The hush money indictment

[TomC]

I've not read much of this thread, so maybe I'm repeating someone.

There is no "hush money indictment". Absolutely none.

Had Trump paid by pulling out his wallet and just paying her, there'd be no legal problems at all. It's how he did it, and where the money came from that resulted in the indictment. Would have been the same if he'd bought Melania diamond jewelry. The charges are related to the fraud and lies, not what he spent the money on.
Tom

 

[ZiprHead]

Trump seeks to move New York hush money case to federal court

His lawyers argued that the federal court had jurisdiction because the charges had to do with conduct that took place while he was president

www.theglobeandmail.com

Lawyers for Donald Trump on Thursday asked the federal court in Manhattan to take over a state criminal case charging him with falsifying business records over a hush money payment to a porn star before the 2016 election.

His lawyers argued that the federal court had jurisdiction because the charges had to do with conduct that took place while he was president.

Mr. Trump pleaded not guilty in Manhattan state court last month to 34 counts of falsifying business records to conceal reimbursements to his then-lawyer Michael Cohen for a US$130,000 hush money payment to porn star Stormy Daniels to stay quiet about an alleged sexual liaison, which Mr. Trump denies.

In a federal court filing on Thursday afternoon, Mr. Trump’s lawyers said Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg’s case was based on checks allegedly written to Mr. Cohen by Mr. Trump in 2017, while Mr. Trump was president.

 

[ZiprHead]

Read the new gag order muzzling Trump in his hush-money case

Judge Juan Merchan, against whom Trump has railed on social media, barred Trump from publicly discussing or disclosing any evidence in the case.

www.businessinsider.com

A New York judge banned Donald Trump from posting any evidence on social media in his ongoing "hush-money" case after prosecutors accused the former president of having a history of targeting witnesses.

State Supreme Court Justice Juan Merchan fulfilled prosecutors' request this week in issuing a social media gag order on the former president, who is facing criminal charges stemming from allegations he oversaw hush-money payments to adult film star Stormy Daniels.

 

[southernhybrid]

https://www.nytimes.com/live/2023/0...Nom9sRNnjAZ3RlffcHgaYg4iwLOZIv&smid=url-share

A Manhattan jury on Tuesday has found former President Donald J. Trump liable for the sexual abuse of the magazine writer E. Jean Carroll in a widely watched civil trial that sought to apply the accountability of the #MeToo era to a dominant political figure.

The federal jury of six men and three women also held Mr. Trump, 76, liable for defaming Ms. Carroll when he posted a statement on his Truth Social website in October, calling her case “a complete con job” and “a Hoax and a lie.”The jury determined that Carroll had proven Mr. Trump sexually abused her, but they rejected the accusation that she had been raped. Sexual abuse is defined in New York as subjecting someone to sexual contact without their consent.

The jury awarded Ms. Carroll, 79, a total of $5 million in damages. Although more than a dozen women have accused Mr. Trump of sexual misconduct over the years, allegations he has always denied, Ms. Carroll’s case is the first such claim to be successfully tested before a jury.
The jury’s unanimous verdicts came after three hours of deliberation in Federal District Court in Manhattan. Its findings are civil, not criminal, meaning Mr. Trump has not been convicted of any crime and faces no prison time.
Show more

 

[southernhybrid]

The jury awarded Carroll a total of $5 million in damages

May 9, 2023, 3:14 p.m. ET8 minutes ago
8 minutes ago
Ben Weiser
The jury found that Trump defamed Carroll.

Sadly, his cult will continue to defend him and I'm sure he will try and appeal this ruling.

 

[Patooka]

I've not read much of this thread, so maybe I'm repeating someone.

There is no "hush money indictment". Absolutely none.

Had Trump paid by pulling out his wallet and just paying her, there'd be no legal problems at all. It's how he did it, and where the money came from that resulted in the indictment. Would have been the same if he'd bought Melania diamond jewelry. The charges are related to the fraud and lies, not what he spent the money on.
Tom

Agreed, but it's like DeSantis' "Don't Say Gay" bill which never included the phrase "Don't say gay." Or "Luke I am your Father", if you want a less political example. It's a semantic hill to die on that really isn't worth it. If someone says "Hush money indictment", you know exactly what they're talking about, pedantry notwithstanding.

 

[blastula]

Trial set for March 25th.

 

[marc]

I saw on Twitter that the trial date would fall in the middle of primary season. And that Trump is required to be in the court for the trial. That might hamper his election plans a bit. Not that he has much competition in the primaries.

