*from the article
People's 35 is the fulcrum for the entire case. As they make their closing arguments this week, prosecutors are sure to say it proves Trump is guilty, while the defense will say it proves he's innocent.
And which side wins will depend in large part on whether jurors believe key prosecution witness Michael Cohen, who testified last week that Trump personally saw — and approved — the document's contents.
People's 35 looks a little complicated, but I promise this won't hurt a bit. Go ahead, scroll through it, just to see what it looks like, and I'll meet you on the other side, where we'll take it apart.
A bank account statement with Michael Cohen's name on it and various sections highlighted in different colors.
People's Exhibit 35 Manhattan District Attorney's Office/BI
As you can see, People's 35 is a one-page bank statement from October 2016 for something called "Essential Consultants," an LLC controlled by Cohen.
The highlights, but not the handwriting, are mine.
It may not look like a lot, but I bet you when prosecutors found this hardcopy sheet of paper among hundreds of thousands of pages of subpoenaed Trump Organization documents, somebody shouted, "Holy @#$%!!!!"
People's 35 encapsulates almost the entirety of the alleged hush-money-conspiracy. It has almost everything, and all on one page.
The block I've colored turquoise shows Cohen wired $130,000 of his own money to a lawyer for porn star Stormy Daniels on October 27, 2016, just 11 days before the election.
That, for anyone who's sleeping through the trial, is the hush money.
The green block? That's where Cohen scribbled that Trump owes him $180,000, which is the hush money plus a $50,000 outlay Cohen previously made. (That "TECH SERVICES" outlay is a funny story of its own, which we'll get to.)
And the yellow block shows where Trump's former top money man, ex-CFO Allen Weisselberg, scratched out how much Cohen was owed. Weisselberg then worked out how that total would be (allegedly illegally) doubled to account for income taxes and how that grand total would then be (allegedly illegally) reimbursed.
>And which side wins will depend in large part on whether jurors believe key prosecution witness Michael Cohen, who testified last week that Trump personally saw — and approved — the document's contents.
- That's a bit of a hyperbole - there's plenty of other hard evidence not dependent on Cohen that strongly suggests that Trump knew of, approved of and believed it to be politically beneficial for him to execute a series of fraudulent transactions to facilitate an illegal scheme to pay off a porn star he solicited sex from cheating on his pregnant wife.
- This additional evidence is:
- **(1)** Trump Organization's recent CFO testifying under oath that the handwriting on the key document is unequivocally Weisselberg's, and that he executed the details of those payments based on direction by Weisselberg. (Ie it's not just Cohen corroborating the financial details of the payoff.)
- **(2)** Audio recording of Trump being intimately familiar with the illegal scheme and directing low level technical details of it.
- **(3)** Testimony by Trump friend David Pecker that acknowledged the payoff, who helped facilitate it, and who testified, under oath, that Trump was the sole beneficiary of the scheme.
- **(4)** Numerous Trump employees testifying to Trump's extreme micromanaging leader style and miser principles - he once cashed a $0.35 check as a billionaire, but despite that, Trump signed 12 very unusual checks paying Cohen $35,000 per month, without Trump ever asking any of his employees what those checks were for.
- **(5)** The Trump Organization's accountant testifying that the legal department of the Trump Organization has never been notified of the supposed "legal expenses" to the tune of $420,000.
- **(6)** The deafening silence of two key witnesses (Trump's CFO and Trump's bodyguard) that could corroborate Trump's version of events and could counter sworn testimony of the prosecution's witnesses.
- There are murder trials that resulted in a guilty verdict with far less hard evidence & circumstantial evidence...
I appreciate you offering these bits of hopeful information to soothe my anxiety as I watch the downfall of the union happen in real time.
Not sarcasm.
Thank you for the well thought out response. It’s hard to keep track of everything thrown at us. Its always hard and surprising to know what others will decide, but, like you, it hopefully seems like the truth will come out and be judged on
The lawyers are going to control the jury room. It’ll be Interesting to see which one of the two becomes the foreman, and which one will becomes the leader of the room.
My guess would be the civil litigator, for obvious reasons. I think that just the makeup of the jury, and the jurisdiction/demographics, just kind of doom Trump here (in addition to the evidence).
I also think a guilty verdict will have zero effect on polling.
I've heard that about Trump, I just don't believe it, honestly.
In all sincerity, do you? I think it would reduce turnout for him, but at this point, I think everyone is just so completely bought in that Trump really, truly could shoot someone in cold blood, and it wouldn't matter.
