Take our user survey and make your voice heard.
Former U.S. President Trump's criminal trial on charges of falsifying business records continues in New York
Former U.S. president and Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump arrives at Manhattan Criminal Court to attend his trial for allegedly covering up hush money payments linked to extramarital affairs in New York, U.S., April 22, 2024. ANGELA WEISS/Pool via REUTERS Image: Reuters/ANGELA WEISS
world

On first day of Trump hush money trial, prosecutors say he corrupted 2016 election

69 Comments
By Jack Queen, Luc Cohen and Andy Sullivan

New York prosecutors said on the first day of Donald Trump's criminal hush money trial that the former president broke the law and corrupted the 2016 election by trying to cover up sexual encounters with a porn star and a Playboy model, while his defense lawyer said he committed no crime.

Jurors in the historic trial also heard briefly from the prosecution's first witness: former National Enquirer publisher David Pecker, who prosecutors say participated in a "catch and kill" scheme to suppress unflattering stories about Trump and help him get elected.

In the first-ever trial of a former U.S. president, Trump is charged with falsifying business records to cover up a $130,000 payment to porn star Stormy Daniels in 2016 to keep quiet about a sexual encounter she says they had 10 years earlier. Trump has pleaded not guilty and denies the encounter took place.

Prosecutors portrayed the payment as a criminal effort to deceive voters at a time when Trump was facing other accusations of crude sexual behavior.

"This was a planned, coordinated, long-running conspiracy to influence the 2016 election, to help Donald Trump get elected through illegal expenditures to silence people who had something bad to say about his behavior,” prosecutor Matthew Colangelo said. “It was election fraud, pure and simple."

Colangelo told the jury that they would hear Trump working out the details of the scheme in recorded conversations and see an extensive paper trail to back up the testimony of witnesses.

Trump's lawyer told the jury that the former president did not commit any crimes and said Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg should not have brought the case.

"There’s nothing wrong with trying to influence an election. It’s called democracy. They put something sinister on this idea, as if it’s a crime,” Trump lawyer Todd Blanche said.

Wearing a blue tie and dark blue suit, the Republican presidential candidate watched the court proceedings and occasionally spoke to his lawyer. A Secret Service agent wearing an earpiece sat directly behind him.

The lawyers made their opening statements in what may be the only one of Trump's four criminal prosecutions to go to trial before his Nov 5 election rematch with Democratic President Joe Biden.

The case is seen by many legal experts as the least consequential of the Trump prosecutions, based on facts that have been public since 2018. A guilty verdict would not bar him from taking office, but it could hurt his candidacy.

Reuters/Ipsos polling shows half of independent voters and one in four Republicans say they would not vote for Trump if he is convicted of a crime.

Before proceedings got under way, Trump called on his supporters to peacefully protest nationwide, but few greeted him when he arrived at the downtown Manhattan courthouse. Trump blamed security restrictions for the poor turnout, though the surrounding streets were open to the public.

Trump faces three other criminal indictments stemming from his efforts to overturn his 2020 election defeat and his handling of classified documents after leaving the White House in 2021.

Trump has pleaded not guilty in those cases, and he portrays all of them as a broad-based effort by Biden's Democratic allies to undercut his campaign. With the 2024 election in full swing, Trump now must juggle courtroom appearances and campaign rallies.

Trump has pleaded not guilty to 34 counts of falsifying business records. Prosecutors say he falsified checks and invoices to disguise $420,000 in payments to his personal lawyer Michael Cohen as legal services, when in fact they were meant to reimburse him for paying off Daniels.

Colangelo said those payments were part of a broader pattern by Trump, Cohen and Pecker to tamp down other unflattering stories and help him defeat Democrat Hillary Clinton.

According to prosecutors, Pecker agreed during an August 2015 meeting with Trump and Cohen to act as the campaign's "eyes and ears" by looking out for negative stories about Trump.

“Pecker was not acting as a publisher, he was acting as a co-conspirator,” Colangelo said. Pecker has not been charged with a crime.

