, since even sleazeballs, lowlifes, and grifters get gag orders sometimes.
Sure, but you (or more precisely, Trump) can’t have it both ways. If Trump says that he’s not incapacitated, and can carry out the duties of the Presidency from within a cell, then the state that put him in a cell isn’t stopping him from carrying out his duties. And if he does admit that he’s incapacitated by being in a cell, then the state that put him there still isn’t stopping the President from carrying out his duties, because the President in that case is the running mate who’s still free.
As for statements made by Trump’s proxies and spokespersons, presumably he could avoid a contempt charge from their statements by saying “What? She wasn’t supposed to say that! I’m firing her as my spokesperson!”. Because that’s what you do with spokespersons who say things on your behalf that they’re not supposed to: You fire them, because their whole job is saying what you want them to say.
IANAL, but there have been quite a few comments about Habba and her outrageous comments and whether they could draw a penalty due to the gag order. If she was acting as an official spokesperson, then possibly so, but it’s not clear that she was, or that she’s currently on Trump’s payroll in any capacity. I can see Trump raising an effective defense by saying that he has no control over any opinions she expresses as a private person, the same way that she was in court just as a spectator.
She is Trump’s spokesperson but he’s probably not paying her so… loophole!
Could Trump be impeached on day 1 for the actions on jan 6th 2020? Could the articles that were passed then be resent to the senate?
In your hypothetical, I guess Trump wins in November?
The chyron when she was making those comments literally referred to her as “PRESIDENT TRUMP’S LEGAL SPOKESWOMAN”. It’s gonna be a pretty hard argument that she wasn’t speaking on his behalf when she allowed herself to be identified as such.
Interesting, thanks for that. Not being exactly a Fox News regular, I had not seen that. The repercussions might be quite interesting! I still think the Trumpster will try to weasel out of any potential liability by claiming that he knew nothing about it, a claim which – you gotta admit – is usually true in the wider scheme of things!
You missed the “former”; she’s the former President Trump’s Legal Spokesman.
(Former can’t possibly refer to donald. He’s president for life, don’tcha know?)
Why is the chyron her responsibility? It is a tag written by an anonymous editor in the tv studio.
Any time a politician gives a speech, it is covered by several news agencies, and each one publishes the story with a headline or chyron written by an anonymous editor in the agency.
The N.Y. Times may write “Trump denies accusation of fraud” while Fox will write “Trump accuses liberal judge of unfair bias”. (just a hypothetical example).But the politician is not expected to monitor and reply to every editor’s tagline.
The experience I have arranging TV interviews for my clients - their title/how they were introduced was a deliberate decision discussed ahead of time and “approved” by the interviewee.
She’s a lawyer. It’s literally her job to make sure she’s not being falsely represented as someone’s advocate if she isn’t.
You’re parsing it wrong. Not “Former president Trump’s” spokesperson, but Former “president Trump’s spokesperson”. /LionelHutzNo,MoneyDown!
“And next time will be a stern warning, followed by another different warning.”
And if he comes back? Shall Judge Merchan taunt him a second time??
Well, yeah. You don’t want to shoot the Mona Lisa and steal JFK, right?
That might be backwards as it’s Trump (literally) farting in Merchan’s general direction.