DawgTalkers.net Forums DawgTalk Palus Politicus Trump hush Money Trial Set to start On April 15th.

Asking the question of what is the crime? Tells the whole story.

The State of New York is taking a former president of the US to court on a felony.

Understand what that means. In order to bring charges under these circumstances requires many legal professionals.

Not understanding that and asking the question demonstrates a lack of understanding how the legal system and law and order works.

So trump told the bold faced lie that he couldn't testify because of the gag order. Maybe if he could stay awake long enough to know what's going on.......

Trump trial judge shoots down former president's claim that gag order prevents him from testifying

In remarks outside the courtroom Thursday, Trump said, "I’m not allowed to testify. I’m under a gag order."

The judge presiding over Donald Trump's criminal trial told him Friday he has an "absolute right" to testify after the former president complained to reporters the gag order in the case prevented him from doing so.

In remarks outside the courtroom Thursday, Trump said, "I'm not allowed to testify. I'm under a gag order" that he said he would be appealing. "I'm not allowed to testify because this judge who's totally conflicted, has me under an unconstitutional gag order," he reiterated.

At the beginning of court proceedings Friday, Judge Juan Merchan said that it had come to his attention that Trump may have misunderstood his order. "It does not prohibit you from taking the stand,” Merchan said. Commonly known as a "gag order," the judge's decision is actually called an order "restricting extrajudicial statements" — statements made outside of court.

“As the name of the order indicates, it only applies to extrajudicial statements,” Merchan said. Trump then mouthed, "Thank you."

On the way into court Friday, Trump complained “This judge has taken away my constitutional right.” “We’re filing, I think today, a constitutional motion,” he said.

After the judge made his statement, jurors were brought back in to hear continued testimony from the forensic analyst who inspected data from the phones of former Trump attorney Michael Cohen, including text messages and secret recordings.

Cohen is a key figure in Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg's case against Trump. Prosecutors say Cohen and Trump conspired with National Enquirer publisher David Pecker to suppress scandalous stories about the Trump during his 2016 campaign. The scheme resulted in Cohen’s paying porn star Stormy Daniels $130,000 to keep quiet about a sexual encounter she said she had with Trump in 2006. Trump has denied the claim.

Trump later repaid Cohen in payments the DA says he falsely classified as legal expenses. Trump has pleaded not guilty to all 34 counts of falsifying business records.

Douglas Daus, a forensic analyst for the DA’s office, began his testimony Thursday, revealing he found over 39,000 contacts on Cohen's phone, including those for Trump and his wife, Melania; text messages with Trump allies, including former White House communications director Hope Hicks; photos of Cohen in the White House; and some recordings.

One of the recordings was a snippet of a conversation Cohen had with Trump in September 2016 about how they should handle repaying Pecker for the $150,000 he spent to buy the silence of Karen McDougal. McDougal, a former Playboy model, has claimed she had a monthslong affair with Trump that began in 2006, an allegation Trump denies.

In a recording played in court — first reported in 2018 — Trump can be heard saying, “So what do we got to pay for this — 150?” He then tells Cohen to “pay with cash,” and Cohen responds, “No, no, no. I got it.”

Pecker, who initially demanded to get the money back, later relented and told Cohen not to pay him for fear it could get him in legal trouble.

Prosecutors played another of Cohen's surreptitious recordings earlier in the day when Keith Davidson, the attorney who negotiated the Daniels and McDougal deals, was on the stand.

On the tape, Cohen tells Davidson that Trump, whom he didn’t name, had repeatedly complained to him about Daniels’ settlement: “I can’t even tell you how many times he said to me, you know, ‘I hate the fact that we did it,’” and “my comment to him was ‘but every person you spoke to said it was the right thing to do.’”

Davidson said he understood that “he” referred to Trump and that “we did it” referred to the payment to Daniels.

During cross-examination, Trump's attorney Emil Bove pressed Davidson about other scandalous tabloid stories he'd been involved with over the years, including his representing clients who peddled sex tapes featuring wrestler Hulk Hogan and influencer Tila Tequila, as well as another who allegedly leaked information about actor Lindsay Lohan’s stint in rehab. He was also asked about representing clients who were paid by actor Charlie Sheen. Davidson was evasive, saying he couldn’t remember details about specific cases and clients.

Cross-examining Daus at the end of the court day Thursday, Bove raised questions about whether data on the phone could have been manipulated. Daus acknowledged the FBI seized the same phones and examined them before the DA's office did.

It's unclear who will testify after Daus. The DA's office has been tight-lipped about coming witnesses. It previously told the judge presiding over the case, Juan Merchan, that it is hesitant about giving much notice for fear Trump will post about the witnesses on social media despite a partial gag order.

