Can anyone give a Lucid Explanation of Bragg's alleged "another crime?"

[WorldWatcher]

Todd Blanche:

Blanche suggested that Trump “fought back” against Stormy Daniels’ allegations, which Blanche described as false, ”to protect his family, his reputation, and his brand — and that is not a crime.”

Dear Todd,

And yet people under oath have testified that FPOTUS#45 was attempting to stiff Daniels (pun intended), and maybe McDougal, that he wanted to delay the payments a few days to get it past election day. After election day it wouldn't matter and the money could be saved.

So, his family, his reputation, and his brand only mattered for the 11 or so days before the election and they didn't matter after the election?

Sorry Todd, reasonable people won't be buying it.

WW

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Greta Thunberg on trial now??

Somewhere along the line, I believe, Pecker made a statement of Trump not knowing about the payment issue and Cohen took care of without Trumps knowledge at the time. Like maybe the first day of testimony.

But the evidence shows that's false.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Sorry Todd, reasonable people won't be buying it.

Which includes twelve jurors.

 

[WorldWatcher]

Greta Thunberg on trial now??

Somewhere along the line, I believe, Pecker made a statement of Trump not knowing about the payment issue and Cohen took care of without Trumps knowledge at the time. Like maybe the first day of testimony.

After paying for the doorman and McDougal and not getting the money back from FPOTUS#45, he told Cohen he (and AMI) would not be willing to pay for Daniels.

His claim was that Cohen and FPOTUS#45 were in the loop. Peckers Testimony below.

WW
.
.
..

https://pdfs.nycourts.gov/PeopleVs.DTrump-71543/transcripts/4-25-2024/00014.html

 

[Delldude]

But the evidence shows that's false.

So Pecker lied is what you're saying.

 

[Dante]

So Pecker lied is what you're saying.

Lucid Explanations of Bragg's alleged "another crimes" delivered. You've just chosen to ignore them.​

next

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

So Pecker lied is what you're saying.

No, I'm not so quick to say that, since your very loose interpretations cannot be trusted.

 

[Delldude]

WW

Brings us back to square one.............hush money payments aren't illegal.

Whether or not He was protecting His family or campaign is illegal?

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Brings us back to square one.............hush money payments aren't illegal.

Nope, not us.. just you. Back to square one.

 

[BULLDOG]

Todd Blanche:

Blanche suggested that Trump “fought back” against Stormy Daniels’ allegations, which Blanche described as false, ”to protect his family, his reputation, and his brand — and that is not a crime.”

Not much question about whether the event was false, or actually happened at this point is there?

 

[Lastamender]

Not much question about whether the event was false, or actually happened at this point is there?

Is it as good as Ashley Biden's diary? Not many questions there either.

 

[para bellum]

Pecker testified that Trump was not worried about the embarrassment to his family, but was worried about the upcoming election.

After the election, Pecker and Trump had a short meeting. In that meeting, Trump thanked him for handling the McDougal and Doorman stories.

Steinglass asked him what Trump meant by that.

Pecker said he thought Trump meant the stories would be "embarrassing to him his family, and the campaign"

Steinglass asked him Trump had said anything about his family, and Pecker said that his conversations with Cohen and Trump were about the campaign, they didn't mention his family, and he (Pecker) made the assumption that the concern was for the campaign.

Steinglass then handed Pecker a copy of his non-prosecution agreement with the DOJ and asked him if that "refreshed his memory".

Pecker then said that prior to the election, Trump was always concerned with how a negative story would affect Melania or Ivanka or his family, and after Trump's candidacy was announced his conversations with Cohen and Trump didn't mention the family.

All of that testimony was Pecker's own assumptions, not something Trump or Cohen actually said. (pages 1217 and 1218 of the transcript)

Pecker's dealings were with Cohen. He only spoke to Trump a few times, and very briefly.

Pecker pitched the idea to Cohen and Trump about killing negative stories- it wasn't Trump's idea. Trump told him "I never pay for stories, they always come out anyway". Pecker and Cohen talked Trump into going along with it.

Cohen didn't work for the campaign. Trump's involvement was basically just being informed after the fact about the stories.

 

[Dante]

After the election, Pecker and Trump had a short meeting. In that meeting, Trump thanked him for handling the McDougal and Doorman stories.

Steinglass asked him what Trump meant by that.

