CNN Panel Stuns Viewers, Shreds Alvin Bragg’s Case against Trump

[Sam]

So by paying for Stormy's silence Trump was donating money to his campaign illegally?

Man, you are not following the outlines of the legal theory here. If you acknowledge that Trump paid Daniels, it's game over. The entire defense strategy relies on Trump not knowing about the payments. Because if he knew and if he directed Michael Cohen's reimbursement under the false guise of a legal retainer then he is guilty of falsifying business records, which is the charge currently being litigated at trial.

And, yes: if Trump paid for Daniels' silence out of his personal funds for the purpose of his campaign and failed to disclose that payment as a donation to his campaign, it is illegal.

-Sam

[Sparko]

Man, you are not following the outlines of the legal theory here. If you acknowledge that Trump paid Daniels, it's game over. The entire defense strategy relies on Trump not knowing about the payments. Because if he knew and if he directed Michael Cohen's reimbursement under the false guise of a legal retainer then he is guilty of falsifying business records, which is the charge currently being litigated at trial.

And, yes: if Trump paid for Daniels' silence out of his personal funds for the purpose of his campaign and failed to disclose that payment as a donation to his campaign, it is illegal.

-Sam

You were arguing it was "campaign fraud," not "falsifying business records"

[Sam]

You were arguing it was "campaign fraud," not "falsifying business records"

<taps the sign>

And, yes: if Trump paid for Daniels' silence out of his personal funds for the purpose of his campaign and failed to disclose that payment as a donation to his campaign, it is illegal.

If Turley wants to argue that charges not currently being litigated against Trump aren't illegal, he's wrong but also being stupid. If Turley or yourself want to argue that what Trump did isn't illegal, you have to deal with the underlying legality of the payments themselves and deal with the legality of the reimbursements. If the latter is illegal and Trump directed the payments (directly or indirectly), Trump is guilty.

-Sam

[Sparko]

<taps the sign>



If Turley wants to argue that charges not currently being litigated against Trump aren't illegal, he's wrong but also being stupid. If Turley or yourself want to argue that what Trump did isn't illegal, you have to deal with the underlying legality of the payments themselves and deal with the legality of the reimbursements. If the latter is illegal and Trump directed the payments (directly or indirectly), Trump is guilty.

-Sam

I am thinking they will find Trump guilty whether what he did was legal or not.

[Sam]

I am thinking they will find Trump guilty whether what he did was legal or not.

And if you don't bother to educate yourself on whether the alleged conduct is actually illegal and whether the prosecution proves its case, you'll be at the mercy of your own prejudices and Jonathan Turley's dishonest non sequiturs.

It does make a difference what the facts and the law are and people with the capacity to understand both have something of an obligation to do so if they wish to hold strong opinions on the subject.

-Sam

[Sparko]

And if you don't bother to educate yourself on whether the alleged conduct is actually illegal and whether the prosecution proves its case, you'll be at the mercy of your own prejudices and Jonathan Turley's dishonest non sequiturs.

It does make a difference what the facts and the law are and people with the capacity to understand both have something of an obligation to do so if they wish to hold strong opinions on the subject.

-Sam

Sure Sam. I forgot you are the expert on all things and never wrong. My bad.

[Sam]

This, for example, is highly relevant witness testimony. It's from a Trump employee that A) isn't Cohen, B) isn't Weisselberg, C) is familiar with how checks were handled in the relevant time period, and D) can implicate Trump's awareness of the payments. If the prosecution proves its case — that Trump knew why the payments were being made and approved of the false filings — then Trump may or may not be found guilty by the jury but he should be found guilty, as the facts clearly demonstrate a violation of criminal statutes.

ScreenShot00043.png

-Sam

[Sam]

Sure Sam. I forgot you are the expert on all things and never wrong. My bad.

Much better to think you're right about something and have a good justification for that belief than to be faced with refutation and still imagine yourself right somehow, though you're no longer sure why.

-Sam

[Cow Poke]

Given that you began this thread, I wouldn't think you'd be adverse to discussion about the merits of the underlying charges prior to the conclusion of the trial. Regardless, Sparko (via Turley) is making a specific claim, that "personal or corporate" payments to silence a story are not illegal. In fact, they certainly can be and, indeed, the specific payments under discussion have already led to Michael Cohen's conviction, indicating that they clearly were illegal.

-Sam

Maybe you could just paraphrase the trial in progress for us.

[Sam]

Maybe you could just paraphrase the trial in progress for us.

Sure: the prosecution is proving its case rather well but has yet to definitively prove that Trump had direct knowledge of this repayment scheme. I don't think there is a reasonable doubt that he would be involved, given the precedent and behavior the prosecution has already established, but it's not yet at the point of a slam dunk. The defense has not utilized its time badly but it's starting from a much worse position and I think it's unlikely that its primary strategy of tarnishing Cohen's credibility will help much.

No charge.

-Sam

[Cow Poke]

Sure: the prosecution is proving its case rather well but has yet to definitively prove that Trump had direct knowledge of this repayment scheme. I don't think there is a reasonable doubt that he would be involved, given the precedent and behavior the prosecution has already established, but it's not yet at the point of a slam dunk. The defense has not utilized its time badly but it's starting from a much worse position and I think it's unlikely that its primary strategy of tarnishing Cohen's credibility will help much.

No charge.

-Sam

Ya get what ya pay for.

[CivilDiscourse]

Ya get what ya pay for.

I think this case is another example of the left hyping the next thing that'll "get Trump". When it was originally launched, there was a general sense that this was weak, too clever for its own good, etc. Even liberal legal scholars were skeptical of it.

At the time though, Trump was facing other challenges, so this case wasn't important.

Now, The other two cases are struggling, so this is likely the only case that may "get Trump" before the election. Naturally this means the analysis is foing to become motivated. What was too clever will become genius, weak will become rock solid, and every witness will be devastating to Trump.

Its another lurch on the get Trump bandwagon that many have hyped each time...just like the 14th Amendment lurch.

[Sparko]

Much better to think you're right about something and have a good justification for that belief than to be faced with refutation and still imagine yourself right somehow, though you're no longer sure why.

-Sam

Sure Sam, just like the discussion about the horrific saw bladed barriers in the Rio Grande. When we showed you that they are not saw blades and that the entire story was blown out of proportion, you just kept on claiming to be right, despite photographs proving you wrong. Nothing ever gets you to admit you are wrong about anything, does it?

[rogue06]

I think this case is another example of the left hyping the next thing that'll "get Trump". When it was originally launched, there was a general sense that this was weak, too clever for its own good, etc. Even liberal legal scholars were skeptical of it.

Those on talking head shows on cable news outlets seemed unanimous in their opinion that this is the weakest case, but it seems they are relying on an incredibly hostile jury pool to produce a jury that isn't very interested in evidence.

[CivilDiscourse]

Those on talking head shows on cable news outlets seemed unanimous in their opinion that this is the weakest case, but it seems they are relying on an incredibly hostile jury pool to produce a jury that isn't very interested in evidence.

Just watch, as I said, now that this seems to be the only case with a chance of impacting the election, you'll see alot of motivated reasoning about the strength of the case.