Select Page

Trump cannot be convicted unless jury votes New York politics

Trump cannot be convicted unless jury votes New York politics

Now that both sides have rested in President Trump’s so-called Hush Money Case, we will have to wait at least a week before we learn of the jury’s verdict.

Having followed all the testimony – and related issues – I personally believe the correct verdict is “not guilty.”  Whether Trump was the mastermind of a criminal act or not criminally culpable is unknown.  The hard evidence – the various exhibits presented by Manhattan Prosecutor Alvin Bragg do not close the loop.  The various documents and text messages show the involvement of Michael Cohen, David Pecker, and Allen Weisselberg – but no direct link to Trump.  (I omitted Stormy Daniels since her testimony – as salacious as it was – was irrelevant and inappropriate.)

The decision to bring this case at this time wreaks of politics. The alleged crime – a misdemeanor — happened eight years ago and the Statute of Limitations had expired.  Bragg used a unique and dubious interpretation of the law to get around the Statute.  If the misdemeanor can be tied to a criminal felony, the earlier Statute can be set aside.

In a legal nuance that can only be rational in the Dungeons and Dragons world of lawyering, Bragg argues that he does not have to reveal or point to that “other” felony.  He even argued against doing so during negotiations over the establishment of jury instructions.  Essentially, he says that the jury can assume the other crime on their own.

I do not claim to understand it, but it just does not seem right to me.  Apparently, I am not alone.  CNN’s legal analyst Elie Honig said that Bragg’s interpretation of the law pushed prosecutorial appropriateness to the very edge.  Fareed Zakaria put it bluntly, saying that this case would not be going on if the defendant was anyone other than Donald Trump.  Others have suggested that this case would never have been pursued anywhere in America except New York City – and that speaks to the politics.  It is a case that was deemed unworthy of prosecution by New York federal prosecutors appointed by both Trump and later by Biden. 

Then there is that matter of the judge and jury pool.  In filing his case, Bragg well understood the chance of getting a Democrat judge.  But Bragg was not taking any chances.  He circumvented the usual lottery system for assigning judges and handpicked Judge Juan Merchan – a person deeply involved in Democrat politics, with a daughter who is currently raising money for Biden. 

Bragg also knew – based on polling and the 2020 presidential vote – that the jury pool was overwhelmingly Democrat —  and so would the final jury.   These are folks who are not only Democrats, they voted against Trump.  They did not want him to become President.  It is more than likely that many of the jurors have very strong anti-Trump feelings. 

Bragg also knew that getting an indictment from a grand jury is a given for any case a prosecutor wishes to pursue.  It is so easy that they say that a prosecutor can get a grand jury to indict a ham sandwich.

The political culture of the jury pool is important in any case – but never more than in a case that is ALL about politics.  This is a case motivated by the partisan politics of the day.  It is essentially meddling in a presidential election by creating arbitrary political narratives …negative news stories … and preventing a presidential candidate from campaigning, fundraising and it limits his First Amendment rights with gag orders.  That is election interference no matter what one thinks of Trump or the charges.

The jury will be asked to determine beyond a reasonable doubt Trump’s knowledge of the details of the internal accounting of the payments.   Yes, he signed the checks – and he certainly knew he was paying hush money (not illegal), but that is not proof that he knew how the checks would be recorded in the books – in the event that it is criminal.  (Even in my small business, I signed lots of checks that were presented and recorded by my secretary or accountants. I naturally assumed they were doing that part properly.)

There is yet another legal hurdle for the jury.  It is the issue of intent.  They must believe beyond a reasonable doubt that Trump knowingly intended to commit the alleged crime.  That is no small evidentiary challenge for Bragg.  From what I could garner from the testimony, I did not see Bragg establishing that.

If this case had followed normal legal procedures, at worst it might have been handled as a misdemeanor case by the Federal Election Commission – and resulted in a civil fine.  Based on the decision by the FEC and the federal prosecutors in New York not to pursue the case, it should have been dropped and never resurrected by Bragg.  There is a reason why virtually every lawyer and former prosecutor on television has said that this case was the weakest of all the charges facing Trump today.  No kidding.  It is a trumped up case – no pun intended.

