Progressive DA Alvin Bragg's case against Trump hinges on witnesses with 'credibility problems': And

The payments took place in 2017 in order to conceal the fact that the whole thing occurred at all. That's the reason for the timing. Intent to do this prior to the election may have to be proven, and may be proveable given documents/e-mails, but I am unsure on both if Bragg can prove it and if he has to.

The voters were misled on purpose about Trump and his alleged activities with porn stars. This wouldn't be a crime had he not used falsifying business records to cover it up.

 

There's nothing illegal about a payment to keep someone quiet about an alleged affair. For business purposes it can be recorded as a legal fee since Trump's lawyer handled it using his personal funds which Trump later decided to reimburse Cohen for.

 

The wording of Bragg's statements leads me to believe he has evidence the way it all went down, including falsifying business records, was agreed to prior to the election. Cohen didn't take out a heloc without an assurance that Trump would, in some way, pay him for this service. It does seem that Bragg disputes that these were true legal retainer fees, but the more concrete evidence that it was false was that it was pretended that these services occurred in 2017, rather than 2016 as is the reality.

 

Services could have been provided in 2016, but not billed for until 2017. Nothing illegal about that. I find it highly odd that Cohen used his own money to pay hush money to Stormy. If Trump sanctioned this he could have paid him up front and still list it as payment for legal services as it's related to a NDA (a legally binding agreement).

 

The theory of the prosecution is clearly that it was done the way it was done to cover up that it had anything to do with the election. A legal services payment made AFTER the election is something more likely to be dismissed as unrelated to the election as opposed to something done weeks before the election. But, as I've said before, the details will matter in terms of who said what in these e-mails and documents, and their timing.

 

As long as the money doesn't come from campaign funds there's still nothing illegal about it.

 

Maybe when it comes to violating campaign finance laws, but there are other applicable laws that do not depend on what you allude to, and I have cited them and talked about them many times.

 

I'm not aware of your posts detailing the crimes committed by the bookkeeping entries.

 

Simply put, Braggs pursuit of Trump is a violation of his own oath of office. DA's are not empowered to target a person and then find a crime to charge him with. That is left for the FBI.

 

And that's the bottom line.