American Media, which published the National Enquirer, in 2018 admitted that it paid $150,000 to former Playboy magazine model Karen McDougal for rights to her story about a months-long affair with Trump in 2006 and 2007. American Media said it worked "in concert" with Trump's campaign, and it never published a story.

The tabloid reached a similar deal to pay $30,000 to a doorman who was seeking to sell a story about Trump allegedly fathering a child out of wedlock, which turned out to be false, according to prosecutors.

Trump has said the payments were personal and did not violate election law. He has also denied the affair with McDougal.

Cohen's credibility as a witness is likely to be a crucial aspect of the trial, which could last six to eight weeks. He has pleaded guilty and served prison time on federal campaign-finance charges related to his role in the scheme.

"He has a goal - an obsession - with getting Trump,” Blanche said, adding that Cohen had lied under oath in other cases. “I submit to you that he cannot be trusted.”

Trump has criticized Cohen and others involved in the case, including prosecutors, Justice Juan Merchan and his daughter.

Merchan has imposed a limited gag order and will consider on Tuesday whether to penalize Trump for violating that order.

Pecker, 72, is also expected to retake the stand on Tuesday.

© Thomson Reuters 2024.

©2024 GPlusMedia Inc.


69 Comments

Comments have been disabled You can no longer respond to this thread.

Colangelo told the jury that they would hear Trump working out the details of the scheme in recorded conversations and see an extensive paper trail to back up the testimony of witnesses.

There you go. It's not just Cohen's word or the prosecutor's claims. They gave recorded conversations.

There’s nothing wrong with trying to influence an election. It’s called democracy. They put something sinister on this idea, as if it’s a crime,” Trump lawyer Todd Blanche said.

Lol what? There can absolutely be something wrong with trying to "influence an election." I don't think anyone would be okay with foreign countries donating millions to a candidate.

Also, I wish the story would have mentioned that the above statement by Trump's attorney was objected to and that objection was sustained.

13 ( +18 / -5 )

Huh?

They are denying that Trump won that election fair and square, just like he denied that he lost the 2020 one?

Who is better than who here?

-11 ( +9 / -20 )

"catch and kill" scheme to suppress unflattering stories about Trump and help him get elected.

Haha, then I remembered the Hunter Biden laptop :)

Who is better than who?

Americans should have an election.

-7 ( +10 / -17 )

Pecker testify against Trump,you cannot make this stuff up

3 ( +8 / -5 )

Sure, playing around with a porn star is not the best of decisions but this trial is not about elections yet here with are.

Political bias at work?

-11 ( +7 / -18 )

They are denying that Trump won that election fair and square, just like he denied that he lost the 2020 one?

No.

Who is better than who here?

I don't know. It's tough to say. Probably not the one, you know, doctoring records to illegally interfere in an election?

Haha, then I remembered the Hunter Biden laptop :)

Haha I remember Biden doctoring business records to conceal illegal campaign contributions in excess the law. Oh, wait, that didn't happen.

Who is better here? It sure is hard to tell. ;)

9 ( +16 / -7 )

They are denying that Trump won that election fair and square, just like he denied that he lost the 2020 one?

No, big difference. They are claiming that Trump committed a crime with the intention of influencing the election, and it is being tried before a jury and follows the verdict of a grand jury. Trump, by contrast, made wild accusations that the election was stolen but failed to provide any evidence.

Haha, then I remembered the Hunter Biden laptop :)

Hunter Biden was not running for election, his laptop was obtained criminally and there was nothing of consequence on it.

Two successive posts, both employing egregious examples of false equivalency. You won't convince anyone here with that approach.

15 ( +19 / -4 )

There’s nothing wrong with trying to influence an election. It’s called democracy. They put something sinister on this idea, as if it’s a crime,” Trump lawyer Todd Blanche said.

Having an affair and paying them to stay quiet is not illegal!

Lying about campaign finances and tax evasions are illegal which is part of his corruption of the 2016 election.