The entire case depends on whether you believe “beyond a reasonable doubt” that Michael Cohen is telling the truth.  His obsessive hatred and bitterness clearly establish a motivation to lie.  And his history of lying to achieve what he wants should be evidence enough to have more than a reasonable doubt in anything he says.  He even misrepresented the facts in his court testimony.

Because of the political culture of the venue, I do not believe an acquittal is possible.  But I do believe that there can be enough jurors who will see all the reasons for reasonable doubt – and maybe even two or three who are not anti-Trump Democrats – to result in a hung jury. 

Bragg could then refile the case, but any trial would happen long after the election.  I think he would not.  Winning in the future would be no better than today – and his obvious political motivation would be gone.  And if Trump were to win reelection, Bragg could not file the case until he left office four years later.

I have to believe that even in New York, there are enough folks who can set aside political biases to reach a just and fair decision in this case – hopefully, at least one.  However, if the jury does convict on any of the charges, then the trial and final determination would come long after the November presidential election.  The case would be locked up in the appeal process.  There are more than sufficient grounds for an appeal, but I will deal with that issue if there is a conviction. 

So, there ‘tis.

About The Author

Larry Horist

So,there‘tis… The opinions, perspectives and analyses of Larry Horist Larry Horist is a businessman, conservative writer and political strategist with an extensive background in economics and public policy. Clients of his consulting firm have included such conservative icons as Steve Forbes and Milton Friedman. He has served as a consultant to the Nixon White House and travelled the country as a spokesman for President Reagan’s economic reforms. He has testified as an expert witness before numerous legislative bodies, including the U. S. Congress. Horist has lectured and taught courses at numerous colleges and universities, including Harvard, Northwestern, DePaul universities, Hope College and his alma mater, Knox College. He has been a guest on hundreds of public affairs talk shows, and hosted his own program, “Chicago In Sight,” on WIND radio. Horist was a one-time candidate for mayor of Chicago and served as Executive Director of the City Club of Chicago, where he led a successful two-year campaign to save the historic Chicago Theatre from the wrecking ball. An award-winning debater, his insightful and sometimes controversial commentaries appear frequently on the editorial pages of newspapers across the nation. He is praised by readers for his style, substance and sense of humor. According to one reader, Horist is the “new Charles Krauthammer.” He is actively semi-retired in Boca Raton, Florida where he devotes his time to writing. So, there ‘tis is Horist’s signature sign off.

26 Comments

  1. frank stetson

    Told you it was going be a hot, hot summer. It rare style, Horist is picking a winner before the jury is even in. So much for innocent until proven guilty, Horist is going for Trump innocent before anything proven.

    Reply
  2. Tom

    This article gets a Stop The Spin rating of STS 5+ because it is full of bullshit that mostly has been parroted by FOX news. Larry is correct on one point when he says he doesn’t understand it. Had Larry been listening to lawyers from NYC who explain the law, then Larry would understand it all.

    The misdemeanor is the falsification of business books to make an in-kind donation (in this case a reimbursement to Cohen) look like a legal expense which it was not. And the NY law says if the misdemeanor was done in order to cover up a felony, then the whole thing is raised to the felony level and the misdemeanor statute of limitations no longer applies. Since Trump grossed up the $130K he owned Cohen to $420K for tax purposes to make Cohen whole (because of Cohen’s high tax bracket) which was presented in court, and thus Trump took the tax deduction for a legal expense which was not a legal expense which is tax fraud which is a felony. Since Trump took the Cohen money as payment to Stormy Daniels to cover his campaign’s fear that news of Stormy would sink his campaign after already losing women voters over the pussy petting tape, he committed election violations regarding donations as well as election fraud because he attempted to keep key personal information about his personal life (that he cheated on Melania with a playboy bunny and then cheated on both of them with Stormy) from the voting population which is also a felony!!

