Path: ...!feeds.phibee-telecom.net!3.eu.feeder.erje.net!feeder.erje.net!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: shawn <nanoflower@notforg.m.a.i.l.com>
Newsgroups: rec.arts.tv
Subject: Re: Stormy Daniels Gave "Disastrous" Testimony In Trump Trial, CNN Legal Analyst Says
Date: Tue, 14 May 2024 13:10:15 -0400
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 83
Message-ID: <8a674jhf8o34hr5d1394qu7f2dbbeecsu0@4ax.com>
References: <Ubt146$3dvu1$17@dont-email.me> <ufi64j9p5th7nmr25dk6q4in75v8bohjjf@4ax.com> <v1vrvv$9d31$1@solani.org> <v200c2$89tl$1@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Injection-Date: Tue, 14 May 2024 19:10:19 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="cdf5ce281d15f92cf551a47f48af19ab";
	logging-data="317538"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX18z1spMIDV2nbGV43cPcddGgC/GByUg8Uc="
User-Agent: ForteAgent/8.00.32.1272
Cancel-Lock: sha1:5Bio3uxgBZM+YZRC59NyTPpSRrQ=
Bytes: 4735

On Tue, 14 May 2024 15:35:30 -0000 (UTC), "Adam H. Kerman"
<ahk@chinet.com> wrote:

>Crosspost to newsgroups Ubi doesn't read cut
>
>suzeeq <suzeeq@imbris.com> wrote:
>>On 5/14/2024 4:25 AM, NoBody wrote:
>>>Sun, 12 May 2024 04:30:46 -0400, Ubiquitous <weberm@polaris.net> wrote:
>
>The article that Ubi the shithead plagarized is this:
>
>Stormy Daniels Gave 'Disastrous' Testimony In Trump Trial, CNN Legal
>Analyst Says
>By Daniel Chaitin
>The Daily Wire
>May 8, 2024
>https://www.dailywire.com/news/stormy-daniels-gave-disastrous-testimony-in-trump-trial-cnn-legal-analyst-says
>
>>>>. . . 
>
>>>The prosecutors have yet to produce ANY evidence that Trump committed
>>>any crime.
>
>>He's charged with covering up payments to her for killing her story to 
>>interfere with his 2016 campaign. That's the crime and they have proved 
>>it with other witnesses.
>
>Just a moment. You need to explain this in full.
>
>She was looking for a payout. She approached people close to Trump
>seeking money and wanted to speed the process along by threating to sell
>her story to someone else if she didn't receive her payout.
>
>That's extortion. No one has yet explained why her actions couldn't have
>been prosecuted under state law.

Because that's not how the story has been told. Instead it is Trump
approaching her through Cohen to keep the story a secret while he was
running for office. So if it was Trump's people approaching her then
she did nothing wrong. If it was as you said then she did something
wrong, but there may be a limitation on how long they had to charge
her for that crime.

>Trump's first instinct was to treat her like he treated subcontractors
>on developments: Stall the payment or not pay at all. At first he wanted
>to wait till after the election, for if he lost, nothing she was selling
>would be of value. He was advised to spend the money to make problem go
>away.
>
>None of this is criminal.

My understanding is that his paying her off to keep the information
secret because he was running for office is exactly what he is being
charged with. Trump has had his people say he was paying her just to
protect his wife, but all the testimony from various people suggests
Trump only cared about keeping the information about the sex/affair
secret because he was running for office.

>I'm not even sure if paying extortion is a criminal act on the part of
>the victim.
>
>The payment to her was a crime, not because buying rights so she won't
>publish what she claimed was her story is a crime, but because keeping
>it from being published was of some benefit to Trump as a candidate and
>it wasn't disclosed as required in federal law. This is what Michael
>Cohen was convicted of, but Trump was not prosecuted for this.

It always seemed like Trump should have been tried for this back when
Cohen was convicted as there's no way for Cohen to be guilty and Trump
to be innocent given how much of a micro-manager Trump has been
reported to be.

>What Trump is being prosecuted for is ordering that the payment to
>reimburse Cohen be written from one of the companies Trump controlled
>and taken as a business expense of that company.
>
>The coverup was illegal in and of itself but if there was an underlying
>crime being covered up, it was extortion committed by her. There was no
>underlying crime committed by Trump to cover up.

Again my understanding was that she didn't extort him and that Trump's
trying to hide the payment while running for office is the crime that
he committed.