An NDA is a legal agreement. NDA’s are a common practice in business and politics. NDA’s are legal. So where is the unlawful means here?
The prosecutor had a snappy line for this in closing arguments, let me see if I could find it.
The defendant says that NDAs or "hush money" contracts aren't illegal, And it's true that contracts aren't illegal -- but a contract to kill your wife, for example, is.
So it's about how the NDA was paid for. I believe if Trump just paid her with his own money in 2016, they couldn't have charged him with any thing.
NDA’s are a legal document; therefore, a legal expense.
Unfortunately, there's a few pieces of evidence where Trump has called it a reimbursement including this tweet. https://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/documents/tweets-may-3-2018
Mr. Cohen, an attorney, received a monthly retainer, not from the campaign and having nothing to do with the campaign, from which he entered into, through reimbursement, a private contract between two parties, known as a non-disclosure agreement, or NDA. These agreements are.....
He also revealed it as personal debt on a government form.
I also think legal expenses would be for working on the contract, the NDA itself, but not paying the contract the $$ to SD. Like if buy a business for $100,000 and my lawyer works on the papers, the lawyer isn't expected to the pay the $100,000 to the owner of the business.
Trump's lawyer said the tweet shows there was nothing shady.
If there was an intent to defraud, why did he do that?" Blanche says, referring to tweeting about Cohen's payment.
Tax issues
Legal expenses are tax deductible. if the jury treats it as reimbursement, it opens up a can of worms.
The FEC found no grounds to “charge” or punish President Trump for this matter, nor did the DOJ. So how can this be perceived as violating a federal law?
The other crime in the NY statue doesn't have to be committed by Trump. Cohen plead guilty to campaign violations. David Pecker signed a nonprosecution agreement. I know there are jury instructions about this. The agreement can not be viewed as Trump being guilty of that crime.
they went over a lot of your questions in closing arguments. transcripts can be found here https://pdfs.nycourts.gov/PeopleVs.DTrump-71543/transcripts/
Per a discussion with Liz Harrington today on the Joe Hoft Show, Liz shared that she believes that President Trump was supposed to be there that day.
She is incorrect. Trump spoke at CPAC in Dallas that weekend and the returned to NYC. In fact, he had a deposition in NY that week.
Rich people who spent the winter in Florida, don't spend the summer there. Trump goes back to Bedminister, NJ. The club itself was closed for the season. The day of the raid was a hot August day with high humidity.
Court reporters are reading back the testimony the jury requested. They both have great New York accents.
"8 million dollas?" one of them says as she reads testimony originally said by David Pecker.
This may be clearer.
https://apnews.com/article/fact-check-trump-trial-jury-unanimous-verdict-679053515836
. .
The judge told the jury that to convict Trump on any given charge, they will have to find unanimously — that is, all 12 jurors must agree — that the former president created a fraudulent entry in his company’s records or caused someone else to do so, and that he did so with the intent of committing or concealing a crime.
Prosecutors say the crime Trump committed or hid is a violation of a New York election law making it illegal for two or more conspirators “to promote or prevent the election of any person to a public office by unlawful means.”
Merchan gave the jurors three possible “unlawful means” they can apply to Trump’s charges: falsifying other business records, breaking the Federal Election Campaign Act or submitting false information on a tax return.
For a conviction, each juror would have to find that at least one of those three things happened, but they don’t have to agree unanimously on which it was.
This is not exactly accurate. There's like 3 levels to this
They have to be unanimous on the original crime which is false business records. 1st level
False business records become a felony when used to cover up another crime. 2nd level They have to be unanimous about the second level crime. the second level crime rhey are pointing to this crime
N.Y. Elec. Law § 17-152 Conspiracy to promote or prevent election Any two or more persons who conspire to promote or prevent the election of any person to a public office by unlawful means and which conspiracy is acted upon by one or more of the parties thereto, shall be guilty of a misdemeanor.
They do not have to be unanimous about the "unlawful means" This is the third level
This is not because of Trump. Trump's lawyer admitted in court, the unlawful means need not be unanimous according to new York law.
Here's the actual instructions https://pbs.twimg.com/media/GOxPRfdXMAA4_CM?format=jpg&name=small
Yes the jury got instructions and began deliberating today. Then they asked to hearvsomebof testimony in the case and the instructions to be read out again and that's where they will begin tomorrow.
