Trump indicates he'd testify in hush money trial, says a conviction could 'make me more popular'

Former President Donald Trump indicated to ABC News on Monday that he would testify at his upcoming criminal trial in New York over a hush payment to adult film actress Stormy Daniels.
"I would have no problem testifying," he said when ABC News asked at a press conference, following his court appearance in the case, whether he would testify. "I didn't do anything wrong."
Asked by ABC News at the press conference if a conviction could hurt his chances for reelection, Trump said, "It could also make me more popular."
https://abcnews.go.com/US/trump-hed-testify-hush-money-trial-conviction-make/story?id=108477086

According to Trump in terms of the Hush Money Trial, he is in a Win/Win situation.
Should he be found Not Guilty, then he has a Win.
Should he be found Guilty, then (according to Trump's own words) a conviction "could also make me more popular".
Thus, Trump has nothing to fear the outcome of the trial.
Trump will be either vindicated or (in his own words) "more popular".

 

He could always speed his winning ways along by pleading guilty............................. win-win all around !

 

Exactly, fmj...

 

More popular? Like how eating people made Dahmer more popular?

 

Yeah...
It's another version of the "Fifth Avenue" remark...
But, this version has gone from "not losing votes" to "gaining votes"...
Trump is clearly delusional...

 

I think he's probably wrong, unless the trial seems extremely unfair to moderate voters. Fox will try to make it seem unfair.

 

Yup...
They'll make Trump a martyr...

 

Yes, I imagine he'll be much more popular with Evangelicals, when they find out the following. Many of them live in the FOX News bubble, so they never hear the true story.

1. Trump had a 10-month affair with Karen McDougal while Melania was pregnant, and paid for her NYC apartment.
2. Trump paid David Pecker of the National Enquirer to purchase the rights to the McDougal story, and kill it.
3. The Trump doorman at Trump Hotel was paid to suppress about Trump fathering a child. True or not, he was paid.
4. Stormy Daniels, a porn star paid to keep quiet with same scheme.
5. Audio file of Trump asking Cohen, "How much did that (the Stormy Daniels hush money) cost me?"

The crime is FRAUD. Allegedly, the Hush Money payments were reported as legal fees paid to Cohen. Routing funds through the National Enquirer, in the "catch and kill" scheme is also part of a voting FRAUD charge.

 

My bet is he*** will not testify just like he *** failed to do so in the E.J. Carroll matter, despite saying he*** would. He*** is full of ****.

*Rapist
*Swindler
*Bordering on pathological

 

I think that would be a good bet.

 

No, obviously he will sacrifice kittens to Satan and eat them

 

Please let him take the stand….please….!!

 

lol yall are going to be so butthurt. This is going to be epically hilarious

I hope he loses and then we can watch his numbers rise and listen to yall scream about how we will vote for him no matter what and watch your despair as you realize you can do nothing short of killing him to stop him lol

 

It's actually pretty simple to put up a robust defense to these charges. The key principals in question is the campaign finance law. And so, let's review it: https://www.fec.gov/help-candidates-and-committees/making-disbursements/personal-use/

At first, it would seem cut and dry: Campaign funds cannot be used for personal expenses and the hush money is deemed a personal expense. But ah, the devil's in the details. The prosecution has missed a couple of things, that the defense can use:

Transfer of campaign assets
The sale or transfer of a campaign asset to either the candidate or a third party does not constitute personal use as long as the transaction is made at the fair market value.

I would argue that the loan to Cohen is a transfer(obviously in this case to a third party). This is actually pretty straight forward. The issue is the "fair market value". What is fair market value to an NDA?(And because it's an NDA, it'll be difficult to find examples of people who used to issue NDA's on say sexual affairs to gauge a fair market value.)

But if the Trump defense could find people willing to testify to that, and if it matches the fair market value then it very heavily cripples the prosecution's case.

But this isn't the only avenue of attack the defense has against the prosecution's case. There's another provision within the rules that favors Trump in this trial:

Relating to other activity
In specific situations the Commission has concluded that campaign funds may be used to pay for up to 50 percent of legal expenses that do not relate directly to allegations arising from campaign or officeholder activity (for example, activity prior to becoming a candidate or officeholder or activity of a business owned by the candidate/officeholder) if the candidate or officeholder is required to provide substantive responses to the press regarding the allegations of wrongdoing. However, the Commission did not allow campaign funds to be used to pay the legal expenses of voters who brought a lawsuit concerning special election scheduling because such expenses would exist irrespective of the candidate’s campaign for federal office.

It's clear that the affair with Stormy Daniels happened prior to Trump's candidacy. Now, the phrase "wrongdoing" does not have to reference to a criminal act. A moral wrong can be one such controversy as to derail the campaign. Here too, there'll be a haggle around "50% of legal expenses" for the same reasons as the NDA.