 

[TomC]

I saw on Twitter that the trial date would fall in the middle of primary season. And that Trump is required to be in the court for the trial. That might hamper his election plans a bit. Not that he has much competition in the primaries.

Oh he may have competition in the primaries. And I'd really prefer he won the nomination over DeSantis.
Tom

 

[jab]

There will not be any meaningful news on this until the next hearing in DECEMBER 2023.

Never underestimate Trump's ability to generate news. In May they had to have another hearing to tell him to keep his mouth shut any his tiny fingers away from the keyboard when it came to the prosecutions discovery to his side.

 

[lpetrich]

Trump Fights Gag Order in Hush Money Case

Prosecutors last week asked New York State Supreme Court Justice Juan Merchan to impose a "narrowly tailored" gag order on Trump prior to the case heading to trial. The order would bar the former president from making public statements about potential witnesses or jurors, or any comments that may interfere with or harass the court's staff and family members. Bragg's office noted in its request that Trump has repeatedly made "public and inflammatory remarks" about those involved in his previous legal cases.

...
Trump's defense team wrote in its filing Monday that Bragg's request violates the former president's free speech, adding, "American voters have the First Amendment right to hear President Trump's uncensored voice on all issues that relate to this case."

"President Trump is entitled to criticize these public figures, and the voters are entitled to hear President Trump's criticism of them, especially as the Presidential campaign proceeds," read the filing.

The trial is still set to start on March 25.

 

[Elixir]

“"President Citizen Trump is entitled to criticize threaten these public figures, and the voters are entitled should be forced to hear President Citizen Trump's criticism of threats and lies about them…

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

I saw on Twitter that the trial date would fall in the middle of primary season. And that Trump is required to be in the court for the trial. That might hamper his election plans a bit. Not that he has much competition in the primaries.

Should have committed the crime in a battleground state.

 

[ZiprHead]

Prosecutors willing to delay Trump’s hush-money trial to review new records

Manhattan prosecutors say they are willing to delay ex-president’s trial – due to start later this month – up to 30 days

www.theguardian.com

Manhattan prosecutors on Thursday said they are willing to delay Donald Trump’s trial on charges related to making hush-money payments for up to 30 days so they can review records newly obtained from federal authorities.

The request has the potential to delay the proceedings, which were to begin with jury selection on 25 March in New York and would be the first of the four criminal indictments against the former US president to go to trial.


The office of the district attorney, Alvin Bragg, told the court that they were open to the delay because they had received from federal prosecutors about 31,000 page of records, and expected more next week.

“Based on our initial review of yesterday’s production, those records appear to contain materials related to the subject matter of this case, including materials that the People requested from the [US attorney’s office (USAO)] more than a year ago and that the USAO previously declined to provide,” prosecutors wrote.

How convenient considering those documents were asked for a long time ago.

Another example of Rudy's buddies in Manhattan pulling the strings.

 

[Ford]

Prosecutors willing to delay Trump’s hush-money trial to review new records

Manhattan prosecutors say they are willing to delay ex-president’s trial – due to start later this month – up to 30 days

www.theguardian.com

Manhattan prosecutors on Thursday said they are willing to delay Donald Trump’s trial on charges related to making hush-money payments for up to 30 days so they can review records newly obtained from federal authorities.

The request has the potential to delay the proceedings, which were to begin with jury selection on 25 March in New York and would be the first of the four criminal indictments against the former US president to go to trial.


The office of the district attorney, Alvin Bragg, told the court that they were open to the delay because they had received from federal prosecutors about 31,000 page of records, and expected more next week.

“Based on our initial review of yesterday’s production, those records appear to contain materials related to the subject matter of this case, including materials that the People requested from the [US attorney’s office (USAO)] more than a year ago and that the USAO previously declined to provide,” prosecutors wrote.

How convenient considering those documents were asked for a long time ago.

Another example of Rudy's buddies in Manhattan pulling the strings.

The first impression I had of this was that it was Bragg basically saying "oh...you want to bring more documents? Great. Please give us even more evidence with which to bury your client."

 

[Shadowy Man]

Prosecutors willing to delay Trump’s hush-money trial to review new records

Manhattan prosecutors say they are willing to delay ex-president’s trial – due to start later this month – up to 30 days

www.theguardian.com

Manhattan prosecutors on Thursday said they are willing to delay Donald Trump’s trial on charges related to making hush-money payments for up to 30 days so they can review records newly obtained from federal authorities.