How is this different from any other trial?
Pecker testified before Cohen did.
The jury is going to look at the actual testimony.
The parts the jury wants to hear will be read in open court tomorrow. We will all know soon.
But there's a reason the prosecutors called Pecker. whole case starts with a meeting with Trump, Cohen and Pecker.
https://x.com/innercitypress/status/1782800172394692712?t=lg9Lj9fKUOHzth5Zqo8CLA&s=19
Prosecutor: Did you attend a meeting in Trump Tower in mid August? Pecker: Yes. Michael Cohen told me The Boss wanted to see me. They asked me what my magazine could do for the campaign. I said we could publish positive stories about Mr. Trump, and negative stories about his opponents. And I'd notify Michael Cohen if a woman' story about him was being sold.
What aspects of Pecker's testimony are you thinking of?
There's 34 charges of false business records. They are
11 invoices, 11 checks, and 12 entries in the Trump Organization ledger.
Trump paid Michael Cohen $420,000 over 11 payments.
Nobody is arguing the records don't exist or that the payments did not happen.. The argument is are they false records. Were they reimbursing Michael Cohen for money he paid out or were they paying him for legal services. Trump says it was legal services.
The details of January check are not much different from the September check.
So I don't think it's 34 separate questions to answer. It's one question.
Are these legitimate legal services or are they a reimbursement?.
Perhaps you then apply that question to the checks and then to the invoices and then to The ledger entries. But it's not really 34 discussions
Are you thinking of Costello?
Trump called Costello as a witness.
David Pecker was called by the DA.
My feeling after the closing arguments was if this jury thinks the case is legit ...that is, if they don't think the DA was purely reaching and the law actually applies here ...it didn't look good for Trump. Acquittal looks very remote and hung jury the best chance.
Look at Trump's posts below. Does not feel optimistic to me.
What's your take on these jury questions?
Jury does not reenter a courtroom when they are deliberating.
They write a note and send it to the judge.
Everyone else reenters the court room.
Details on the 4 things the jury wants is here
https://greatawakening.win/p/17tKirXOIm/trump-trial-goes-to-the-jury--st/
I believe when they read back the testimony they ask for, the jury will be in court.
So Al Pacino was playing Jimmy Hoffa.
Jimmy Hoffa was 5 feet 5 1/2 inches tall,
Also we have activity
Merchan says the jury has four requests.
The note begins: "We, the jury, request"
-
David Pecker's testimony regarding his phone conversation with Trump
-
Pecker's decision not to finalize and fund the assignment of McDougal's life rights
-
Pecker's testimony regarding the Trump Tower meeting
-
Michael Cohen's testimony regarding the Trump Tower meeting.
Everything you need to know is at THIS LINK
I don't think so. There is something like that in a civil trial if a jury interpreted the law incorrectly.
I know Judge's have the right to prevent a criminal case going to jury.
The defendant can ask for a directed verdict. These means there's nothing for the jury to decide, the prosecution did not meet its burden of proof. Let's say a witness recanted their testimony and there's not enough other evidence.
A directed verdict is a ruling entered by a trial judge after determining that there is no legally sufficient evidentiary basis for a reasonable jury to reach a different conclusion. The trial court may grant a directed verdict either sua sponte or upon a motion by either party.
This actually happened in the Trump fraud case. Before the trial, there was years of work on that case. Each side asked the judge for a directed verdict. Trump wanted the whole case thrown out. The NY AG had 7 issues and asked for a verdict on one of the issues, that fraud occurred.
In this case Trump's team asked for a directed verdict, but the judge overruled it.
In this case the jury is the fact finder and the judge is interpreter of the law.
Why comms? We have had Pandas in the US based on agreements with China for decades
From 2010 to 2023 we had a set of pandas. The agreement expired.
We basically lease the pandas.
The jury has been instructed and they are deliberating.
They were given a laptop with the evidence.
I think they mean convicted. Arrest comes way before the trial.
Conviction may or may not mean jail time.
If a conviction occurs we won't know the sentence for a bit.