But if we were to take total campaign expenses, Trump could argue the hush money isn't even 5% of total campaign expenses, and would therefore fit into this clause.

Would these arguments work? I don't know, but I think they're the best chance Trump has and at minimum, the prosecution would have to respond to them and that can maybe show their hand more.

 

Omg if he gets a not guilty verdict if you think his poll numbers shot up before you ain't seen nothing yet lol

 

You have to remember that Cohen pled guilty, and spent time in jail for these crimes. Basically, any crime for which Cohen was found guilty, Trump also committed. So there's that precedent.

https://www.cnn.com/2018/12/12/politics/michael-cohen-sentencing/index.html

The cases against Cohen have emerged as one of the most significant threats to date for Trump. Both Cohen and prosecutors pinned Cohen’s crimes on Trump’s orders, and the judge on Wednesday said Cohen’s election violations “implicate a far more insidious harm” to democracy....

Moments after Cohen’s sentencing, the Manhattan US Attorney’s office revealed that in September it had reached an agreement with American Media Inc., the parent company of the National Enquirer tabloid, in which it will not prosecute the company in exchange for its admission that it participated in the $150,000 payment Cohen arranged to silence McDougal “in concert with a candidate’s presidential campaign.”

One other thing - At the time, Trump denied having affairs with the women. Will he continue with those lies, despite all the witnesses? Cohen, Daniels, McDougall, Pecker, etc. Perjury will not help his case.

Prosecutors have said that in executing the payments, Cohen “acted in coordination with and at the direction of” Trump, who has denied having the affairs with the two women.

 

Oh the histrionics are cute by the judge and by the attorneys involved in Cohen's trial. No one ever said John Edwards's actions undermined the democratic institutions. While we expect that money to go where it goes, no one is going to lose sleep over embezzlement of federal funds.

The judges might get their respect back if they stop trying to advertise their services for an Opera Theater. And then, it also misunderstands the case: Federal funds weren't used in this case, Trump's own money was used in a "campaign contribution" via his loan to Cohen.

The question is, if this in-kind campaign contribution breaks federal law. The 'fraud' in the Cohen case involves his bank-wiring tactics. But while they 'implicate' Trump, they didn't specify what. If it was the wire fraud, why isn't that tacked on in this case?

Seems to me that the 'implication' is more on Cohen's decision to act, rather than the actions he took and that's not lawfully actionable.

So I would consider the Cohen circumstances irrelevant and I would even argue him to be an immaterial witness, as the charges laid against Trump don't have a basis stemming from the Cohen trial

 

From his statement quoted in the OP, it doesn't look like Trump is confident that they would work. Clearly he's expecting a guilty verdict. And hopes he can make the best of it by making him "more" popular among his cult followers. And it probably will. Problem is that they can only vote ONCE. However, I don't think votes are his objective at this point. A more violent and effective January 6-like insurrection is more likely his goal. And, for that, he will need them to be willing to immolate themselves in his name.

 

Trump's lawyers tried to get Cohen disqualified as a witness, and the judge said NO. Trump won't take the stand, because his lawyers know he would commit perjury (denying the affairs, etc). I've never heard the money given to Cohen, referred to as "a loan". Perhaps you can explain? The following timeline details everything (from multiple references).

2006 - Stormy Daniels affair
2006-2007 - McDougall affair
July 2016 - After Trump Republican nomination, McDougall paid $150K by National Enquirer, through Cohen, to catch and kill the story.
Aug-Sept 2016 - Cohen approaches the National Enquirer again, about catch and kill for Stormy Daniels, but they didn't want to get involved a second time.
Oct 2016 - Michael Cohen sets up shell company, Essential Consultants, in his name with money from a Russian oligarch to use for hush money payments. (This is why Mueller brought the charges against Cohen).
Oct 2016 - $130K hush money paid to Stormy Daniels directly from Cohen's shell company.
Feb 14 - Dec 5, 2017 - According to Indictment - Trump paid Cohen monthly attorney fees, but these were actually reimbursements for hush money payments.
Feb 2018 - Michael Cohen lies - says he paid the Stormy Daniels hush money out of his pocket. It was not under the direction of Trump Org, and he was never reimbursed by Trump.
Later Date - Cohen contradicts both statements under oath, stating Trump did in fact direct him to make the payment and reimbursed him.
April 2028 - Trump, when asked by reporters if he knew about the payment to Daniels, responded, "No." Asked why Cohen made the payment, Trump said, "You'll have to ask Michael Cohen."
MAY 2018 - In an ethics disclosure, Trump acknowledges reimbursing Cohen for the $130,000 paid for Daniels. (Trump knew this was on audiotape, with Trump asking Cohen, "How much did that (the Stormy Daniels hush money) cost me?").
July 2018 - Rudy Giuliani, one of Trump's personal lawyers at the time, says Cohen recorded a conversation with Trump two months before the 2016 election in which the two discussed a potential payment to McDougal. Trump denies wrongdoing and calls Cohen's tape "perhaps illegal".
July-Aug 2018 - Trump’s company “grossed up” Cohen’s reimbursement for the Daniels payment to defray tax payments, according to federal prosecutors who filed criminal charges against Cohen in connection with the payments. In all, Cohen got $360,000 plus a $60,000 bonus, for a total of $420,000. The DA made the case that it should have been disclosed as campaign spending and subject to legal limits on donations.
Aug 2018 - Cohen pleads guilty to criminal charges in Manhattan federal court, including campaign finance violations over the hush money payments. He testified that Trump directed him to make the payments "for the principal purpose of influencing the election.". DA says Trump arranged the payments, but didn't charge him.
Dec 2018 - Trump, on Twitter, calls the hush money payments a "simple private transaction." In an interview with Reuters, he says the payment to Daniels "wasn't a campaign contribution" and "there was no violation based on what we did."
Jan 2023 - Bragg's office begins presenting evidence about Trump's alleged role in the 2016 hush money payments to a grand jury