That is what Trump is being charged with and the prosecution will attempt to prove!

13 ( +18 / -5 )

The case is seen by many legal experts as the least consequential of the Trump prosecutions

But by no means inconsequential. His co-conspirator, Michael Cohen, was sent to prison for his role as Trump's henchman. There is a reasonable expectation that Trump will too.

It is just that the other cases are much, much, more serious.

10 ( +14 / -4 )

Reuters/Ipsos polling shows half of independent voters and one in four Republicans say they would not vote for Trump if he is convicted of a crime.

Some serious numbers there. A lot riding on these trials.

Trump going to need a good supply of nappies.

8 ( +13 / -5 )

It is illegal in America to give money,and gain a government benefit,they have Trump on some tapes and FBI tapes on discussion of the fraud, foreigners in America we have laws,laws that are statues in legal doctrine,they are no political

0 ( +8 / -8 )

@fxgai: Americans should have an election.

We did, and those that believe in US electoral systems and the US legal system know that Biden won, and that the previous president lost, and also know that the gross Bible hawker and his followers tried to use fraudulent tactics, along with an attempted coup to convince themselves that they won, but many of those also believe that aliens firing lasers from UFO's start wildfires.

7 ( +12 / -5 )

Trump is about to be undone, in part, by a faithless Pecker.

Karma it seems, has a wry sense of humor.

11 ( +16 / -5 )

We have money laundering laws in America,it a crime were dirty money in cleanth up to look legitimate and not part of criminal activity,most bank teller are taught to report suspicious transactions

-8 ( +3 / -11 )

The case is about a $130,000 payment made ostensibly not to reveal details of a sexual liaison.

How that payment was classified and reported is making up the bulk of the other charges.

In a sane society this attempt to embarrass and hurt an individual politically wouldn’t even be an issue.

-17 ( +4 / -21 )

In a sane society this attempt to embarrass and hurt an individual politically wouldn’t even be an issue.

Nonsense. The $130,000 payment was well in excess of legal limits.

One liking Trump does not justify Trump being allowed to wantonly break the law.

10 ( +14 / -4 )

Kur,you have know knowledge of American law, Trump is being charged under NY statutory criminal law,the judge if he felt Trump trial was political,he would of stop the trial and had the state lawyer under disbarment and other statutory fines

-3 ( +4 / -7 )

Paying hush money isn’t a crime.

a state can’t prosecute a federal election.

total waste of time and money on this weak case.

-21 ( +5 / -26 )

We have recordings of Trump and others talking about the “scheme”!!

Calling something scheme…doesn’t make it a crime. See the trial of Democrat John Edwards as precedent.

Friedland noted that alleging a campaign finance rules violation was a "novel" approach to bringing criminal charges in Edwards' case, and that it remains so today.

"It isn't a well-established violation of criminal law," he said.

-19 ( +5 / -24 )

Paying hush money isn’t a crime.

This isn't a hush money case.

This is a case where Trump paid Stormy Daniels money in excess of the campaign limits, and then he doctored numerous documents to hide that fact.

total waste of time and money on this weak case.

It is not a "weak" case. They've got Trump on recording. It's also not a waste of time. A shocking thing for the right to claim considering how seriously they take election integrity. ;)

13 ( +17 / -4 )

“Trump blamed security restrictions for the poor turnout, though the surrounding streets were open to the public.”

Was it raining?

11 ( +15 / -4 )

Calling something scheme…doesn’t make it a crime. See the trial of Democrat John Edwards as precedent.

Not a "precedent" for one. Also, the two cases of different. Trump's "hush money" payment happened a decade after the affair. Not so with John Edwards.

5 ( +10 / -5 )

Trump is a complete garbage thinking money will save him...dont get how half of US population can support him.

13 ( +17 / -4 )

It about structuring the money for purpose to defraud the state,they should of brought money Laundering charges and charged under NY RiCO Statutory law

0 ( +5 / -5 )

They are denying that Trump won that election fair and square, just like he denied that he lost the 2020 one?