I think it won’t affect Trump’s core base of supporters, but it very likely could hurt him with independents who aren’t paying attention to politics. These people are going to start to tune in to the campaigns here in a few months, and I expect the Biden campaign (and opposition republicans) to absolutely hammer Trump if he is convicted. Will it be effective? I’d guess probably, but we’ll just have to see
I’m really fascinated by Trump’s effect. I have two uncles in a very red midwestern state, both of whom voted straight GOP forever, but both of whom were pretty reasonable.
One of them split the party, and won’t come back. Likes Joe Biden, reluctantly votes Democratic now for President and still some GOP for more local races.
The other thinks Trump is a buffoon, but doesn’t see him as changing anything the GOP does or is about. Still the party of “personal freedom and low
Taxes”
Juror #2
Juror #2 is a man who works in investment banking and lives with his wife in New York. He said he follows Michael Cohen, Trump's former lawyer and a key witness in the case, on social media, as well as Trump's Truth Social posts. He said he pays attention to "anything that might be able to move the markets I need to know about."
[ All juror info](https://www.cbsnews.com/news/trump-trial-jurors-new-york-hush-money/)
Okay, who reads the NY Post and the WaPo? It is a really strange pair of publications. Definitely when compounded with the WSJ which has the same lean as the post but a completely different target audience.
Ha. Originalism is a rhetorical trick to align one’s political ideology with legal philosophy.
It’s cloaked in the aura of legitimacy because it’s essentially an “appeal to tradition”, which tends to work on people.
There may very well be a consistent originalist philosophy, but the point is that the most conservative members of the court are extremely inconsistent in their application, and they tend to “find history” that simply agrees with their political perspective -
So when I say “Supreme Court style originalist”, I’m really implying a philosophy of: “I’ll do whatever I want and then make up some holier than thou excuse that my hands are tied by pure philosophy and it’s not my fault.”
Agree 100%. Scalia used originalism to claim he could somehow divine what the founding fathers intended vis-a-vis the second amendment. Which is patently absurd.
A lot of people blindly fall in line behind perceived authority figures (for good or bad).
One of the lawyers, as a foreman, could make sure they stick to their instructions and the law.
The lawyers will have the air of authority simply by being lawyers. Even if they know nothing about criminal law they will be perceived as knowledgeable. This is why I NEVER put lawyers on my juries if I can help it.
Actually, my skepticism is that all 12 could get together on this to deliver the required unanimous verdict. Two lawyers can deliver another 10 you think?
IMO The thought is that laypeople on the jury will offer some deference to others who are/seem to be more knowledgeable or well informed on certain details. Not suggesting that they would simply tune out, but one expects a lawyer to be able to refocus jury deliberation/argument on the key points at issue and how they relate to the charges, rather than wasting time arguing points which may ultimately not be material to the outcome of the case.
The prosecution will explain it. And don’t discount the intelligence of jurors. My experience is they usually get it right.
Source: retired court reporter
Next: Cohen's handwriting, highlighted in green, from the bottom right corner.
A section of People's Exhibit 35.
Manhattan District Attorney's Office/BI
Here is where Cohen testified he made a jotted note of another personal outlay Trump owed him for, on top of the $130,000 and the wiring fee of $35.
This was a reimbursement for $50,000 paid to the Virginia tech company RedFinch Solutions LLC.
RedFinch did polling for the Trump campaign and set up the Twitter account @WomenForCohen, touting him as a so-called "pit bull" and "sex symbol."
"He told me to add up the 130 with the 50,000 for RedFinch — total it to 180,000," Cohen testified Monday, referring to a talk he said he had with Weisselberg before the two men marched People's 35 into Trump's office.
Cohen never reimbursed RedFinch for the whole $50,000, he testified.
On Thursday there was this little bit of testimony from Cohen. Cohen was mentioning that he did work for The Apprentice. Blanche then (stupidly?) asked about where income from The Apprentice went. Did it go to Trump org or to Trump, personally? Cohen’s off the cuff answer was that he would have no idea.
The attorney didn’t even react and just moved on.
Furthermore, there is almost casual discussion, multiple times, led, even, by the defense questioning, of how Cohen did personal work for this person, that person, and he got paid out of corporate funds. He doesn’t even know if The Apprentice income was for the corporation, he just did what the boss told him.
He isn’t the money mastermind. The defense has actually helped make that case. And the defense has casually just chatted about breaking financial rules to suit the boss, whenever.
