We have had two days of testimony from the editor of the National Enquirer telling about how he bought negative stories about Donald Trump and then did not publish them.
If nobody else has figured this out, what this guy is testifying to is damaging politically to Trump, but there is literally nothing "unlawful" about buying stories from people and not running them.
For all practical purposes, the the National Enquirer is basically entering into a type of non-disclosure-agreement when they pay someone for the rights to the story. Basically that agreement simply prevents the person with the story from providing the information to anyone else. They are agreeing to non-disclosure so that the National Enquirer would have all the rights to said story. If they choose not to run it, then nobody else can, either. These NDA are no more illegal than any other type of NDA.
Obviously Bragg is looking to gaslight the jury into believing that the idea of politicians burying negative stories is a crime, or in this case a "conspiracy" to commit a crime. But at this point we are not three degrees deep into this. The attorney bill is used to cover up the New York Law 17-152.
"Any two or more persons who conspire to promote or prevent the election of any person to a public office by unlawful means and which conspiracy is acted upon by one or more of the parties thereto, shall be guilty of a misdemeanor.”
Which requires Bragg not just to show a conspiracy to promote an election, but that it was done by "unlawful means". So to be guilty of the actual falsified business record offense, Trump must be proven guilty of violating New York Law 17-152. But to be guilty of that law, Bragg has to prove that Trump behaved unlawfully in buying stories or paying "hush money". The problem for Bragg is that there is simply nothing illegal about buying stories or agreeing to NDAs. This is a variation of the whole "corrupt intent" deal that prosecutors are throwing at Trump. He did not technically illegal, but his legal actions become illegal because he is Trump and because he had corrupt intent.
Now Bragg has not made that argument yet. That being said, I am not sure how he gets from point A to point C without making some sort of argument. If I am the defense in this situation, I would do little more than hammer on David Pecker (National Enquirer editor) about whether or not it is legal to buy stories and whether or not he has been previously charged with any crimes for doing so. We know Donald Trump is not the first person who probably paid the National Enquirer for a story. I would probably not engage or address the "nature" of those actions or defend them. I would just focus on the legality questions.
Bragg wants to make this about Donald Trump being unseemly or unethical, when in fact the only question that matters if is he was behaving in a legal manner.
As always, Alky is as clear as mud
halfbaked@yahoo.com
MESSAGE...
He did not technically illegal, but his legal actions become illegal because he is Trump
BTW, thanks to the top men, TOP MEN, in charge of Trump's persecution, err, prosecution, the dumb fucks are proceeding with a violation of NY election law, not Federal election law.
In court on Tuesday, Bragg’s prosecutors became a bit more transparent in arguing that this “other crime” is a New York election statute that contains a conspiracy provision. But the theory is ridiculous. The statute does not criminalize what Bragg claims Trump did — again, suppress politically damaging information. The invocation of it still calls for Bragg to enforce federal election law, which he has no jurisdiction to do. It is plainly intended for state elections because Congress enacted federal campaign law — which is not Bragg’s remit —…
Thomas Massie on X: "This is our adversary, and we’ve given him everything he’s asked for since Mike Johnson became Speaker. Pause." / X (twitter.com)