Hillary conceded defeat the day after the 2016 election

8 ( +10 / -2 )

This trial will have more comedy than all the late-night shows put together...

We'll have daily does of Dozing Donald going into Dreamland...then when he wakes up calling Biden 'Sleepy Joe"....

When he takes the stand, we'll be treated to more entertaining MAGA-onomatopoeia; "Bing", "Hiss", "Boom", "Buzz", "DING!"...

We'll see Trump turn four different shades of orange as tapes are played showing him, Cohen, and Pecker conspiring to capture and kill these stories...

Melania may actually turn up in person, then pull a brick out of her purse and start to pummel him...

Get ready for the MAGA-circus...

7 ( +9 / -2 )

A guilty verdict would not bar him from taking office, but it could hurt his candidacy.

Free press generated out of NYC?

-13 ( +2 / -15 )

New York prosecutors said on the first day of Donald Trump's criminal hush money trial that the former president broke the law and corrupted the 2016 election by trying to cover up sexual encounters with a porn star and a Playboy model, while his defense lawyer said he committed no crime.

This is what is has come down to, when politically deficient, inadequacy, the ability to challenge at the ballot box, to democratically, take your policies to the people, attempt to remove the candidate with a shameless and politically corrupt use of the judicial system.

The thought of another Trump presidency is just too appalling to bear liberal establishment to contemplate.

I am referring, to quote Guardian columnist Simon Jenkins

They favour federal government, identity politics, social liberalism and free trade. They are led by a college-educated, liberal establishment

A large amount of the abuse that Trump attracts from his critics disappointingly relies on raw snobbery. It comprises attacks on his dress, his manners, his vulgar houses and his coarse turn of phrase.

-14 ( +1 / -15 )

How is it possible to have 12 ordinary people, like you or me, who read the news daily to be “unbiased” about a popular figure, in particular Trump. It’s impossible. I don’t understand how the naive idealism of the jury-making decision could survive until this day.

-9 ( +3 / -12 )

Pecker is Trump's grubby Achilles heel that will hurt the most and persuade the jury of his guilt in defrauding voters to grab the presidency by foul means.

8 ( +10 / -2 )

Corey

How is it possible to have 12 ordinary people, like you or me, who read the news daily to be “unbiased” about a popular figure, in particular Trump. It’s impossible.

Maybe for some. But some people can be completely unbiased. And because it requires all 12 to convict or acquit, then justice will be served.

I don’t understand how the naive idealism of the jury-making decision could survive until this day.

Because it is neither naive nor idealistic.

6 ( +8 / -2 )

It looks like the witnesses called by the Prosecution will be a parade of current and former Trump employees;

Former associates of Donald Trump, look out—the Manhattan District Attorney’s Office is lining up witnesses as his hush-money trial is set to begin.

Rhona Graff, Trump’s former assistant, and Madeleine Westerhout, his former director of Oval Office operations, are expected to testify in the trial, ABC News reported Monday, citing anonymous sources. They will join Hope Hicks, the former White House communications director and onetime aide to Trump, who has already testified before a grand jury investigating Trump’s interference in the 2020 election.

In addition, Deborah Tarasoff, a former employee in the Trump Organization’s accounting department, as well Jeffrey McConney, the organization’s onetime controller, will likely be called to testify. They all join the most well-known name on this list: Michael Cohen, Trump’s former fixer and personal attorney.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/trump-hush-money-case-got-203827665.html

So that's at least six former Trump employees or associates who know Trump and what he did VERY WELL...

They better ban ketchup from the courtroom or it's going to get messy....ROFL...

7 ( +9 / -2 )

Maybe for some. But some people can be completely unbiased

Some. Right. Some.

And because it requires all 12 to convict or acquit, then justice will be served.

That also is very naive. Imagine the bullying when you, as a juror, have an opinion differing from everyone else. Imagine the pressure to conform to the view of the others. Again please remember, these are ordinary people, not court justices. This system is so bogus.