If I was a bettin' man, I'd bet with a good forensic accountant, a prosecutor could easily file dozens more charges on Trump org.
It's all fraud all the time. Up until now since it's being monitored.
But I'm saying it's even worse. Ok so people fail. And some people failed many times. But to be a serial failure and not pay taxes, not pay full interest on loans, not pay full premium on insurance, not pay business partners their agreed upon cut, not pay contractors in full.... It's like he is worst than a failure. He is an incompetent criminal business flop who couldn't succeed even if he cuts every single corner possible.
And yet he became president. Like that actually happened.
He's the Bizzarro American Dream. Being an awful person, awful to those less fortunate, awful and unfaithful to his wives, awful to women in general, awful businessman, awful ethics and morals from his professional to his personal life, awful diet, awful gaudy taste, no sense of humor, awful children, awful parents, just awfulness all around....and he continues to fail up.
He's some level of proof to maga that "they can do it too!" even if they're as big of a loser as they are. He's the literal 'best' loser of all time. It's sickeningly twisted what he's come to represent to some of these folks. He's living proof that they're not out of touch.
> If I was a bettin' man, I'd bet with a good forensic accountant, a prosecutor could easily file dozens more charges on Trump org.
>
> It's all fraud all the time. Up until now since it's being monitored.
Vance's office was investigating Trump for the criminal version of the scheme to defraud that Tish James ended up getting him on, but indicting wasn't in the cards without further documented proof of financial loss because Allen Weisselberg - the Trump Organization's longtime Chief Financial Officer who's literally the only person in a position close enough to Trump to know where all of Trump's financial bodies are buried - was unwilling to flip on Trump; the D.A. even went after his kids & he still proved a loyal fall-guy who'll stay criminally loyal for pay no matter what the sentence is. A lot of the evidence that Pomerantz & Dunne uncovered which Bragg determined wouldn't be enough to sustain the charges beyond a reasonable doubt still helped James satisfy her mere preponderance of the evidence.
And let's don't forget about the [$100 million tax fraud case](https://www.propublica.org/article/trump-irs-audit-chicago-hotel-taxes)
There's some shady shit going on with the PAC money being used to pay $60 million so far in legal bills.
A judge made aware to the IRS and another group to investigate what your talking about. They have been slow though so who knows what happening with that.
Absolutely, but he's got enough to hold him over for a while. FL Documents, GA Election, DC Jan6th, AZ Election, MI Election, a few more civil cases and the $100 million Tax Fraud.
I think they are overstating the importance, but the doc does lay out everything. The "retainer" checks signed by Trump are also important. Other documents too.
Agree the whole case doesn’t hinge off of one document.
The documents, all of them, backed up by multiple testimony and Trumps own admissions, tell a story. Defense has no story and pokes no holes.
The fact that Trump is begging his friends in Congress to help shows that he knows he’s screwed.
I look for a conviction and jail time after Memorial Day.
The weird part of this is that the defense offers no plausible alternative to WHAT this money was for. “It’s not for Stormy, it’s for Cohen’s legal services” - is that really the defense? No one is trying to prove Cohen did any legal services and no one can. Without the services and a contract to boot, there’s no rational reason to invent this idea. Further - no one has invented an incentive for Cohen to blow his own legal services tab on Stormy Daniels.
The money went from Trump to Weisselberg, to Cohen, to Stormy.
There’s no narrative from the defense on why Cohen didn’t just keep all the money for himself.
*from the article People's 35 is the fulcrum for the entire case. As they make their closing arguments this week, prosecutors are sure to say it proves Trump is guilty, while the defense will say it proves he's innocent. And which side wins will depend in large part on whether jurors believe key prosecution witness Michael Cohen, who testified last week that Trump personally saw — and approved — the document's contents. People's 35 looks a little complicated, but I promise this won't hurt a bit. Go ahead, scroll through it, just to see what it looks like, and I'll meet you on the other side, where we'll take it apart. A bank account statement with Michael Cohen's name on it and various sections highlighted in different colors. People's Exhibit 35 Manhattan District Attorney's Office/BI As you can see, People's 35 is a one-page bank statement from October 2016 for something called "Essential Consultants," an LLC controlled by Cohen. The highlights, but not the handwriting, are mine. It may not look like a lot, but I bet you when prosecutors found this hardcopy sheet of paper among hundreds of thousands of pages of subpoenaed Trump Organization documents, somebody shouted, "Holy @#$%!!!!" People's 35 encapsulates almost the entirety of the alleged hush-money-conspiracy. It has almost everything, and all on one page. The block I've colored turquoise shows Cohen wired $130,000 of his own money to a lawyer for porn star Stormy Daniels on October 27, 2016, just 11 days before the election. That, for anyone who's sleeping through the trial, is the hush money. The green block? That's where Cohen scribbled that Trump owes him $180,000, which is the hush money plus a $50,000 outlay Cohen previously made. (That "TECH SERVICES" outlay is a funny story of its own, which we'll get to.) And the yellow block shows where Trump's former top money man, ex-CFO Allen Weisselberg, scratched out how much Cohen was owed. Weisselberg then worked out how that total would be (allegedly illegally) doubled to account for income taxes and how that grand total would then be (allegedly illegally) reimbursed.
