Path: ...!3.eu.feeder.erje.net!feeder.erje.net!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: "Adam H. Kerman" <ahk@chinet.com>
Newsgroups: rec.arts.tv
Subject: Re: Stormy Daniels Gave "Disastrous" Testimony In Trump Trial, CNN Legal Analyst Says
Date: Tue, 14 May 2024 17:52:17 -0000 (UTC)
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 92
Message-ID: <v208ch$a8md$1@dont-email.me>
References: <Ubt146$3dvu1$17@dont-email.me> <v1vrvv$9d31$1@solani.org> <v200c2$89tl$1@dont-email.me> <atropos-87B68A.09430014052024@news.giganews.com>
Injection-Date: Tue, 14 May 2024 19:52:18 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="fbd83f39dc1f09deea6698a307cfbe37";
	logging-data="336589"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1/P1i8pbgXeL7Gx6uawNIfmso/2Bi52fus="
Cancel-Lock: sha1:eoxsnKCe+d98CnUD4QHAtNp/6XA=
X-Newsreader: trn 4.0-test77 (Sep 1, 2010)
Bytes: 5102

BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com> wrote:
>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.

>>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.
 
>>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.

>If that's the standard, then Democrats have all broken that law by not 
>disclosing MSNBC and CNN, which are a lot more than just some benefit to 
>Democrats as candidates.

This is the standard and the bright line simply is not there. It just
almost never gets prosecuted.

>>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.

>They're saying it boils down to Trump notating the payment to Cohen as 
>"legal expenses", which is falsifying a business record. This in a city 
>that's a violent hellhole where thugs are making a sport out of walking 
>up to random women and punching them so hard, the bones in their faces 
>are shattered. And when caught, they're released on no bail almost 
>immediately. Alvin Bragg won't aggressively prosecute *that* but Trump 
>putting a vague term in the memo line on a check to Cohen is apparently 
>worth spending millions of dollars of prosecution resources.

>But don't say this is weaponizing the courts against political 
>opponents. That means you're a conspiracy theorist!

I wouldn't compare it to Bragg's failure to enforce criminal law in
which there are real world victims suffering actual harm. Just look at
years and years of failure to prosecute Trump himself under this law, in
which he committed harm against real people. This law is designed to
prosecute bad actors like Trump, who took monies from clients to pay
subcontractors but never paid the subcontractors.

>Trump should have just written "reimbursement" on the memo line. That 
>would have been completely truthful and yet in no way revealing.

I don't see how that keeps the payment from having been made in violation
of the law. It simply wasn't a business expense of that business, so
that's the violation.

>>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.