Merchan this week found Trump in criminal contempt and fined him $9,000 for violating that order with nine of his social media and campaign posts. Prosecutors argued Thursday he should be held in contempt for additional alleged violations. Merchan has yet to rule on the motion.

The court day will end slightly early Friday. Merchan said it will stop at 3:45 p.m. ET instead of his traditional 4:30 p.m. because one of the jurors has an appointment.

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/donald-trump/trump-hush-money-trial-michael-cohen-rcna150445

His assertion that he can't testify doesn't make any sense. You have a constitutional right to testify. You also have a constitutional right NOT to testify. 99 times out of 100, I would basically tell my clients back in the day that they weren't going to say anything. It doesn't go well when they do. If there was any "gag order" imposed, it would have been by Trump's attorneys telling him he's not testifying, which would be a smart move, honestly.

Here is my simplistic take on this trial.
Feel free to correct me if needed:


1, Did Trump pay off hush money - Yes
Is that a crime - no

2, did he cook the books to hide it - clearly yes
Is that a crime - yes => business fraud
This is a misdemeanor

3, can he be tried for business fraud - not in this case
Why - past the statue of limitations

4, so why is he on trial"
Committing one crime to cover up, facilitate blah blah blah another crime is a felony

5, what is that other crime - elections fraud
The accusation is that the 1st crime (business fraud) was committed to hid the information from the public to prevent them from casting an informed vote (election fraud)

6, What does the prosecution need to prove beyond reasonable doubt?
there is no doubt the business fraud occurred
Prosecution need to prove that trump new about it - which they have

They also need to prove that the intention was election related - TBD

They haven't put forth any evidence in the trial that Trump cooked the books. Don't they have to prove he did it, versus someone lower down the food chain?

You've pretty much confirmed my thoughts on the matter in regards to him testifying. It was my understanding that no defense attorney wants to put their client on the stand unless it's a hail Mary because the prosecution has them dead to rights. And especially when their client is confrontational and inflammatory. That doesn't look good to a jury.

But I think trump sort of backed himself into a corner here. I don't believe it was his actual statement that put him in that corner but more the perception of that statement that did so. I never heard trump state "I will testify" but I did hear him say, "I'm willing to testify." Not only did the media twist that statement into " trump said he will testify" but from what I witnessed many of his supporters took it to mean that as well.

So I think he was in the position he needed to find someone to blame for deciding not to testify. And you will have some of his ardent supporters that will believe that.

Really? So simple, eh?


Explain any of this...

How is an indictment filed on a case that starts more than 5 years after alleged crimes occurred, which is the statute of limitations for felonies in New York?

How is a business in violation for checks written on, and recorded in, a personal account not a business account?

If invoices were intended to obscure a violation of Federal campaign laws, explain why bodies actually responsible for enforcing those laws did not allege Trump violated those laws.

How does an indictment that alleges "intent to defraud" do absolutely nothing to resolve or address that accusation?

If all these legal gymnastics are taking place to prove campaign fraud, why would the judge prevent campaign finance experts from testifying?

Explain how prosecutors suggest that the payments violated state tax laws when the actually increased net tax collections by the state.

Explain how a personal claim that existed long before Trump ran for the presidency, suddenly became a new claim, which would be the litmus test for calling the payment a campaign violation.

While you're at it, go ahead and explain how a case that resolves all of the gymnastics above, is a cut-and-dried case of violating campaign finance law, resulted in no time in a court, no legal expenses and a $6000 fine. Remember, $hillary fabricating a lie and funding the Steele Dossier? And then listing it as a campaign legal defense? lmao.


"demonstrates a lack of understanding how the legal system and law and order works" 🤣

I'm glad you've heard all of the testimony and know they haven't provided any evidence to substantiate their claims. First you didn't even know what crimes he was accused of and now suddenly you know they haven't provided any evidence he committed any of the 34 counts he is charged with in this case. How quickly things change.

Many crimes aren't brought to trial for not just years, but decades. As more evidence is brought to light, the stronger a case becomes. Many times a case that a former prosecutor did not pursue is pursued by a new prosecutor. All of that is very common.

then the guy who claims he hates whatabouts throws in the Hillary whatabout.

trump appointed his own commission after he was elected to try to find something to charge Hillary with. Even they couldn't find anything.

Yes Eve - They do need to prove that, though from what I have heard from multiple sources, he was aware and they have proven that
Though admittedly I am not following close enough to know the details.

My understanding is that it will all come down to whether or not it can be proven that the motive was election related.

