You are wrong.
Merely knowing someone threatened Stormy Daniels on his behalf does not make Trump an accessory. Your problem is that you offer a legal opinion on a subject which you know nothing about. Here is a definition of the crime of accessory:
“
In Criminal Law,
contributing to or aiding in the commission of a crime. One who, without being present at the commission of an offense, becomes guilty of such offense, not as a chief actor, but as a participant, as by command, advice, instigation, or concealment; either before or after the fact or commission.
"One who aids, abets, commands, or counsels another in the commission of a crime.
“In common law, an accessory could not be found guilty unless the actual perpetrator was convicted. In most U.S. jurisdictions today, however, an accessory can be convicted even if the principal actor is not arrested or is acquitted. The prosecution must establish that the accessory in some way instigated, furthered, or concealed the crime. Typically, punishment for a convicted accessory is not as severe as that for the perpetrator.”
accessory
CONCLUSION: To be charged with being an accessory, there must be proof the accused was somehow involved in the commission of the crime. Since there is no evidence that Trump was involved in the threat in any way he could not be charged with being an accessory.
I have a doctorate in law and I am amused at how often so many posters make comments about the law that are patently false.