    By the way Larry, Cohen’s testimony stated that the first thing out of Trump’s mouth when he was told that Stormy was going to go to the press about the sexual encounter which she describes at horrible, the first words were “This will sink the campaign!”, not “OMG what if Melania finds out! He said to Cohen that they should delay the payment to Stormy until after the election because then paying her will not matter if she does not get paid because if he loses, so what. If he wins he is president and it won’t matter. This testimony under oath says that Trump was trying to commit election fraud.

    If Larry had listened to the NY attorneys he would know that under NY law, the second crime does not have to be specified, only the intent needs to be presented. And it was in Cohen’s testimony! The reason the second crime does not have to be specified is because if a person is caught before the crime is committed, then the intent was there but the crime was thwarted. This is also true for attempted robbery, murder, and other crimes where the violator was unsuccessful in executing the crime but did initiate the process leading up to the crime.

    Larry has done nothing but parrot the hopeful wishes of right wing analysts on FOX and perhaps on CNN. If a person listens to the lawyers who are currently NY defense attorneys practicing in Manhattan and former Manhattan DA’s he would have gotten the explanations which he actually does not desire. He would rather drink the right wing Kool Aide.

    Bottom line: All analysts and lawyers that I have listened to stated there is almost zero chance of acquittal. They all say there is a likely chance of conviction or hung jury. The judge has told the jury it is ok to use their common sense (Larry did not tell you this). The judge will also be instructing the Jury that not all jurors have to agree on the second felony crime. They only have to agree that the intent to commit election fraud or tax fraud (either / or) was present.

    Now you have the true story!! MAGA people, your hero, Mr. Trump once again pussed out on testifying. He once said and is on record as saying that those who claim the 5th are guilty and that is why they do not testify. Trump is turning out to be a real pussy when it comes to Jan 6th claiming immunity, also not testifying in the Carrol case, also not testifying in the Hush money case, also endless delays in all of his cases, and of course sidestepping the military draft. Trump talks tough, but is really a scared pussy! And Larry follows these types. Sad!

    Reply
    • Hammon

      No you and Frank are damned pussies. And if retard Biden squeezes back into the White House again we have lost our minds and our country. And anywhere that I might be when the national anthem is played I would proudly take a knee. And also I would choose to NEVER be governed by democrats. Who the hell does that fucking Moran think he is? I’m sick of that bastard allowing our country to be invaded and trying to destroy our country and constitution. And you commie mother fuckers who support that asshole deserves what you would get. I’m so glad that you idiots don’t have the guts to steal this election. Go ahead. I double dog dare you.

      Reply
      • Tom

        Dude, I fucked your mother, and that is why you exist. I am embarrassed that my sperm produced you. I am an independent/unaffiliated voter. I am not taking sides. Just telling the truth. You are having trouble handling it. Perhaps the better side of you ran down your mother’s leg when I shifted positions. By the way, she gave me a great blow job after I created you! 🙂

        Reply
        • Hammon

          You probably fucked your daughter or sister

          Reply
          • larry Horist

            Harmon … Is Tom really your father, or is that just a weird sicko comment of an increasingly unhinged individual?

          • frank stetson

            Some shining examples of free speech, Gilbertson must be so proud of himself for his creation. Whatever happened to the no-third-person ad hominem? Your mother, your daughter? Come on Joe, you shouldn’t have to lower yourself losing all sense of values and character in your exaggerated defense of the first proven by vulgarity and personal attack. Unless you are a proponent of fucking other people’s mothers and daughters. Well, I guess it’s time to attack the Barron, bring on the Barron jokes…….

  3. frank stetson

    Nice play Tom, good summary IMO. Let me add: Trump wanted to take the stand but there was no handrail. Ba dum bump. But thanks to the NY trial, now we know why he’s against sitting at a table for the debates, zzzzzzzzzz.