I am not following this close enough because I think this is a stretch. I don't think this should have gone to trial. (from what I know about it.)

The other trials are where the meat is. Those are the significant ones.
This trial is a speed bump, those are brick walls

January 6th trial - from what I have read and heard, he is more likely guilty than not.

Fulton county and classified documents trial - again from what I have read and heard he is absolutely guilty

Trumps only hope in these trial is that he wins this election and as president makes them go away
And it is clear he and his lawyers know this by their delay delay delay tactics.

Caveat - my opinions are based on what I have read and heard.
I acknowledge that I have not seen or heard all the evidence and arguments.
There certainly may be new information that comes to light that changes my mind

Ah, a statute of limitations doesn't matter then?

The Hillary case is a textbook example of the crime being alleged. It's not a whatabout as much as a perfect example, interesting that you follow that with another whatabout though lmao.

Instead of crying foul, why don't you try to defend it... or anything else I posted.

Good reply, thanks! I kind of feel like they are wasting time with this. But whatever.

Defend what? You make a list of questions about a trial that from my understanding, it isn't even half over, with tons of testimony still to come.

And you may wish to check a blanket statement you made which isn't true...


You may or may not be correct about this particular felony. But are you claiming that rape and murder has a five year statute of limitations in New York? Often times making such a blanket statement proves to be false.

New York Law provides that if a person leaves the State the Statute of Limitations is suspended and does not run when they are absent from the State.

That being the case the statue would have been suspended for almost all of the four years (2017–2020 and part of 2021) Trump was President and residing in Washington DC and traveling in other states; further would not run once he left office and moved to Florida. It might run for the times he was present in New York over those years but I doubt they would amount to enough time to matter.

I think you are looking at this through lawyers eyes. trump stepped in it saying he wanted to testify and his lawyers probably told him he is friggin nuts, there is no way he is testifying...and now trump is coming out playing the victim saying he wants to testify but the mean gag order won't let him

What in the world do rape and murder have to do with my statement??

Go ahead and pick anything from my list where the answer is dependant on whether we are at the beginning, middle or end of the trial. Testimony doesn't change a statute of limitations, it doesn't change a personal check into a business check, an indictment precedes the case, the judge already denied the testimony of campaign finance experts, you can't make tax payments move to the other side of the spreadsheet even with DNA evidence, etc, etc...

It would be better to say you don't want to argue any of my points.

But don't worry, someone will come along and dispel them all any minute now.

What???

Got a link for that?

Don't ask me why you said this.....


Either this is a true statement or it's not. It's not. Don't blame me for that. I'm not the one who made the statement.................

Don't blame you? You're the one who posted it lol. Do you want me to blame Eve? OCD?

It took a quick search to see 500 articles about the statute being "tolled" by Cuomo -- for less than eight months -- during COVID. And has yet to hold up in a court of law.

Maybe I missed something is the trial over?

You're talking about something that happened during covid. I'm talking about settled law in the state of New York. What I posted has nothing to do with covid.

You said you wanted a link that proves that while a person is out of state that time limit on the statute of limitations is paused. I gave you just that. Anything you keep ranting about beyond that is little more than a tantrum because you were shown to be wrong.

This has zero to do with a pause during covid and you know that. All you need to do is read the context at the link.

So let's be clear here, are you saying that felonies in the state of New York have a 5 year statute of limitations or not? Or are you saying that some felonies in the state of New York have a 5 year statute of limitations? Because that's the question here. You made a blanket statement which is false. I just called you out on it.

Weren't you just carrying on about personal responsibility a couple of days ago?

For some reason I knew your use of common sense in posting wouldn't last.

Some felonies have a 5 year statute of limitations. Some do not. When you're out of state that time pauses. Those are very basic facts. But then some people's version of the truth are not based on the facts.

NONE of the questions I listed have anything to do with the trial being at the beginning, middle or end, as I just told Pit.

Try again. Enlighten us with your vast knowledge of law that we are all too dumb to understand.

Cool. Now I'm throwing a tantrum. So predictable lmao. You offered no proof other than a vague statement from a law firm's site. Probably purposely vague to solicit calls.

Real simple then, explain why Bragg is trying to sell this as a federal felony in order to bypass the statute.

Or just call him and tell him you have the insides scoop from Dewey, Cheatham and Howe and he's doing waaay to much legwork.

DL05, want to help these guys out?

Maybe you can answer some of my questions, you know, so I can be shown how stupid I am for not understanding the most simple concept of law and order?

You ask for receipts and get them. Then offer none of your own.

I have shown you the law. Now it's up to you to show that's wrong. You don't just keep to keep firing questions with zero accountability in return. I know you would love it if that's the way this worked.

