Path: ...!news.mixmin.net!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: FPP <fredp1571@gmail.com>
Newsgroups: rec.arts.tv
Subject: Re: Stormy Daniels Gave "Disastrous" Testimony In Trump Trial, CNN
 Legal Analyst Says
Date: Sat, 18 May 2024 05:27:29 -0400
Organization: Ph'nglui Mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh Wgah'nagl Fhtagn.
Lines: 102
Message-ID: <v29sa4$2nhln$1@dont-email.me>
References: <Ubt146$3dvu1$17@dont-email.me>
 <ufi64j9p5th7nmr25dk6q4in75v8bohjjf@4ax.com> <v1vrvv$9d31$1@solani.org>
 <v200c2$89tl$1@dont-email.me> <8a674jhf8o34hr5d1394qu7f2dbbeecsu0@4ax.com>
Reply-To: fredp1571@gmail.com
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Sat, 18 May 2024 11:27:33 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="f3602241149d2c4ff8814e0c23f7ec19";
	logging-data="2868919"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1+Es8gBeB3vzpjTKwbIeVv3"
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.14; rv:78.0)
 Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/78.10.0
Cancel-Lock: sha1:Ph1rrEegio5mnjun6ObeZ03nb74=
In-Reply-To: <8a674jhf8o34hr5d1394qu7f2dbbeecsu0@4ax.com>
Content-Language: en-US
Bytes: 5711

On 5/14/24 1:10 PM, shawn wrote:
> 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.
> 


Falsifying 34 business records and it's considered making a contribution 
to the campaign and hiding it.

He falsified records, and hid it to influence an election.  Funny thing 
is, he could have just paid her off and it would have been perfectly legal.

But he can't pass up the chance to crime for an extra buck-fifty.

-- 
"Thou shalt not make a machine in the likeness of a man’s mind." - OC 
Bible  25B.G.
https://www.dropbox.com/s/ek8kap93bmk0q5w/D%20U%20N%20E%20Part%20II.jpg?dl=0

Gracie, age 6.
https://www.dropbox.com/s/0es3xolxka455iw/BetterThingsToDo.jpg?dl=0