    Pretty much in lock step with you Tom, especially the part where only one of the three possible underlying crimes needs to be proven for a juror to convict, according to the judge’s rules. When we see the rules in entirety, only then can be make a better guess so I don’t agree the felony is a lock. Intent and causation are not a lock and that’s what’s needed for a felony. They could go the way of Horist OR the way of Tom, but no one knows.

    The case has always been the prosecutors to lose. Since Trump put forth a meager defense, that’s still the case. Now we go to the close where the prosecutor will try to tie Trump up in a little bow, the misdemeanor business records fraud is in the bag. He needs to tie that to his rigging of the 2016 election via suppression of free speech about his affairs to get the felony. Most have thought they have checked the right boxes, but few, like Horist, will gamble on a final jury decision. That’s Horist in an election year. He’s winning and thrashing at the same time. Just like Trump in 2016. Then the defense will attack the witness testimony, like Horist. Doubtful that they will try an alternative defense, as did not Horist, since the alternate theory it was Pecker, Cohen, and Weissenberg won’t fly. They just will try to harvest the seeds of doubt they hoped to establish on cross. Everyone knows that Cohen is a liar retaliating for what Trump did to him, what he did to himself, and hopeful that people will believe his contrition, remorse, and rehabilitation. Many have thought the defense went a bit far in that and their two witnesses were a failure. Only the jury will tell us the truth of that outcome. Beyond the jury’s reasonable doubt, one angry man, nullification, anything is possible. Then there’s the courtroom behavior of Trump, his lawyers, his witnesses, in the courtroom — who knows what that effect will be but it can’t be good. I guess the defense is hoping for a draw on behavior.

    Bottom line: nothing is as cut and dry as Horist presupposes. He knows that but it’s an election year, so he took a flyer on “allegedly” and leans into definitely not guilty.

    Reply
    • Tom

      All very true Frank. And lets not forget, the prosecution will tie Trump up neatly in a bow; then the defense gets a shot at what the prosecution said; BUT lets not forget that the prosecution gets to address what the defense said and that the prosecution’s words in the redress will be the final thing heard by the jury just before the judges list of instructions for the jury.

      The judge in my opinion has bent over backwards to ensure fairness to Trump. Trump has done nothing but criticize the judge and show contempt for the “rule of law” which is something the GOP is supposed to be the party of. And then they brought in the congress folks and speaker of the house which I do not think played well with the jury. The jury seems to be mostly professional people with level heads and the ability to navigate the complexities and facts of the case. Also, I think the judge may be awaiting ruling on the gag order violations until the jury verdict. If verdict is guilty then the judge will probably tag on additional penalty for the gag order violations.

      In the end, nobody knows what the jury is thinking. I hope they are thinking conviction on the misdemeanor and the intent of a felony. Larry is just supporting Trump outwardly like he always does no matter how ridiculous he sounds. He is an addict.

      Reply
  4. Darren

    It is not up to Trump to prove he his innocent. It is up to Prosecutor’s to grove he is Guilty?
    He should not have to explain on the stand.
    I hope you two are not Lawyers.

    Reply
    • Tom

      I agree Darren. And two things were very evident if you listened to the NY lawyers explaining the law and the trial:

      1) The prosecution did prove their case but with one weak link, Mr. Cohen – but the jury’s reaction seemed to be favorable and they appeared to have believed Cohen.

      2) Trump kept saying over and over again that he will testify – but like in the other cases, he pussied out because he knows he is guilty. He is hoping to get at least one juror to go his way. But the lawyer that testified for Trump just shot Trump in the ass. So I would not place my bet on hung jury, but it only takes one to hang.

      Bottom line, it will be the votes who will have to convict Trump by casting a vote against him this fall. If his behavior in court is anything like his behavior in the WH, nobody should want him back in office. And that is this Independent’s point of view. 🙂

      Reply
  5. Darren

    He did not pussy out, he set the prosecution up to think he is going to testify.
    Good Strategy, as well as a good business strategy.
    Any Smart individual would have done the same thing.
    And if other testimony went south, he just may have testified.
    Why get on the stand if you need not to.
    This is not a case about facts, just public opinion.