Pecker said he thought Trump meant the stories would be "embarrassing to him his family, and the campaign"

Steinglass asked him Trump had said anything about his family, and Pecker said that his conversations with Cohen and Trump were about the campaign, they didn't mention his family, and he (Pecker) made the assumption that the concern was for the campaign.

Steinglass then handed Pecker a copy of his non-prosecution agreement with the DOJ and asked him if that "refreshed his memory".

Pecker then said that prior to the election, Trump was always concerned with how a negative story would affect Melania or Ivanka or his family, and after Trump's candidacy was announced his conversations with Cohen and Trump didn't mention the family.

All of that testimony was Pecker's own assumptions, not something Trump or Cohen actually said. (pages 1217 and 1218 of the transcript)

Pecker's dealings were with Cohen. He only spoke to Trump a few times, and very briefly.

Pecker pitched the idea to Cohen and Trump about killing negative stories- it wasn't Trump's idea. Trump told him "I never pay for stories, they always come out anyway". Pecker and Cohen talked Trump into going along with it.

Cohen didn't work for the campaign. Trump's involvement was basically just being informed after the fact about the stories.

transcript? no link.

and we all know now it was about the campaign.

 

[Dante]

After the election, Pecker and Trump had a short meeting. In that meeting, Trump thanked him for handling the McDougal and Doorman stories.

Steinglass asked him what Trump meant by that.

Pecker said he thought Trump meant the stories would be "embarrassing to him his family, and the campaign"

Steinglass asked him Trump had said anything about his family, and Pecker said that his conversations with Cohen and Trump were about the campaign, they didn't mention his family, and he (Pecker) made the assumption that the concern was for the campaign.

Steinglass then handed Pecker a copy of his non-prosecution agreement with the DOJ and asked him if that "refreshed his memory".

Pecker then said that prior to the election, Trump was always concerned with how a negative story would affect Melania or Ivanka or his family, and after Trump's candidacy was announced his conversations with Cohen and Trump didn't mention the family.

All of that testimony was Pecker's own assumptions, not something Trump or Cohen actually said. (pages 1217 and 1218 of the transcript)

Pecker's dealings were with Cohen. He only spoke to Trump a few times, and very briefly.

Pecker pitched the idea to Cohen and Trump about killing negative stories- it wasn't Trump's idea. Trump told him "I never pay for stories, they always come out anyway". Pecker and Cohen talked Trump into going along with it.

Cohen didn't work for the campaign. Trump's involvement was basically just being informed after the fact about the stories.

Prosecution set up for when Cohen testifies.

I'm sure Trump the liar (well known/proven), will attack Cohen as a liar.

So it will be one liar against another. Lots of corroboration to back up Cohen.

 

[para bellum]

transcript? no link.

Click on transcripts, open the one for 4/25/2024

Press Center - Home | NYCOURTS.GOV

Cases in the NewsPeople v Allen WeisselbergPeople v Donald J. Trump (Civil)People v Donald J. Trump (Criminal):Latest Correspondence, Decisions, Orders & Media Access

ww2.nycourts.gov

and we all know now it was about the campaign.

"We all know" is not evidence.

 

[Dante]

Click on transcripts, open the one for 4/25/2024

Press Center - Home | NYCOURTS.GOV

Cases in the NewsPeople v Allen WeisselbergPeople v Donald J. Trump (Civil)People v Donald J. Trump (Criminal):Latest Correspondence, Decisions, Orders & Media Access

ww2.nycourts.gov

"We all know" is not evidence.

I know. Just wanted you to know you should post links sometimes.

 

[Lastamender]

I know. Just wanted you to know you should post links sometimes.

Most people have forgot more than you will ever know.

 

[WorldWatcher]

Brings us back to square one.............hush money payments aren't illegal.

Whether or not He was protecting His family or campaign is illegal?

Let's start at the correct square one.

FPOTUS#45 isn't charged with paying for an NDA.

WW

 

[Dante]

"We all know" is not evidence.

It doesn't have to be.

What has been introduced as evidence so far (by the prosecution) is damaging to Trump's lawyers opening remarks. They will get their time to call witnesses and introduce evidence, but...

but you people keep wildly attacking the prosecution's introductions as favoring Trump. You all do truly live in an alternate universe with alternative truths. The jury will see/hear the evidence without the political MAGA spin.

 

[Dante]

Let's start at the correct square one.

FPOTUS#45 isn't charged with paying for an NDA.

WW

Who is claiming he is?