>And which side wins will depend in large part on whether jurors believe key prosecution witness Michael Cohen, who testified last week that Trump personally saw — and approved — the document's contents. - That's a bit of a hyperbole - there's plenty of other hard evidence not dependent on Cohen that strongly suggests that Trump knew of, approved of and believed it to be politically beneficial for him to execute a series of fraudulent transactions to facilitate an illegal scheme to pay off a porn star he solicited sex from cheating on his pregnant wife. - This additional evidence is: - **(1)** Trump Organization's recent CFO testifying under oath that the handwriting on the key document is unequivocally Weisselberg's, and that he executed the details of those payments based on direction by Weisselberg. (Ie it's not just Cohen corroborating the financial details of the payoff.) - **(2)** Audio recording of Trump being intimately familiar with the illegal scheme and directing low level technical details of it. - **(3)** Testimony by Trump friend David Pecker that acknowledged the payoff, who helped facilitate it, and who testified, under oath, that Trump was the sole beneficiary of the scheme. - **(4)** Numerous Trump employees testifying to Trump's extreme micromanaging leader style and miser principles - he once cashed a $0.35 check as a billionaire, but despite that, Trump signed 12 very unusual checks paying Cohen $35,000 per month, without Trump ever asking any of his employees what those checks were for. - **(5)** The Trump Organization's accountant testifying that the legal department of the Trump Organization has never been notified of the supposed "legal expenses" to the tune of $420,000. - **(6)** The deafening silence of two key witnesses (Trump's CFO and Trump's bodyguard) that could corroborate Trump's version of events and could counter sworn testimony of the prosecution's witnesses. - There are murder trials that resulted in a guilty verdict with far less hard evidence & circumstantial evidence...
I worry that the chance of 12 American jurors figuring this out approaches zero.
[удалено]
I hope they’re not Supreme Court style originalists.
[удалено]
I appreciate you offering these bits of hopeful information to soothe my anxiety as I watch the downfall of the union happen in real time. Not sarcasm.
[удалено]
How do you feel it’s going so far?
[удалено]
Thank you for the well thought out response. It’s hard to keep track of everything thrown at us. Its always hard and surprising to know what others will decide, but, like you, it hopefully seems like the truth will come out and be judged on
So you think trump will ever testify??
So he's either Dewey, Chetum, or Howl
The lawyers are going to control the jury room. It’ll be Interesting to see which one of the two becomes the foreman, and which one will becomes the leader of the room. My guess would be the civil litigator, for obvious reasons. I think that just the makeup of the jury, and the jurisdiction/demographics, just kind of doom Trump here (in addition to the evidence). I also think a guilty verdict will have zero effect on polling.
[удалено]
I've heard that about Trump, I just don't believe it, honestly. In all sincerity, do you? I think it would reduce turnout for him, but at this point, I think everyone is just so completely bought in that Trump really, truly could shoot someone in cold blood, and it wouldn't matter.
I think it won’t affect Trump’s core base of supporters, but it very likely could hurt him with independents who aren’t paying attention to politics. These people are going to start to tune in to the campaigns here in a few months, and I expect the Biden campaign (and opposition republicans) to absolutely hammer Trump if he is convicted. Will it be effective? I’d guess probably, but we’ll just have to see
[удалено]
I’m really fascinated by Trump’s effect. I have two uncles in a very red midwestern state, both of whom voted straight GOP forever, but both of whom were pretty reasonable. One of them split the party, and won’t come back. Likes Joe Biden, reluctantly votes Democratic now for President and still some GOP for more local races. The other thinks Trump is a buffoon, but doesn’t see him as changing anything the GOP does or is about. Still the party of “personal freedom and low Taxes”
They'll move their personal goalposts when he appeals and say that he's not convicted until the appeal is over.