In DC and Florida too https://www.cnn.com/politics/live-news/trump-arraignment-january-6-indictment/index.html
Trump's recent posts on the case over the last 3 days
NDA’s ARE TOTALLY LEGAL AND ACCEPTED!
38m DEFENSE OF COUNSEL DEFENSE!
THE D.A.’s OFFICE WAS ALLOWED TO GO ON WITH 5 HOURS OF BULL…. YESTERDAY. I have no rights against this Crooked Judge’s Gag Order!
KANGAROO COURT! A CORRUPT AND CONFLICTED JUDGE. RELIANCE ON COUNSEL (ADVISE OF COUNSEL) NOT ALLOWED BY MERCHAN, A FIRST. HIS RULINGS, ON A CASE THAT SHOULD, ACCORDING TO ALL LEGAL SCHOLARS AND EXPERTS, NEVER HAVE BEEN BROUGHT, HAVE MADE THIS A BIDEN PUSHED WITCH HUNT. THERE WAS NO CRIME, EXCEPT FOR THE BUM THAT GOT CAUGHT STEALING FROM ME! IN GOD WE TRUST!
BIDEN WITCH HUNT!
CAN YOU IMAGINE THAT I, AS A DEFENDANT, AM NOT ALLOWED TO REBUT OR CORRECT THE MANY LIES TOLD DURUNG THE 5 HOUR FILIBUSTER JUST PUT ON BY THE SOROS BACKED D.A.’s OFFICE IN THE MANHATTAN COURT. WHAT A DISGRACEFUL PERFORMANCE OF MISREPRESENTATION IT WAS!!! MAGA2024
I DIDN’T HAVE A FIXER, I HAD A LAWYER WHO, AT THAT TIME, WAS FULLY ACCREDITED AND ACCEPTED WITHIN THE LEGAL COMMUNITY, BUT THE JUDGE IS NOT ALLOWING ME TO USE THE RELIANCE ON COUNSEL DEFENSE. I MAY BE THE ONLY PERSON IN THE COUNTRY NOT ALLOWED TO DO SO AND, THE ONLY ONE WHO HAS A VERY UNCONSTITUTIONAL AND RESTRICTIVE GAG ORDER. NOT FAIR — FREEDOM!
THE GREATEST CASE I’VE EVER SEEN FOR RELIANCE ON COUNSEL, AND JUDGE MERCHAN WILL NOT, FOR WHATEVER REASON, LET ME USE THAT AS A DEFENSE IN THIS RIGGED TRIAL. ANOTHER TERM, ADVICE OF COUNSEL DEFENSE!
WHY IS THE CORRUPT GOVERNMENT ALLOWED TO MAKE THE FINAL ARGUMENT IN THE CASE AGAINST ME? WHY CAN’T THE DEFENSE GO LAST? BIG ADVANTAGE, VERY UNFAIR. WITCH HUNT! DJT
The reason the Radical, highly Conflicted Judge Juan Merchan had to come up with three FAKE options for the jury to choose from, without requiring them to be unanimous, which is completely UNAMERICAN AND UNCONSTITUTIONAL, is because the Corrupt, Soros backed D.A., Alvin Bragg, couldn’t come close to proving that any crime was committed. THERE WAS NO CRIME. Legal Expense paid to a lawyer was marked, by a bookkeeper using a dropdown menu in a computer program, as Legal Expense paid to a lawyer. WHAT ELSE COULD YOU CALL IT? There is NO CASE, just a Democrat Persecutor controlled by Crooked Joe Biden’s White House, a Democrat Judge, and a biased venue. This is nothing but an Election Interfering Witch Hunt, and the American People know it! MAGA2024
Trump's posts have not been optimistic the past few days.
Makes me think his lawyers are not confident how it will go.
His investigation is over He is no longer a special counsel.
He left May 15, 2023.
Here's the testimony the jury wanted to hear again. This was all read in court about 45 min ago.
https://x.com/AnnaBower/status/1796198854766772429
Trump had a conversation with Pecker about buying Karen McDougal's story and told Pecker to talk to Cohen about it.
Jurors heard both Trump and Cohen's version of the Trump Tower meeting with Trump. On Cross examination, Pecker says "catch and kill" was never used. Jurors hear that David Pecker called off the deal to sell Karen McDougal's story to Cohen, he tells Cohen he's out and to rip up the deal.