-10 ( +2 / -12 )

Trump was integral in election fraud by paying hush money using money for the election. Now, if he'd paid using personal money, it might be legal.

Everyone has a bias. We all know it. The people who claim they can set aside that bias, listen to the evidence, weigh the laws involved and provide a judgement they can sleep with after the trial - those are the people we'd all want on our juries, assuming we weren't guilty.

Trump, just needs 1 of them to refuse to convict, so as long as 1 person on the jury was a closet fan, Trump will walk.

We all know that Trump is guilty of so many worse things than using campaign funds to pay hush money. There is so much proof of what a terrible human that person is, just thinking about him being in power ever again churns my stomach. I can only hope there is truth, wrath of god justice for his lifetime of evil. But that's a different discussion.

7 ( +8 / -1 )

Again please remember, these are ordinary people, not court justices. This system is so bogus.

So how do you suggest alleged criminals are dealt with?

10 ( +10 / -0 )

Do you seriously for a moment believe such disrespect for the US electorate, will simple go unnoticed in November?

To weaponize the Judicial process in such a blatant abuse will not have repercussions?

Is fear for the democrats that Joe Biden second term relies upon Donald Trump removal from the democratic process in such a manner will not provoke a backlash?

-11 ( +0 / -11 )

Justice on earth is inevitably reduced to a performance in a courtroom. The evidence as displayed and argued with by the most persuasive performers of either the prosecution or defense will have to suffice to overcome all but the most egregious and dishonest bias of judge and jury.

2 ( +3 / -1 )

it’s not a hush money trial!!’

Article title: “On first day of Trump hush money trial…”

first sentence: New York prosecutors said on the first day of Donald Trump's criminal hush money trial…”

somebody better clue in your media that it’s not. Cause paying hush money isn’t a crime.

-17 ( +0 / -17 )

Article title: “On first day of Trump hush money trial…”

It’s not a "hush money" trial. I really don't care what the title of the article is. There is a world of difference between a "hush money" payment, and an illegal campaign contribution, which is what this is really about.

Cause paying hush money isn’t a crime.

Yes. We know. But illegal campaign contributions are a crime.

8 ( +10 / -2 )

What's Trump's greatest fear from this trial? Jail? Fine? Humiliation?

Nope - it's Melania walking into the courtroom carrying a golf club...

11 ( +11 / -0 )

So how do you suggest alleged criminals are dealt with?

As near as possible by professional court justices. As in Japan.

Remember, the jury system was likely started in America when the jury members did not have such news access to the person on trial. ( Consider internet! )

-14 ( +0 / -14 )

Corey

So how do you suggest alleged criminals are dealt with?

As near as possible by professional court justices. As in Japan.

Not necessary. Because the jury doesn't have to interpret the law, they only need to determine thfacts and apply the law as they are instructed to.

Simple.

(And I wouldn't be using Japan as a beacon of justice. It is so much worse than the US.)

11 ( +11 / -0 )

US politics is corrupt to the core. Every policy is driven by dodgy dealings and cash donations. Dont hate the player, hate the game.

-13 ( +1 / -14 )

Who is going to be the most deadly witness for Trump at this trial?

That's a tough question - two of the Trump Org financial experts, the Controller and an Accountant, will testify that Trump gave directions to conceal the reimbursement of Cohen's payments to Stormy on the financial records...that will be devastating. Couple that with Pecker testifying that he, Trump, and Cogen concocted the catch and kill scheme to influence the election and it's game over.

But I happen to think Karen McDougal's testimony that she had a two-year affair with Donald could be the last straw for Melania. Stormy was a cheap one-night stand - McDougal was a two-year relationship...that's too much humiliation even for Melania.

In addition to 4 criminal trials and numerous civil ones, throw in a very messy "divorce" trial also...

11 ( +11 / -0 )

US politics is corrupt to the core. Every policy is driven by dodgy dealings and cash donations. Dont hate the player, hate the game.

Now this is very, very true. 100% correct!