    Reply
    • Tom

      What a fucking joke! He set up the prosecution! LOL Just the opposite!! The prosecution presented such an overwhelming case that he pussied out! I viewed you as reasonable not realizing you were so deranged! The prosecution had the burden of proof, and they met that proof! They would have ripped him to shreds if he had taken the stand!!! Please seek some mental health therapy.

      Reply
      • frank stetson

        Tom et al, I think Trump did try to set up the prosecution for appeal on the Stormy Daniels sexcapade description where she described Trump asking for a spanking by magazine and Trump’s legal team was strangely quiet. Strategically quiet. She talked about condom usage, no objection. She said he was better behaved after the spanking. No objection. Like Horist didn’t object the same way his loss to Spanky the Clown. She explained how she just didn’t think about sex when Trump was on top of her, without a condom, after meeting her wearing satin pj’s explaining extra marital sex is OK with Melania who sleeps alone anyway. “I was staring up at the ceiling, wondering how I got there,” said Daniels, who the judge had to control when she started taking positions, and I don’t mean political….. I guess that’s better than being slammed against the wall with Trump’s fingers jammed into your vagina. But even though the judge stopped her a number of times, even though he warned the prosecution about going too deep (something Trump has never been accused of by the ladies), Team Trump was silent, almost as if by plan.

        Then they tried for two mistrials where the judge said: but you didn’t even object, there were many times you could have. “Why on earth she (Necheles) wouldn’t object to the mention of a condom I don’t understand,” Merchan said. The thought is Trump is setting up for appeal, but the judge’s words, and the lack of the Trump lawyer objections, probably closes that door. Smart lawyering, NOT.

        But I do think it was intended for getting a mistrial, or later an appeal, as a Team Trump strategy, probably on Trump’s command since it was not a very professional setup, pretty amateurish.

        Reply
        • Tom

          Yes I agree Frank.

          Trump has tried several things to set up an appeal. He must be thinking he will be found guilty. Mershan was smart in the Stormy testimony by pointing out to the defense that they opened the door in their initial day 1 description of their case when they said that the Stormy incident never happened. Judge Mershan allowed some of her testimony because (as the NY Former Manhattan DA said, “The fact that she could describe so much of the room and knows Trump’s body guard was right outside the door means that she must have been there. She said she often used to allow the witness to talk about the experience when the other side says it never happened, and that she would ask the witness to describe something unique about the perpetrator. Stormy did this by describing his little hooked penis. This is why the judge allowed it, because it was a unique characteristic that she would not have known unless she had seen it. Trump’s defense could have asked for a pause to get a picture or two to prove her wrong, but they did not do this. I think the defense was silent on this because they know the violation occurred and Stormy nailed it!

          So now we know Trump has little fingers and a little penis to match. God has a sense of humor!!!

          Reply
  6. Doug Corrigan Jr.

    Another demonstration of the heights Larry Horist achieves in not just making sound, readable, fact-based arguments but in smashing leftwerp goobers who lack the intel and the intelligence to share on-line space with him.

    As is typical on comment boards that follow Horist columns, his Goebbelsian detractors routinely sidestep his claims, his explanations and his facts. Instead, they attack him personally, as if that could possibly enhance their embarrassingly creaky positions, which are virtually always consistent with the reasoning of drooling Third Reich revivalists. Comment boards like this, from what I’ve seen, typically devolve into confrontations between Horist and jackbooted Frank “Horst” Stetson, whose third sentence in this edition of his keyboard vomiting is “Horist is going for Trump innocent before anything proven” — spoken like a true pidgin Aryan.

    And I won’t dwell on the mentality that maintains Horist and others can’t draw conclusions about guilt and innocence until a jury posits its own collective verdict, whether the subject is Harvey Weinstein, Humper Bidet, Jeffrey Epstein or George Santos. By the way, I’d love to see a link that Der Horst defended Santos from accusations of guilt pending a judicial finding of guilt, LOL. Aside from that, it’s hardly a surprise that Constitution-loathing white supremacists (like Der Horst) have no concept that an American is innocent LEGALLY until convicted, but is not officially deemed guilty or innocent in day-to-day life, as might not be the case in, oh, Germany.