Finally some accountability.

Also, if a person tries to "evade" (avoid) arrest for a crime, the law gives the prosecutor extra time to file charges. In New York, the statute of limitations is tolled—up to five years—while a defendant continuously remains out of state or otherwise can't be found.

https://www.criminaldefenselawyer.c...limitations/NY-felonies-misdemeanors.htm

Like I said, call Alvin Bragg and tell him Pit@Dawgtalkers cracked the case. You'll be a national hero!!

So once again you can't show anything to refute the information my sources contained. That's what I thought. At this point your meaningless drivel is all you have left.

There is noting you have provided that counteracts anything I posted. You keep carrying on about Bragg but it seems as though the case against trump has continued and nothing the defense has presented has shown any valid reason for the trial not to continue. It seems as though there is no confusion over this case other than you continuing to cry out Bragg's name at this point. There are a lot of trumpians still doing that.

"Alvin, I have Pit@Dawgtalkers on the line, he says you're going about this all the wrong way".

"Pit@Dawgtalkers? Daaayummm" (runs to phone)

Just more white noise with zero information. That's all you have left at this point. Carry on.

While driving today, I heard a legal expert talking aboout the case (For those who this might make a difference for, I listen to POTUS radio on sirius/xm), and he said prosecution still need to prove trump knew about the "cooking the books" (my words).

My interpretation is that I have heard things about that and it proved it to me but as of yet has not been presented in court.
Just presenting this info for balance of what may have been a statement I made that was not completely accurate

Cool, thanks.

Call Alan Dershowitz too:

The legal scholar, known for his previous endorsements of Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama, suggested that at most, the alleged actions of the Trump organization could amount to a misdemeanor, “barred by the statute of limitations.”

Dershowitz challenged Bragg’s legal premise: Trump’s alleged payments to his former attorney Michael Cohen—who in turn paid Stormy Daniels and McDougal—constitute a felony due to so-called violations of federal campaign law.

However, Trump has not faced any charges related to these alleged payments.

“You can’t suddenly resurrect that and turn that into a crime by invoking a federal statute which the federal government refused to invoke and that the Federal Election Commission refused to invoke,” Dershowitz argued. “There is no crime.”



But, but, Pit@Dawgtalkers says you don't need to turn the misdemeanor into a felony to breach the statute, you can do it just because he found a vague example on a law website...

Yes, different attorney's have different opinions on it. But you seem to be basing a lot on something Dershowitz suggested and his opinion. Bless your heart.

And Vivek, another attorney with way less knowledge of the law than Pit@Dawgtalkers:

Ramaswamy further explained that the case, where Trump is being tried on felony charges for falsifying business documents related to alleged “hush money” payments made to porn star Stormy Daniels.

“Falsifying business records in New York is a misdemeanor, not a felony,” Ramaswamy said. “And it falls outside the statute of limitations, meaning it happened so far long ago that Alvin Bragg can’t bring the case unless he charges it as a felony.”


"But, but he was in DC part of that time" doesn't even apply to this case.

Ramaswamy?

Now you introduce a far right political hack into the mix? Desperation when you have nothing official to refute my legal sources has officially set in.

Your legal sources: Dupée & Monroe, Attorneys at Law... and their blistering language such as "may", "in certain cases", "under certain circumstances" and "generally".

EDIT: Oh wait, they have 84 Giggle reviews, nevermind.

The difference is they explained the laws that are currently on the books. It had nothing to do with their opinions or political slant. My sourced were based on law. Yours were based on opinion. I'm sure you knew the difference. Things were going so well there for a short period of time. Did you run out of your meds?

A Proclamation on National Mental Health Awareness Month, 2024

Biden is trying to offer you help. Won't you do everyone a favor and accept it?

Mine are based on lawyers interpreting law, duh. Granted, not stalwarts like Dupée & Monroe.


How 'bout legal scholars??

Elite legal scholar better bow down! Pit@Dawgtalkers is in the hizzy!


Jonathan Turley is a nationally recognized legal scholar who has written extensively in areas ranging from constitutional law to legal theory to tort law.


Turley says case "is an embarrassment"
"What is clear is in this case, Trump is right--this is an embarrassment," Breitbart quoted Turley as telling Fox News on Monday.

"The fact that we are actually talking about this case being presented in a New York courtroom leaves me in utter disbelief," Turley continued.

"You had this misdemeanor under state law that had [the statute of limitations] run out. They zapped it back into life by alleging that there was a campaign finance violations under the federal laws that doesn't exist. The Department of Justice doesn't view it this way," he pointed out.


Again, no match for Pit@Dawgtalkers.