Doc7505
Diamond Member
- Feb 16, 2016
- 15,766
- 27,769
- 2,430
Spoiler Alert:
Prosecutors' Tortuous Trump Case Is 'Confusing' to Nearly Everyone
23 Apr 2024 ~~ By Victoria Taft
The first witness in Donald Trump's trial for alleged "criminal" bookkeeping errors came with National Enquirer-worthy titillations about what a hot commodity the former president was back in the day. Prosecutors thought they'd burst out of the gate with a little razzle-dazzle and T&A, hoping that jurors would believe the witness had anything to do with the actual charges in the case. This is because — spoiler alert — the prosecutors' actual case is a "confusing" distraction. It's the "Seinfeld" of legal cases.
But since a Manhattan jury will likely convict the former president because Orange Man Bad, here's what happened in court with the opening witness on truncated court sessions Monday and Tuesday.
David Pecker, the former publisher of the National Enquirer, testified that he worked with Trump's lawyer to kill stories that hurt Trump's reputation or would be hurtful to his wife and family. This is the so-called catch-and-kill scheme, wherein sources would approach the Enquirer with an unflattering story about Trump (this applies to Hollywood stars and big shots), offer money to the people telling it, and then make the story disappear.
And it went something like this:
- Pecker reportedly would alert Trump's lawyer, Michael Cohen, about the titillating story.
- Cohen got three sources to sign a non-disclosure agreement for a sum of money.
- Trump paid his legal bills, which covered Cohen's incurred costs plus more.
~Snip~
~Snip~
The media have called this case a "hush money" case, but one of our crafty commenters called it the Hush Trump case. Touché. When a judge shuts up the defendant but not the other trial participants, you can't help but wonder if the fix is in. Where else will you read that in this censorious media world that we're living in?
Commentary:
Remembering when The Los Angeles Times “caught and killed” the story of Barack Obama’s banquet speech for Rashid Khalidi, which was on video. I bet that video is more damaging than sex with a stripper and had a bigger impact on the 2008 election than Daniels did in 2016. Nobody was prosecuted. Few even complained. The video is still in the vault.
THAT is not illegal. “Go away” settlements and NDAs are extremely common. The lying whorebag human toilet tried to milk a few dollars more out of him two weeks before the election.
130k to Trump is akin to me flipping a nickel to a bum who is annoying customers coming into my business. It’s a ridiculously small amount she accepted. That amount was offered because her lawyer knew it was so low no sane person would take it to court if they could make it go away for that trivial sum.
Nothing even slightly illegal about it.
The Secret Sources for ‘Bombshell’: Why Ex-Fox News Staffers Broke Their NDAs for Filmmakers
In order to paint a vivid picture of the network's culture, 'Bombshell's' makers spoke to about 20 people with a connection to Fox, including multiple women bound by confidentiality agreements, a task that sent the filmmakers into territory usually left to investigative journalists.
www.hollywoodreporter.com
**********
4 things you should know about non-disclosure agreements
Learn more about how NDAs are handled in the workplace, including when they are enforceable and their benefits.