    When Fareed Zakaria, who shares perches on the balcony of the far left with AOC and Chuck U. Schumer, can absolve Trump from accusations as thin as the ones under discussion here, the only conclusion must be that Trump is being set up by the likes of Bragg, Unfunny Willis and their supporters and minions.

    I will take the opportunity here to rap Horist here. Going back for a long time, he made a point of conversing with Der Horst on Horist’s comment board. This was even before leaving Disqus, a time when dozens of readers would join in discussions on the Horist board. Larry occasionally responded to other people’s filings, but not often. And as is happening right here, it was no contest. Horist always prevailed. He might not have made such a good showing if he had engaged in debate and discussion with more intelligent, more honest posters.

    Reply
    • larry Horist

      Doug Corrigan jr … We should be kind. I am doing that be limiting — almost excluding — my responses to their bs. They are just a couple of old geezers (Statler and Waldorf) attempting to maintain a sense of relevancy by ranting from their lonely balcony. They have surrendered their objectivity to making me their constant target of childish insults and mendacious accusations — basically ankle biters. They are not experienced of intellectually equipped to deal with substantive civic debate on complex issues. That is obvious. Their arrogance and ignorance is not an attractive combo. Fortunately, they have no impact on me or the world as they like to imagine. Best to just ignore.

      Reply
      • Frank stetson

        Be truthful Horist, you rarely respond. Either mutual admiration or meaningless vitriol, childish name calling, now sesame street characters, but rarely a discussion response.

        Like this time. .

        Reply
        • larry Horist

          Doug Corrigan Jr … LMAO. I can’t help but laughing. Frank’s and Tom’s pitiful response show how correct my view of them is. And poor Tom. He has to claim to be some sort of “independent.” He keeps pushing it so often that he must know it is bullshit — and he must know everyone can see through that bit of boigraphical bs.

          Reply
      • Tom

        Actually Larry, it is you that is quite irrelevant. Do you have any statistics that point to you making any impact on anyone? You are only a legend in your own mind. I doubt it. I doubt that you have any impact statistics! You are an old tottering fool locked in your 1950’s beliefs and not willing to look at the whole Trump picture. Your head is up Trumps ass and you are addicted to his lies like a crack addict. Your writings are not balanced and are full of spin!

        Reply
    • Tom

      Did you swallow when you sucked off Horist!? He only prevails among the mindless minions of a deranged right wing extremist party that wants to see a serial liar, digital rapist, adulterer, tax cheat, anti-women, womanizer, pedophile, seller of our national secrets, and pussy who will not testify and wants to overturn our legal system for his advantage.

      Reply
  7. Doug Corrigan Jr.

    Another demonstration of the heights Larry Horist achieves in not just making sound, readable, fact-based arguments but in smashing leftwit goobers who lack the intel and the intelligence to share on-line space with him.

    As is typical on comment boards that follow Horist columns, his Goebbelsian detractors routinely sidestep his claims, his explanations and his facts. Instead, they attack him personally, as if that could possibly enhance their embarrassingly creaky positions, which are virtually always consistent with the reasoning of drooling Third Reich revivalists. Comment boards like this, from what I’ve seen, typically devolve into confrontations between Horist and jackbooted Frank “Horst” Stetson, whose third sentence in this edition of his keyboard vomiting is “Horist is going for Trump innocent before anything proven” — spoken like a true pidgin Aryan.

    And I won’t dwell on the mentality that maintains Horist and others can’t draw conclusions about guilt and innocence until a jury posits its own collective verdict, whether the subject is Harvey Weinstein, Humper Bidet, Jeffrey Epstein or George Santos. By the way, I’d love to see a link that Der Horst defended Santos from accusations of guilt pending a judicial finding of guilt, LOL. Aside from that, it’s hardly a surprise that Constitution-loathing white supremacists (like Der Horst) have no concept that an American is innocent LEGALLY until convicted, but is not officially deemed guilty or innocent in day-to-day life, as might not be the case in, oh, Germany.