Based on the above history - Bragg's case is as follows:
Trump's payments to Cohen were paid as legal fees. Bragg claims this is FRAUD, and that Cohen was NOT acting as a lawyer, but instead, as a "bagman" (34 counts, because each monthly payment to Cohen is another count). This would normally be a misdemeanor, but Bragg claims all of this was done to cover-up other crimes, making it a felony.. Bragg doesn't specify "other crimes". That will come out.

The "other crimes" is the key, and will be Bragg's challenge to prove. I believe everything else is well-established. Trump's Ethics disclosure in May of 2018 doesn't help his case. Only after he finds out that there is an audiotape, does he acknowledge the Stormy Daniels payments. And that was after repeatedly lying about the affair.

 

The judge saying 'no', doesn't change the fact that this witness is immaterial. Hell, not only is he immaterial but he lied at least once under oath and more probably twice(Cohen's recantation wasn't put up to cross examination and that might be the only material thing I can think of, since Trump isn't connected to the wire fraud.(And as I recall, Trump criticized the said wire fraud at the time, suggesting he didn't have to go that route.)

To me, it's beyond obvious that Cohen used his connections to Trump as a way to reduce his own prison time and save his own skin. But in any event, Cohen's a red herring a total distraction to the case. All that matters is case law, and that's the campaign finance issue.

So, was it a loan? Let's dive into that:

https://www.investopedia.com/terms/l/loan.asp

• "A loan is when money is given to another party in exchange for repayment of the loan principal amount plus interest."

In the very evidence against Trump, the statement "how much is this going to cost me?" implies that he's aware that he has to pay back Cohen. It's not something that was for free, or something Trump wanted to do himself. He clearly wanted a third party to handle the Daniels payments.

That is a loan. Now, we can argue that it's Cohen loaning to Trump, or Trump paying back the loan money that Cohen used from the banks. But either way, it's a loan.

https://www.investopedia.com/terms/r/reimbursement.asp

Although Cohen was Trump's lawyer at the time, I would argue A: He wasn't an employee of the Trump Organization as such, and B: Even ergo if he were, then-candidate Trump wasn't operating as the CEO of his business empire but as the Republican candidate looking to hush Stormy Daniels.

It's this prosecution who agreed that it falls under Campaign Finance. And since they agree with that as a premise, they have to also accept the fact that the $150,000 was a loan to be paid back in the hush case.

But there's more evidence from the prosecution still, that suggests it's a loan. A loan has to be paid back with "interest". And what's in the facts you posted?

. In all, Cohen got $360,000 plus a $60,000 bonus, for a total of $420,000.

I don't know who called it a 'bonus', whether Cohen himself or in an official government filing, but if we acknowledge it to be a loan, the $60,000 is clearly interest.

 

Hahahahahahahahahaha!!! He'd be a real fool to swear to tell the truth and then go on the stand in a court of law..........if I was his lawyer, I'd have to immediately quit to stop him from doing such a dumb arse thing!!!

 

Misogynist and bigots of the USA unite!

 

Bet he uses ketchup.

 

Trump is terrified of being penniless.

This hush money trial ought to discourage the voter to not vote for him and it shows what kind of a person Trump is.

 

Do y’all ever get tired of defending him?

I mean really… he used campaign funds to pay off a prostitute — to cover up his affair — so it wouldn’t impact his election.

I think even he was surprised at how little the holyrollers cares but still.