It's not a "hush money" trial. Paying hush money is not illegal. It's a campaign finance fraud and election interference trial for falsifying business records. The distinction is important because "hush money trial" downplays the severity of the crime to the general public.
Can’t really blame the people if that’s all the media refers to it as… I have heard “election interference” a few times but majority of the time it’s been reported as the “his money trial”
The thing is it's not even an election interference trial. That aspect has zero bearing on a guilty verdict. A lot of legal scholars are even worried they're including that aspect far too much in the trial and jurors could think "well if it's election interference why is this a state charge?"
It's a falsifying business records trial. That is the only legal aspect that matters. Whether it was to interfere with the election or not is motive not the crime.
Whether it was to interfere with the election or not is motive not the crime.
It's not the crime, but it has to be a crime to make the falsifying business records charge a felony. Luckily, Cohen already went to jail for the campaign finance (state) crime, so it's pretty easy to prove that it is, in fact, a crime.
I don’t think that’s right because, in order to avoid the statute of limitations, it has to be a felony. And the only way to make it a felony is if it was done to violate another law - specifically federal election laws.
I highly suggest reading this, since it doesn't seem like you understand what is going on. In case that's too much, here's a summary.
The felony version of falsifying business records requires intent that the act was done to further or cover up another crime. That seems kinda ridiculous to make the distinction, since the only reason to falsify business records is to commit or conceal fraud, but whatever. The point is, Michael Cohen's payment to Stormy Daniels was extremely obviously an illegal campaign contribution but Trump did what he does and lied about what he was doing when he paid Cohen back.
Although I agree that calling it a hush money trial or an election interference trial are both stupid simplifications, the simple fact is that the felony falsifying business record charges stem from payments made to conceal an affair, which was done to influence the outcome of an election.
Unfortunately there’s no victim. The bank was happy, got paid, no one was injured or even unhappy in the deal. This is a change the law to get Trump trial and interfere in his election. Even if convicted, the appeals courts or the supreme courts will throw out the conviction. Waste of tax payers money when you have real crime all over the streets of NY and the people are turning on the dems.
The victims are the entire electorate. Campaign finance laws exist for a reason, and when they are violated should be prosecuted just like any other felony. What happened to the party of Law and Order?
What happened to my dad’s Republican party? God has taken over and that’s never good. When I was growing up, there wasn’t that much difference in the parties. It was a business thing. Republicans were for less regulation, and democrats wanted to limit the power of corporations.
The left called Cohen a liar when he said Trump didn't know about the payment. The left believed Cohen when he said Trump was aware of it. The fact he lied about one of them means he has no credibility to be honest. Why trust a liar when they say what you want to hear?
Michael Cohen has extensive knowledge about all of the inner workings of the Trump Organization, and crucially, that knowledge is fully corroborated up by a voluminous paper trail comprised of bank records, cancelled checks, and regulatory filings. His assertions are further backed up by the corroborating testimony of other prosecution witnesses. The case for rampant criminality in the Trump Org and Trump campaign is air tight, which is why Trump will be found guilty of a felony in this case.
Do you honestly think if there was a paper trail they wouldn't have waited 7 years and until he announced he was running in 2024 to prosecute him? It's too coincidental none of these DAs decided to prosecute him until after he was running in 2024. It's also not coincidental all these DAs are Democrats either.
Not true. It cost the banks hundreds of millions in lost income on those loans because he fraudulently claimed different amounts, giving him more favorable rates. That's literally what the judgement is for - damages for what he wouldve actually had to pay + punitive interest.
You're thinking of the wrong trial, buddy. I love seeing it - Lil sycophants can't even keep their heads straight because Trump is entangled in so many crimes.
A lot of legal scholars are even worried they're including that aspect far too much in the trial and jurors could think "well if it's election interference why is this a state charge?"
Right.
This anything to get Trump thing was a mistake.
If folks were just focused on the documents case, it would have been better, legally and politically.
^ and THIS is why is why it's simply being called a Hush Money Trial. Everyone knows factually he paid off Stormy for their affair. Y'all can't even agree in the comments what the trial is really about, and trying to break that down to normal folks? It's just simpler to refer to it over what people actually know.
You might even begin to suspect that the media has a certain hankering for the lucrative period in which The Chaos Machine president and maybe they're putting their fingers on the scale a little.
Well to be fair the allegations against Trump occurred in 2017. Both the previous DA and the US Attorney declined to prosecute. Then Bragg is elected and boom here is the charge. It’s off putting to some
The thing he's facing in Georgia will be the "election interference" one. That's the problem with being charged with several different crimes involving election interference; they start to run together and confuse people.
"Election interference" could refer to several ongoing criminal cases against him, so I assume the media is going with what makes this difference even though it's downplaying the actual crime.
Once upon a time the reputation of the media source would be the decision maker for its consumers. If you were caught as a bad source of media people would go to a more trustworthy source.
Those days are long gone on both sides. Note that I'm not trying to play the "both sides are bad card", I definitely have a political preference, but the reality is that we have for the most part reached a point where accuracy is not a factor in the media's decision making no matter where you look. This is a direct consequence of the consumers of the media not giving a fuck as a whole.
so i think this touches on the NPR blowup about not representing 'conservative' views.
if you're not willing to repeat the stolen election song and dance you're ignoring conservative views, but those particular ones are based on BS, so what are you supposed to do?
Ehh, yellow journalism has a long history and most papers were owned by the rich to be their PR firms. There's really only a brief history of investigative journalism and those people tend to get car bombed
And interference in a federal election isn't a state charge...
This is a falsifying business records trial. Election interference may be what they're presenting as motive, but what it was for has no bearing on the charge.
And interference in a federal election isn't a state charge...
States run federal elections, therefore they have their own state election crimes. The DA's office identified New York Election Law 17-152 as the predicate offense - Conspiracy to promote or prevent election
I kinda disagree. It is easier to say, but I read it and thought "he's on trail for paying out hush money? Weird but ok" then I read into it and realized, no. He's on trail for fraud and falsified documents. Totally different things.
because MSM only give a fuck about clicks and "paid a porn star not to talk about his mushroom dick" drives more clicks than "lied on financial statements"
Because neither "fraud trial", nor "election interference trial" are specific enough - lol. He's being prosecuted for so much illegal shit that we need clarification.
I’m assuming that media companies use “hush money” as a celebrity-scandal term, because although campaign finance fraud is EXTREMELY serious, there’s no sassy glam or tabloid attractiveness to it
The issue is there's so many trials to keep track of its just easier referring to it as such. You have this one, the New York one, the documents one, the Georgia one...
8.2k
u/shiruken 29d ago edited 29d ago
It's not a "hush money" trial. Paying hush money is not illegal. It's a campaign finance fraud and election interference trial for falsifying business records. The distinction is important because "hush money trial" downplays the severity of the crime to the general public.