    When Fareed Zakaria, who shares perches on the balcony of the far left with AOC and Chuck U. Schumer, can absolve Trump from accusations as thin as the ones under discussion here, the only conclusion must be that Trump is being set up by the likes of Bragg, Unfunny Willis and their supporters and minions.

    I will take the opportunity here to rap Horist here. Going back for a long time, he made a point of conversing with Der Horst on Horist’s comment board. This was even before leaving Disqus, a time when dozens of readers would join in discussions on the Horist board. Larry occasionally responded to other people’s filings, but not often. And as is happening right here, it was no contest. Horist always prevailed. He might not have made such a good showing if he had engaged in debate and discussion with more intelligent, more honest posters.

    Reply
    • Tom

      Hey Doug, you do not have to post your BS twice.

      Did you swallow when you sucked off Horist!? He only prevails among the mindless minions of a deranged right wing extremist party that wants to see a serial liar, digital rapist, adulterer, tax cheat, anti-women, womanizer, pedophile, seller of our national secrets, and pussy who will not testify and wants to overturn our legal system for his advantage.

      Reply
  8. Frank stetson

    He repeats himself when under duress.

    He repeats himself when under stress.

    He repeats himself, he is a mess.

    That sentence is fine, show me the error. Show us the Aryan.
    Show me the personal attacks.

    BUSTED. You whine and whimper, but as usual, all bull, no steak.

    Reply
  9. frank stetson

    At it’s core, the case is Trump rigging the 2016 election by suppressing information to the American votes thus negating freedom of speech.

    Specifically, Trump is accused of falsifying business records (misdemeanor) to suppress a sex scandal (well-known and accepted family problem) just before the news tanks his election against Hillary (felony) and then continues to bury the story after. The misdemeanor is a done deal, plenty of paperwork, previous case, previous case law, simple stuff. The sex is not illegal, cheating not illegal. The felony is connected to the misdemeanor and requires not only a crime, but the intent to commit the crime. Intent is often not documented and is the tough nut to crack. Especially with a limited number of people involved.

    A total of 18 witnesses told of Trump’s orchestration of his conspiracy to suppress a number of sexcapades for purposes of hiding the info from voters so he could win the election. There’s lots of paper detailing amounts and acceptance by Trump himself. Witnesses told of Trump’s fear of Access Hollywood potentially being amplified by his frequent dalliances with people of lower family-values standings. As in porn stars, Playboy models and girls the Doorman knows.

    Then there’s his voice telling his fixer to pay off in cash, cannot be traced, as if knowing there’s a crime here. There’s sex, with spanking, but Horist does not want to go there, and he is correct, but it sure is tasty. Spanked by magazine because he asked for it. Too bad it wasn’t the NYT. Never will get old. Putin loves it. Want to bet there’s magazines on the coffee table for every Trump meeting in foreign lands going forward?

    There’s Cohen, a liar to a lesser degree than Trump, but a liar directly linking Trump to the over 30 business records. That is true. However, will they believe him or discount him after the defense told them what they already know, he lies. There are the records, there are other witnesses confirming the crime. Of course, Trump still says he never had sex with that woman. Or that other woman. Or that one. Or the doorman’s contact, although we sort of believe that one. Cohen also wants Trump punished. Who could blame him for that? But only the jury was there to decide who is more believable, Trump, the defense, or Cohen. The defense did not help the cause and did not bring Cohen down, just a few flesh wounds, nothing mortal. However, the defense’s second witness almost got tossed for contempt, the defense lawyers were strongly admonished many times, they did not look professional. And the judge did look very professional wading into this cesspool without getting a smudge. I think their client was pulling a few strings in the defense strategy that he should have let go. Many times, experts claimed the very professional and accomplished defense attorney would normally not do that……