The request has the potential to delay the proceedings, which were to begin with jury selection on 25 March in New York and would be the first of the four criminal indictments against the former US president to go to trial.


The office of the district attorney, Alvin Bragg, told the court that they were open to the delay because they had received from federal prosecutors about 31,000 page of records, and expected more next week.

“Based on our initial review of yesterday’s production, those records appear to contain materials related to the subject matter of this case, including materials that the People requested from the [US attorney’s office (USAO)] more than a year ago and that the USAO previously declined to provide,” prosecutors wrote.

How convenient considering those documents were asked for a long time ago.

Another example of Rudy's buddies in Manhattan pulling the strings.

The first impression I had of this was that it was Bragg basically saying "oh...you want to bring more documents? Great. Please give us even more evidence with which to bury your client."

Exactly. What are the odds that any documents ever will end up being exculpatory for Trump?

 

[ZiprHead]

Prosecutors willing to delay Trump’s hush-money trial to review new records

Manhattan prosecutors say they are willing to delay ex-president’s trial – due to start later this month – up to 30 days

www.theguardian.com

Manhattan prosecutors on Thursday said they are willing to delay Donald Trump’s trial on charges related to making hush-money payments for up to 30 days so they can review records newly obtained from federal authorities.

The request has the potential to delay the proceedings, which were to begin with jury selection on 25 March in New York and would be the first of the four criminal indictments against the former US president to go to trial.


The office of the district attorney, Alvin Bragg, told the court that they were open to the delay because they had received from federal prosecutors about 31,000 page of records, and expected more next week.

“Based on our initial review of yesterday’s production, those records appear to contain materials related to the subject matter of this case, including materials that the People requested from the [US attorney’s office (USAO)] more than a year ago and that the USAO previously declined to provide,” prosecutors wrote.

How convenient considering those documents were asked for a long time ago.

Another example of Rudy's buddies in Manhattan pulling the strings.

The first impression I had of this was that it was Bragg basically saying "oh...you want to bring more documents? Great. Please give us even more evidence with which to bury your client."

Exactly. What are the odds that any documents ever will end up being exculpatory for Trump?

Very little but it's still good enough to delay the trial. That has been Trump's plans all along. Delay, delay, delay. Look at the part I highlighted above. They waited until the very last minute to make a huge document dump.

 

[Ford]

Very little but it's still good enough to delay the trial. That has been Trump's plans all along. Delay, delay, delay. Look at the part I highlighted above. They waited until the very last minute to make a huge document dump.

That's the thing. They're all "delay, delay, delay," but this time the AG called their bluff. The whole defense of Trump hinges on being able to push the trials back until after the election on the - by no means guaranteed - chance that he wins and can somehow shut it all down. They're running out of road.

 

[Shadowy Man]

Prosecutors willing to delay Trump’s hush-money trial to review new records

Manhattan prosecutors say they are willing to delay ex-president’s trial – due to start later this month – up to 30 days

www.theguardian.com

Manhattan prosecutors on Thursday said they are willing to delay Donald Trump’s trial on charges related to making hush-money payments for up to 30 days so they can review records newly obtained from federal authorities.

The request has the potential to delay the proceedings, which were to begin with jury selection on 25 March in New York and would be the first of the four criminal indictments against the former US president to go to trial.


The office of the district attorney, Alvin Bragg, told the court that they were open to the delay because they had received from federal prosecutors about 31,000 page of records, and expected more next week.

“Based on our initial review of yesterday’s production, those records appear to contain materials related to the subject matter of this case, including materials that the People requested from the [US attorney’s office (USAO)] more than a year ago and that the USAO previously declined to provide,” prosecutors wrote.

How convenient considering those documents were asked for a long time ago.

Another example of Rudy's buddies in Manhattan pulling the strings.

The first impression I had of this was that it was Bragg basically saying "oh...you want to bring more documents? Great. Please give us even more evidence with which to bury your client."

Exactly. What are the odds that any documents ever will end up being exculpatory for Trump?

Very little but it's still good enough to delay the trial. That has been Trump's plans all along. Delay, delay, delay. Look at the part I highlighted above. They waited until the very last minute to make a huge document dump.

Sure. But when the prosecutor says “sure. We can wait a little longer to look through more documents” he might need to worry. It’s not likely that more documents will weaken the prosecution’s case.

 

[ZiprHead]

Sure. But when the prosecutor says “sure. We can wait a little longer to look through more documents” he might need to worry. It’s not likely that more documents will weaken the prosecution’s case.

That's fine.

But what about the next delay, and the next delay?