ST Alpha - "So, a thought on this current Trump criminal trial (and why I'm glad I'm not on the jury). As I understand the theory of the case, it's that he -- (edited)" (Reading a Post)

SlickerTalk
Search Archives
The Leaderboard
The FAQ

Down to Post

Backboards:

Posts: 154

So, a thought on this current Trump criminal trial (and why I'm glad I'm not on the jury). As I understand the theory of the case, it's that he -- (edited)

Posted by pmb (aka pmb) Apr 17 '24, 14:30

falsified business records (a misdemeanor), in order to conceal a felony crime, which in this case is essentially election interference (which elevates the misdemeanor to a felony). The election interference is that he was concealing the payments to Stormy Daniels because if this came out (weeks before the election) it would have hurt his election chances.

Here's my question, is the "felony" here actually a crime? I don't think there's anything that requires a candidate to disclose this kind of information, nor do I think there's anything that would prevent him from legally paying for an NDA from Daniels. Is the idea that the payment to Daniels became a felony because he illegally falsified business records? But in that case, it becomes circular because the misdemeanor creates the felony that then causes the misdemeanor to become the felony. In other words doesn't the act that he's trying to conceal have to be a felony on its own to create a felony here?

Commentators seem to think this case is much stronger than they originally thought because it's tied to election interference, but I'm not sold that it's legally election interference. All of this being a reason I'm glad I'm not on a jury because I'd have a hard time living with myself if I I acquitted or felt obligated to convict (because he deserves it and needs to be stopped) when I didn't actually believe it to be true.

Sorry. Ruminating.

Responses:

Yeah it's one of those that feels like even if it's a guilty, it's a fine and all good. In the grand scheme of things, it feels like nothing. -- nm - colin Apr 17, 16:45
It was sold to the John Q Public that it was the " cover up" not the payment. -- nm - Pippy Shark Apr 17, 16:24
Feel free to ignore this but it makes me wonder if there's a comparison with Bill Clinton - Max Apr 17, 15:55
i think you have to view it in the context of the exact moment he (deceitfully) cut the check, and the way in which her story was caught and killed - hollywood big shot Apr 17, 14:35 21
- Still not convinced. How did they trick her? Maybe I don't know the details enough. She signed an NDA. I think it's different from the McDougal - pmb Apr 17, 14:40 9
  - her "attorney" was their guy! -- nm - hollywood big shot Apr 17, 14:43 8
    - Who was that? I don't think I know that part of the story. -- nm - pmb Apr 17, 14:50 7
      - Keith Davidson - hollywood big shot Apr 17, 14:52 6
        
        But, Trump paid Daniels, not the Enquirer. -- nm - pmb Apr 17, 14:55 5
        
        BTW, I assume the court has already ruled that the alleged actions are sufficient to constitute election interference to serve as a predicate to the - pmb Apr 17, 15:00
        
        Davidson approached her without disclosing his own ties to Trump (through Michael Cohen) and the Enquirer. he was working both sides of the deal -- (link*) - hollywood big shot Apr 17, 14:59 3
        
        Ok, but again, that's not the crime that's alleged. The allegation is that he falsified his business records to keep it from being known that he paid - pmb Apr 17, 15:04 2
        
        but then why not pay her off in May 2015 when you first announced? why did you think you had to do this on the eve of a national election (which early - hollywood big shot Apr 17, 15:11 1
        
        She was lower on the list of cover ups to pay off, rape victims etc, finally pecker got tired or over extended and told him to feck off - zeitgeist Apr 17, 17:04
- if this story had broke a few months before the election, he would have been finished. Comey letter be damned. (IMO) -- nm - Jovian Apr 17, 14:37 10
  - we'll never know but... if the GOP wasn't gonna cut him loose for Access Hollywood, I'm skeptical even this would have sunk him that late in the game - hollywood big shot Apr 17, 14:39 9
    - They did cut him loose. They didn’t come back for a week or two when his polling showed no one gave a shit. - Will Hunting Apr 17, 14:46 1
      - "Then it shifted because the voters didn’t care." - yep. And just like Jan 6 -- nm - Jovian Apr 17, 14:49
    - At that point it was far too late, the old guard probably already figured that they were going to lose -- nm - zeitgeist Apr 17, 14:46
    - Same. Access Hollywood was pretty close to the election as well. Maybe if both stories were out there it might have made it tougher to laugh off, - pmb Apr 17, 14:41 5
      - the attempt to bury it though is enough (imo) to be interference. like they *thought* it was bad enough to go through all the machinations to kill it -- nm - hollywood big shot Apr 17, 14:45 1
        
        Yeah, but lying to the public is not a crime (though maybe it should be). You don't think other candidates do things to bury embarrassing stories? -- (edited) - pmb Apr 17, 14:48
      - Ill never forget that the night the Access Hollywood broke (was at my step brothers party for a promotion) and I was ecstatic.. - Jovian Apr 17, 14:44 2
        
        as Patton Oswalt tweeted the morning after, America is way more misogynistic than it is racist. and it's really fucking racist - hollywood big shot Apr 17, 14:46 1
        
        yep. and also on that. Unless his name is Tim Scott or Byron Donalds (I kid I kid), there will never be a black President again in our lifetimes. -- nm - Jovian Apr 17, 14:47

Post a message top

So, a thought on this current Trump criminal trial (and why I'm glad I'm not on the jury). As I understand the theory of the case, it's that he -- (edited)

Replies are disabled on threads older than 7 days.