Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search


(13,362 posts)
Tue Apr 16, 2024, 07:01 PM Apr 2024

An absolutely fantastic summary of the NYC "Hush Money Trial" of Donald Trump

I've been looking for something like this for days... this is good. All the legal nuts and bolts.


There are several layers that I believe District Attorney Bragg must show to convict Trump of committing a felony under Penal Law § 175.10.

First, Bragg must show that Trump made the false business records with intent to commit “fraud,” otherwise Trump would not be guilty of a crime at all, because falsifying business records for non-fraudulent purposes is not a crime under the statute.

Second, the District Attorney must show that the reason for Trump’s false entries was to commit or cover up a separate crime, presumably separate from the fraud. If the separate crime is the election law violation, Trump would have had to know that the payment was an election law violation, and to have falsified the records to cover it up that crime. It seems to me that the election law violation would be stronger, not weaker, by making it look like Cohen was the one making the payments for Trump. Disguising the payments through Cohen made it look more like an election law violation by a supporter, not less. Or was Trump trying to disguise the payments to prevent his family or the public from knowing about the embarrassing allegations, rather than covering up an independent crime?

I believe the District Attorney must show (1) that the payments were disguised as attorney fees to commit a fraud on someone, (2) that the underlying payments constituted an independent crime, (3) that Trump knew that the underlying payments constituted a crime, and (4) that the reason he covered up the payments was to disguise that crime. Those are going to be hard things to prove.

There. Now you know more than the content creators on the MSM attempting to tell you about the case.
5 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
An absolutely fantastic summary of the NYC "Hush Money Trial" of Donald Trump (Original Post) WarGamer Apr 2024 OP
No, he didn't do it to protect his family. blm Apr 2024 #1
Now we're getting an idea of what the 2 sides will be arguing... I wish it was televised. WarGamer Apr 2024 #2
The fucking TRAITOR** does not need any more free campaign air niyad Apr 2024 #4
Pretty sure for a guy way outside his area of expertise dpibel Apr 2024 #3
Thank you for that most valuable information. niyad Apr 2024 #5


(113,434 posts)
1. No, he didn't do it to protect his family.
Tue Apr 16, 2024, 07:16 PM
Apr 2024

Former President Donald Trump wanted to avoid paying $130,000 in hush money to a porn star by delaying that payment until after the 2016 presidential election, Manhattan DA Alvin Bragg alleged.
Trump told his then-lawyer that if they could hold off on the transaction, then they wouldn’t have to pay at all, because “at that point it would not matter if the story became public,” according to Bragg.
The allegation came in a statement of facts that was made public alongside the 34-count indictment against Trump.
Trump’s attorney recently argued the hush money payment to porn star Stormy Daniels was “not directly related to the campaign.”

Trump wanted to avoid Stormy Daniels hush money payment by delaying it past election, DA alleges



(116,126 posts)
4. The fucking TRAITOR** does not need any more free campaign air
Tue Apr 16, 2024, 08:56 PM
Apr 2024

time, he takes up enough oxygen as it is.


(3,015 posts)
3. Pretty sure for a guy way outside his area of expertise
Tue Apr 16, 2024, 08:47 PM
Apr 2024
Professor Germain joined the College of Law faculty in 2002, and teaches and conducts research in the areas contracts, taxation, commercial law, bankruptcy, and corporate law.

And, no, there's nothing in his resume that says he ever practiced any kind of criminal law.

He could be right. I surely don't have the information to gainsay him.

But getting advice on criminal law from a commercial law professor is akin to consulting a gastroenterologist when your toes hurt.

And doesn't it feel just a tad off to you when, without any real predicate, he walks off declaring this is a political case? The only thing missing is a defiant "MAGA" at the end.
Latest Discussions»General Discussion»An absolutely fantastic s...