    There are 11 checks to Mr. Cohen, 11 invoices submitted by Mr. Cohen and 12 entries in Mr. Trump’s ledger, all black letter falsified business records. Period. Plus, he paid Cohen an uplift amount to cover taxes, almost to the penny, showing INTENT. By the records. Trump’s signature. Under NY law, all the prosecutor needs to do is show Trump personally falsified the records. Cohen does not matter for that. It’s Trump’s signature and a plethora of witnesses noted how Trump micro-manages the money. There’s a couple more layers of guilt here that the prosecution put to the jurors, but won’t bore you except to say the prosecution carefully checked every box and, on the whore-banging (not a crime), the hush money (not a crime), and falsifying records (misdemeanor), he looks to be toast. You never know, juries have minds of their own and only they were in the room, but, to this back seat paralegal — he’s toast. I don’t know how anyone could conclude differently, even before the trial.

    Then the tricky part. Felony counts for falsifying business records require proof that Trump sought to conceal a second crime. Intent is needed.

    For the second crime, the felony uplift, Trump entered into a conspiracy with Cohen and the publisher of The National Enquirer, Pecker, to conceal the sex scandals from the American public right before the election and right after the Access Hollywood “grab em by the pussy” tapes. In doing so, he may have broken three different laws. We already know that the judge tells the jury that only one of the three is needed to convict. Only one strike needed out of three pitches across the plate. Pecker testified that he had agreed with Trump to suppress several damaging stories on Mr. Trump’s behalf as he ran for president, including a Playboy model’s story of an affair and the Doorman’s story. That’s a conspiracy to suppress free speech. Mr. Pecker told the jury that for $150,000 he bought and buried the model’s story.

    Cohen made a phone recording where Trump directs his Pecker repayment. Pecker also told the jury how he and Trump ran stories beneficial to Trump and harmful to his enemies as in Trump and the press in cahoots. Is that how it’s supposed to work? This is mind blowing stuff, Trump and a Pecker working together to plant positive Trump stories, negative Trump enemy stories, and then the “catch and kill” program. It even had a name….. When politicians have a major media outlet in their pocket at this level of coordination and conspiracy to contaminate free speech, then free speech goes out the window and Putin-publishing comes to America. FYI: Joe Biden has no Pecker, he’s too old, remember……

    Hope Hicks testified that Trump talked often with Pecker and Cohen to contain the scandals, corroborated by phone records, before and after Access Hollywood. The conspiracy team was in constant communication with each other over this. The prosecution did a nice job showing the anxiety of Trump over Access Hollywood, but was it enough? That’s the rub, often Trump has come right out and said it, but folks give him the benefit of the doubt of what Trump means since he lies all the time and means little of anything he says except he really means it all or maybe not. Very hard to close that gap and there is no document backing up his felony intent. Bottom line: we don’t know until the jury comes in and then, no matter what the verdict, it undoubtedly should make sense to all of us. Looks bad on the misdemeanors and still questionable to me, on the felony. Just because I know he did it, and why, I can prove it but I cannot prove intent. The prosecutors did a good job checking off all the boxes, the judge did an incredible job to survive the lawless Trump, hopefully no one that Trump outed for harm will be harmed, and I am sure the jury will do the right thing after sifting through the evidence often provided by liars. Of the 18 witnesses, only one is a known liar and his story is confirmed a little bit by the others who are not known liars.

    As to Trump taking the stand. Was never going to happen. No one would have taken that bet. Strategic ploy? More like a last ditch high risk lever that the defense is all too glad not to pull.

    Reply
  10. Frank stetson

    Well, according to Horist, they unanimously voted politics 34 times!

    Guilty X 34. Bring on the punishment.

    I vote house arrest, one house, choose. Can go to rallies. And if you have secret service, give them all ankle trackers.

    No, I am not happy with a conviction against our President. But it’s like that old joke;, what do you call 500 lawyers chained to the bottom of the ocean? A good start!

    So, let’s get it on for the other cases, let’s find out before we vote. He’s got the FL judge in his pocket, what is he waiting for. He could use a win!!!

    Reply

Leave a reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *