Unfortunately, the actual outcome of the election strongly suggests that the provision of such information would NOT have significantly driven the vote in a different direction.
This cynical outlook may be the America-hating fuckstick’s most effective line of defense.
True dat, but criminal behavior is still a crime even if it wasn’t successful at achieving its goal.
Ouch!
I’m waiting to see if Don falls asleep tomorrow or gets extra tweaked up after seeing the ridicule. That could be entertaining.
OTOH,
It’s entirely possible that the alleged election interference might have altered the outcome of the 2016 contest, which was decided by just under 80,000 votes in three states. Coming, as it might have, on the heels of the “Access Hollywood” disgrace, the effort to keep the scandal from voters may have saved Trump’s political prospects.
Just Security, citing a NYT piece.
Most US courts allow phones these days. But they typically order they be “off” or at least silent, and I’ve seen harsh sanctions for the phone ringing in court.
I don’t know the answer, but did you know that the
Is based on Phil McGraw? Yes, “Dr” Phil was a jury consultant. That’s how he met Oprah (who once had a major defamation trial in Texas when the cattle industry sued her for saying that she wouldn’t eat beef due to a mad cow scare).
I think you’re generally absolutely right.
However, In some other States/Courts lawyers cannot bring their phones inside the building. I had mine, went through security, and they told me to put it in my car. No exceptions.
That’s obnoxious! Phones hold calendars, which are essential for scheduling. And most of the time a lawyer is in court he needs to schedule something (even today, the judge scheduled a contempt hearing).
Yup. I agree.
The local Georgia attorneys had their phones but they would never use them inside the Courtroom; just outside in the hall.
I was just not local and dumb and didn’t think to hide it properly.
I agree it would have changed the results.
There are campaign expenditure reports showing that Trump’s 2016 campaign spent money on 31,201 items:
Here’s a sample line item:
There should have been a similar line item for the $130,000 to Stormy Daniels. The Description should have been something like:
PARAMOUR FEE FOR GIVING UP FIRST AMENDMENT RIGHTS REGARDING THIS CANDIDACY
I’m probably dreaming that this is the exact legal requirement to turn New York State business records falsification inbto a felony, but I wish it was. And I think that line item, on the web, would have changed many votes.,
It took them 90 years to make that payment?
No. I think you’ve got it right:
New York Penal Law § 175.10: Falsifying business records in the first degree: A person is guilty of falsifying business records in the first degree when he commits the crime of falsifying business records in the second degree, and when his intent to defraud includes an intent to commit another crime or to aid or conceal the commission thereof. Falsifying business records in the first degree is a class E felony.
And from Just Security:
The court granted the motion, precluding Trump from rearguing matters already ruled on raised in his motions to dismiss, including (1) alleged delay in bringing charges; (2) a federal offense is a valid object crime for first degree falsification of business records; (3) NY election law applies to the charged conduct; (4) improper prosecutorial motivation; (5) there was no violation of the statute of limitations; and (6) there were no violations of grand jury secrecy.
This is key, in my opinion. Michael Cohen was already convicted of a federal offense relating to this scheme. The only reason that donald escaped indictment as his co-conspirator was because donald was the president of the United States at the time.
Is this jury going to be sequestered? I know it’s veey unusual in real life, but this is basically a mob trial. Would this be addressed during jury selection?
Interested to know your thoughts on how to prove Trumps fraudulent intent for this crime?
Anytime you have to prove fraud it can be difficult because the defendant can say they did it, but for different reasons that might be bad, but not criminal. Such a tight rope for some reasonable doubt.
I just cut and pasted.
The lesson to anyone here, who may ever consider doing business with the Trump Organization, is to not just get the check in advance, but also to make sure it isn’t post-dated.
What the Federal Elections Commission web site doesn’t tell me is the nature of the dispute the Trump campaign paid to be arbitrated. If I can sneak this in here, I am seeing just eleven American Arbitration Association fee payments, by federal political campaigns, since 2006. Six of them are for Trump campaigns, The other five are divided between two House of Representatives candidates, including Eric Massa, who resigned in disgrace.
I picked that American Arbitration Association line item at random, but it illustrates that DJT gets into jams voters should know about before Election Day.
Also from the Just Security article:
In terms of part (2), intent to defraud, “courts in the First Department have interpreted this culpable mental state broadly. Intent to defraud is not constricted to an intent to deprive another of property or money. In fact, ‘intent to defraud’ can extend beyond economic concern. Nor is there any requirement that a defendant intend to conceal the commission of his own crime; instead, ‘a person can commit First Degree Falsifying Business Records by falsifying records with the intent to cover up a crime committed by somebody else.’” People v. Trump 2024 NY Slip Op 30560(U). Note that the state’s pattern jury instructions say that intent “means conscious objective or purpose. Thus, a person acts with intent to defraud when his or her conscious objective or purpose is to do so.”
Did you happen to mention Michael Cohen? 
That’s why the DA isn’t just going to present the Stormy Daniels arrangement in a vacuum. Instead, they are going to have Pecker and Cohen both confirm that there was a specific meeting, with Trump in attendance, where they made this decision to begin the “catch and kill” scheme to assist Donald’s chances at winning the election. Then, they’ll have Karen McDougal testify that she was one of the first people silenced through this plan.
Cohen, though, will be key. Previously, he would threaten lawsuits if people had dirt they wanted to bring forward. Now, he can explain, they switched tactics due to the fact that Trump was now running for president. Rather than sue, which attracts attention, they’d pay hush money.
Trump only was willing to do this because of the election. Cohen will also testify that Trump wanted to try to string Stormy Daniels along until after the election, so he wouldn’t ever have to actually pay (because, when she came forward after the election, it wouldn’t matter how people reacted. It was about the influence of votes). It was only because she was threatening to go public before Election Day that donald finally relented and paid.
I’m sure there are other witnesses, of course, but I imagine that this is going to be the narrative that the DA will use to reinforce the point that this was all election related, meaning that Trump was getting financial contributions from Cohen and The National Enquirer that violated federal election laws.
ETA: This also helps explain why the Access Hollywood tape’s transcript is relevant. It shows why donald had election-based reasons to be concerned about news of an affair. He was in damage control after the “grab ‘em” comment.
Again, election related concerns demonstrate that donald was receiving campaign contributions when Cohen paid off Daniels.
That seems obvious to me. I assumed the typo was in the original.