-13 ( +1 / -14 )

Not necessary. Because the jury doesn’t have to interpret the law

Right. So we’re back to the issue of bias. And they (jurors) are likely full of it.

And as for Japan, well America has the Supreme Court in which matters of great importance are left to them. Japan just starts that consideration earlier.

In a matter like this, I am reminded again that it’s ridiculous for a group of people of no expertise to decide

-12 ( +0 / -12 )

Now we understand what this case is all about. Election interference.

Only in MAGA can prosecuting a man for election interference be seen as election interference.

10 ( +10 / -0 )

Proving a hush money payment was made seems to be the prosecution focus.

thats not a crime. How can a state prosecute a federal election?

-13 ( +1 / -14 )

There can absolutely be something wrong with trying to "influence an election." I don't think anyone would be okay with foreign countries donating millions to a candidate.*

Indeed, yet Israel lobby groups donate ( and own) a whole bunch of US politicians apparently. Biden reportedly received over $ 11 million over the years.

www.theguardian.com/us-news/2024/jan/10/congress-member-pro-israel-donations-military-support

-11 ( +1 / -12 )

Proving a hush money payment was made seems to be the prosecution focus

Nope. That is incorrect. Repeating the same incorrect thing doesn't make it true.

They're quite clearly focused on proving the payment was made to buy Stormy Daniel's silence during an election to conceal it from voters, and then doctored documents to hide that fact.

He's toast, and the only people saying otherwise a deliberately refusing to look at the facts.

11 ( +12 / -1 )

“Reuters/Ipsos polling shows half of independent voters and one in four Republicans say they would not vote for Trump if he is convicted of a crime.”

Of a crime. Not of paying hush money.

And of course that’s only if the trial is seen as “fair” and the verdict as “just”. Otherwise more people vote for Trump.

-13 ( +1 / -14 )

“Former associates of Donald Trump, look out—the Manhattan District Attorney’s Office is lining up witnesses as his hush-money trial is set to begin.

Rhona Graff, Trump’s former assistant, and Madeleine Westerhout, his former director of Oval Office operations, are expected to testify in the trial, ABC News reported Monday, citing anonymous sources. They will join Hope Hicks, the former White House communications director and onetime aide to Trump, who has already testified before a grand jury investigating Trump’s interference in the 2020 election.”

What a great lineup of false witnesses.

-10 ( +1 / -11 )

It’s election interference via failure to record business transactions as required by federal AND state election and tax law.

That’s the crime and the charges.

But keep flailing away about hush money payments, which Trump supposedly didn’t authorize (even though he was at the meeting and signed the checks) for sex he supposedly didn’t have (Yeah, the world’s biggest deadbeat paying 3x the payment in fees and taxes for sex he didn’t have, lol).

We can all use a giggle in the morning.

9 ( +9 / -0 )

What a great lineup of false witnesses.

Hey now, just because they are Republicans doesn’t mean they don’t deserve the benefit of the doubt :)

10 ( +11 / -1 )

Hmmm..in NYC...

Would you prefer if this was prosecuted in, say, Florida, or Georgia?

8 ( +9 / -1 )

required by federal AND state election and tax law.

yep federal law for federal elections and state law for state elections.

how does state law apply to a federal election? The DOJ and the Federal Election Commission found no wrong doing here.

-17 ( +0 / -17 )

It’s election interference

True! And the Dems have no compunction about it either.

via failure to record business transactions as required by federal AND state election and tax law. 

Yawwn, is that all they got? This is the weakest out of all the weaker cases.

That’s the crime and the charges. 

The judge and Bragg? Well, that's obvious!

But keep flailing away about hush money payments, which Trump supposedly didn’t authorize (even though he was at the meeting and signed the checks) for sex he supposedly didn’t have (Yeah, the world’s biggest deadbeat paying 3x the payment in fees and taxes for sex he didn’t have, lol).

I am just astounded that the Dems are so, so scared of this guy that have to waste everyone's time with these sham political trials because they are scared to death that they can't beat this man.