#7 can help explain it to the non-lawyers in the form of The Puzzler.
and the crime was done under the INKY BLACKNESS of night!
Didn’t Juror#2 say he got his news from X and truth social?
Juror #2 Juror #2 is a man who works in investment banking and lives with his wife in New York. He said he follows Michael Cohen, Trump's former lawyer and a key witness in the case, on social media, as well as Trump's Truth Social posts. He said he pays attention to "anything that might be able to move the markets I need to know about." [ All juror info](https://www.cbsnews.com/news/trump-trial-jurors-new-york-hush-money/)
Okay, who reads the NY Post and the WaPo? It is a really strange pair of publications. Definitely when compounded with the WSJ which has the same lean as the post but a completely different target audience.
Alito in a wig and Thomas with a stick on goatee
Or insurrectionists
> originalists An originalist would accept that fraud to obtain political office is illegal. They'd have to be something far worse.
Ha. Originalism is a rhetorical trick to align one’s political ideology with legal philosophy. It’s cloaked in the aura of legitimacy because it’s essentially an “appeal to tradition”, which tends to work on people. There may very well be a consistent originalist philosophy, but the point is that the most conservative members of the court are extremely inconsistent in their application, and they tend to “find history” that simply agrees with their political perspective - So when I say “Supreme Court style originalist”, I’m really implying a philosophy of: “I’ll do whatever I want and then make up some holier than thou excuse that my hands are tied by pure philosophy and it’s not my fault.”
Agree 100%. Scalia used originalism to claim he could somehow divine what the founding fathers intended vis-a-vis the second amendment. Which is patently absurd.
Yes it is.
Even the self proclaimed originalist aren't true originalist. They wouldn't be allowed to sit on the court, or be lawyers or own property or vote .
“Why do we care if he did it? He is a land-owning white male. The Constitution clearly states…”
I hope one of those 2 is the foreman
[удалено]
A lot of people blindly fall in line behind perceived authority figures (for good or bad). One of the lawyers, as a foreman, could make sure they stick to their instructions and the law.
The lawyers will have the air of authority simply by being lawyers. Even if they know nothing about criminal law they will be perceived as knowledgeable. This is why I NEVER put lawyers on my juries if I can help it.
Why does that matter?
[удалено]
Actually, my skepticism is that all 12 could get together on this to deliver the required unanimous verdict. Two lawyers can deliver another 10 you think?
IMO The thought is that laypeople on the jury will offer some deference to others who are/seem to be more knowledgeable or well informed on certain details. Not suggesting that they would simply tune out, but one expects a lawyer to be able to refocus jury deliberation/argument on the key points at issue and how they relate to the charges, rather than wasting time arguing points which may ultimately not be material to the outcome of the case.
That’s true. The social psychology of the jury room is interesting. Having two lawyers there will really change things.
Doesn’t mean they’ll vote appropriately
The prosecution will explain it. And don’t discount the intelligence of jurors. My experience is they usually get it right. Source: retired court reporter
Something that the 99% of us could never hope to accomplish. America, we have to talk about your runaway billionares problem.
When they make the movie of this “People’s 35” would be a good title.
So cohen made the wire and wrote that trump owns him money on the same piece of paper?
There's a picture of the invoice in that article.
Yes. About a wire payment made. And a written text about 50k to someone for tech service.
Next: Cohen's handwriting, highlighted in green, from the bottom right corner. A section of People's Exhibit 35. Manhattan District Attorney's Office/BI Here is where Cohen testified he made a jotted note of another personal outlay Trump owed him for, on top of the $130,000 and the wiring fee of $35. This was a reimbursement for $50,000 paid to the Virginia tech company RedFinch Solutions LLC. RedFinch did polling for the Trump campaign and set up the Twitter account @WomenForCohen, touting him as a so-called "pit bull" and "sex symbol." "He told me to add up the 130 with the 50,000 for RedFinch — total it to 180,000," Cohen testified Monday, referring to a talk he said he had with Weisselberg before the two men marched People's 35 into Trump's office. Cohen never reimbursed RedFinch for the whole $50,000, he testified.
So he lied to Trump about claiming the 50k for red finch?
Liar lies to liar about lie. Shocking I know!
On Thursday there was this little bit of testimony from Cohen. Cohen was mentioning that he did work for The Apprentice. Blanche then (stupidly?) asked about where income from The Apprentice went. Did it go to Trump org or to Trump, personally? Cohen’s off the cuff answer was that he would have no idea. The attorney didn’t even react and just moved on. Furthermore, there is almost casual discussion, multiple times, led, even, by the defense questioning, of how Cohen did personal work for this person, that person, and he got paid out of corporate funds. He doesn’t even know if The Apprentice income was for the corporation, he just did what the boss told him. He isn’t the money mastermind. The defense has actually helped make that case. And the defense has casually just chatted about breaking financial rules to suit the boss, whenever.
If I was a bettin' man, I'd bet with a good forensic accountant, a prosecutor could easily file dozens more charges on Trump org. It's all fraud all the time. Up until now since it's being monitored.
And yet he still fails in business... Think about that.
Trumps SEC filing, prepared by his lawyers disclosing all his bankruptcies and failures https://imgur.com/gallery/hAfsLqQ
But I'm saying it's even worse. Ok so people fail. And some people failed many times. But to be a serial failure and not pay taxes, not pay full interest on loans, not pay full premium on insurance, not pay business partners their agreed upon cut, not pay contractors in full.... It's like he is worst than a failure. He is an incompetent criminal business flop who couldn't succeed even if he cuts every single corner possible.
I got it. And I agree! Trump is the greatest failure ever!
Many people are saying it! *accordian hands* We all know it to be true!
I even had a bigly university, but the radical demonrats ruined that too. They're destroying this great country!
And yet he became president. Like that actually happened. He's the Bizzarro American Dream. Being an awful person, awful to those less fortunate, awful and unfaithful to his wives, awful to women in general, awful businessman, awful ethics and morals from his professional to his personal life, awful diet, awful gaudy taste, no sense of humor, awful children, awful parents, just awfulness all around....and he continues to fail up. He's some level of proof to maga that "they can do it too!" even if they're as big of a loser as they are. He's the literal 'best' loser of all time. It's sickeningly twisted what he's come to represent to some of these folks. He's living proof that they're not out of touch.
We all know the reason. He said he loves Jesus. That's enough for 30% of Americans.
> If I was a bettin' man, I'd bet with a good forensic accountant, a prosecutor could easily file dozens more charges on Trump org. > > It's all fraud all the time. Up until now since it's being monitored. Vance's office was investigating Trump for the criminal version of the scheme to defraud that Tish James ended up getting him on, but indicting wasn't in the cards without further documented proof of financial loss because Allen Weisselberg - the Trump Organization's longtime Chief Financial Officer who's literally the only person in a position close enough to Trump to know where all of Trump's financial bodies are buried - was unwilling to flip on Trump; the D.A. even went after his kids & he still proved a loyal fall-guy who'll stay criminally loyal for pay no matter what the sentence is. A lot of the evidence that Pomerantz & Dunne uncovered which Bragg determined wouldn't be enough to sustain the charges beyond a reasonable doubt still helped James satisfy her mere preponderance of the evidence.
And let's don't forget about the [$100 million tax fraud case](https://www.propublica.org/article/trump-irs-audit-chicago-hotel-taxes) There's some shady shit going on with the PAC money being used to pay $60 million so far in legal bills.
A judge made aware to the IRS and another group to investigate what your talking about. They have been slow though so who knows what happening with that.
$100 million. https://www.propublica.org/article/trump-irs-audit-chicago-hotel-taxes
There was also some federal crime too.
And should do so.
Absolutely, but he's got enough to hold him over for a while. FL Documents, GA Election, DC Jan6th, AZ Election, MI Election, a few more civil cases and the $100 million Tax Fraud.
Here’s hoping it’s enough to take down the Hitler rising.
I think they are overstating the importance, but the doc does lay out everything. The "retainer" checks signed by Trump are also important. Other documents too.
Agree the whole case doesn’t hinge off of one document. The documents, all of them, backed up by multiple testimony and Trumps own admissions, tell a story. Defense has no story and pokes no holes. The fact that Trump is begging his friends in Congress to help shows that he knows he’s screwed. I look for a conviction and jail time after Memorial Day.
The weird part of this is that the defense offers no plausible alternative to WHAT this money was for. “It’s not for Stormy, it’s for Cohen’s legal services” - is that really the defense? No one is trying to prove Cohen did any legal services and no one can. Without the services and a contract to boot, there’s no rational reason to invent this idea. Further - no one has invented an incentive for Cohen to blow his own legal services tab on Stormy Daniels. The money went from Trump to Weisselberg, to Cohen, to Stormy. There’s no narrative from the defense on why Cohen didn’t just keep all the money for himself.