This was a mic drop.

https://youtu.be/vXJCEV6uKCU?si=DobH3_3XGBWkp0Ug

We can all use a giggle in the morning.

Oh, absolutely!!

-16 ( +1 / -17 )

Elections are in November, so we shall see.

Yes!

-13 ( +0 / -13 )

Of a crime. Not of paying hush money.

And of course that’s only if the trial is seen as “fair” and the verdict as “just”. Otherwise more people vote for Trump.

Our MAGA-friends here giving us a lesson in disingenuousness...

Daily they yell "paying hush money is not a crime"....and daily they are provided evidence that it was the coverup, not the payment, that was the crime...

"The district attorney’s office will also use Trump’s own words. Trump’s own words will help establish his intent to unlawfully influence the election. A 2016 audio recording shows that Cohen ran the hush money payment arrangements by Trump, including the amount and method of the payment and the need to open a company to make it. The recording demonstrates not only Trump’s knowledge of the payments, but also his concern that personal information (like divorce records) not be disclosed before the election: “All you’ve got to do is delay.”

Moreover, Trump initially denied knowing about the hush money payments when they were first reported — a provable lie. Only after law enforcement searched Cohen’s premises — and Trump realized he would be caught — did Trump acknowledge that he knew about the payments and had reimbursed Cohen for them. Trump’s lie exhibits his consciousness of guilt. Why would he lie if he thought he did nothing wrong?"

https://www.yahoo.com/news/opinion-trump-own-words-may-121205976.html

But keep the daily fantasy alive - it just shows your desperation and despair...

9 ( +9 / -0 )

If someone doesn’t get paid hush money but still helps a candidate interfere in an election for their own future business or employment considerations-is it a conspiracy?

Jack Dorsey and 51 intelligence officials and numerous leftist media figures would like to know.

-16 ( +0 / -16 )

Michael Cohen was found guilty in a federal court of campaign finance violations over the hush money payments to Stormy and McDougal. This was way back in August of 2018.

There is no question that Trump will be found guilty as well, especially considering all of the newer and more incriminating evidence that will be presented.

9 ( +9 / -0 )

A former president, a NY lawyer and a porn star, and it’s the porn star who has much higher morals and is more believable than the other two.

12 ( +13 / -1 )

Michael Cohen was found guilty 

which would mean HE did a crime, not anyone else.

-18 ( +0 / -18 )

which would mean HE did a crime, not anyone else.

It will definitely blow your mind, a crime can be committed by more than one person.

7 ( +7 / -0 )

He did nothing illegal.

He’s got nothing to worry about then.

Of course you and your ilk you already have your excuses ready so it doesn’t matter either way really.

11 ( +11 / -0 )

which would mean HE did a crime, not anyone else.

Right, that makes total sense. Michael Cohen who didn't sleep with Stormy Daniels, and who wasn't running for president, concocted the idea of taking out a HELOC to pay Stormy Daniels on behalf of his client Donald J Trump, who did have an affair with her and was running for president.

It also means he doctored all of Trump's documents to conceal this illegal campaign spending. Yes, very believable.

10 ( +10 / -0 )

the prosecution maybe can prove he did some of this but they cant prove it’s illegal.

the prosecution maybe can prove he did some of the crimes but they cant prove it’s illegal.

7 ( +9 / -2 )

BlacklabelToday  12:12 pm JST

Meanwhile… Trump was just awarded another 1.25 billion dollars in stock and his bond was found valid

With an actual value of 1 dollar (off he’s lucky) when the lockout period ends. Lol

Such a business genius, lol.

11 ( +11 / -0 )

I'm not surprised if evidence was found that he corrupted the 2016 election, had the truth of his dirt been exposed beforehand he would have never won the 2016 election. As for the 2020 election we already know the story where he claims it as rigged when it was he himself who was trying to rig it. And in 2024 will he be locked up and disqualified or will he try to rig this one too and get disqualified at that point?

10 ( +10 / -0 )

Articles, Offers & Useful Resources

A mix of what's trending on our other sites