Yes, and your ilk helped him.
Avenatti considers testifying for Trump, calls trial ‘travesty’
- Thread starter volsrock
- Start date
Do you believe her?
Cohen was Trump's lawyer.
Dutch Uncle
* Tertia Optio * Defend the Constitution
^^^
Wow. Grok gets a clue. About 8 years out of date, but still a clue.
Why didn't Trump report the crime if an attempt was made to blackmail him?
Aren't you one of the people that claims there can be no crime if there is no victim?
Of course he did because there was... wait for it...
Clear evidence of a crime
which is what is needed to pierce attorney/client privilege. In the case of Trump, there was clear evidence that Trump didn't turn over the documents requested by a subpoena.
In the case of Trump being blackmailed, you have no crime reported to any authority and no evidence of that crime since Trump had Stormy sign an NDA which would pretty much negate any claim of a crime. What blackmailer would sign an NDA?
Cohen was Trump's attorney when they planned a crime together. Cohen went to jail for that crime.
That would be clear evidence of a crime in any thinking person's mind. Clearly you can't think.
ExpressLane
Verified User
And Aveninoti and Daniels were running a ...wait for it...blackmail scheme. That is why she all of a sudden years later threatened to take the affair to the public in the run up to the election. And blackmail is ....wait for it...illegal. She signed the NDA to get the money but that didn't stop her from revealing the affair did it? Now she makes more money from her book and interviews etc.
It makes no difference because the NDA was not a FEC violation.
Last edited:
ExpressLane
Verified User
Duh! Because he didn't want his wife or family to know about the affair. You aren't very smart are you?
ExpressLane
Verified User
Duh! Because he didn't want his wife or family to know about the affair. You aren't very smart are you?
Why did Stormy Daniels go to Trump instead of the newspapers if she wasn't shaking Trump down. She is a porno star there isn't much they won't do for money.
ExpressLane
Verified User
It is interesting that Avenotti and Cohen are both lawyers and are both proven liars.
The NDA is evidence that there was no blackmail. No blackmailer would sign an NDA.
The FEC violation was not the NDA. The violation was the illegal campaign contributions of paying women to keep them quiet. The National Enquirer also was guilty of an illegal campaign contribution when they bought and killed McDaniels' story.
Not only that, you have the evidence completely wrong. Stormy Daniels offered to sell her story to The National Enquirer. Pecker informed Cohen who approached Daniels to buy her story and sign an NDA.
There was no "pay up, Trump, or I will reveal the story" blackmail. There was an offer to buy the exclusive rights to her story and then they hid the story after they bought it.
Interesting how you admit there was no blackmail at the same time you claim there was blackmail.
If Trump paid Stormy to prevent his wife finding out then there can be no blackmail.
You are the one that isn't very smart.
OMFG. You really are this stupid, aren't you.
Cohen and Pecker came to an agreement that Pecker would alert Cohen if any woman approached The National Enquirer trying to sell a story about sex with Trump.
Daniels' lawyer contacted The National Enquirer to sell her story to them
Pecker contacted Cohen.
Cohen then negotiated a settlement with Daniels for exclusive rights to her story and had her sign an NDA in exchange for the $130,000.
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/poli...h-money-payment-to-stormy-daniels/ar-BB1lxwnS
Since Daniels did contact newspapers, are you willing to admit there was no blackmail?
QP!
Verified User
Excellent. The more people under oath the better.
Do you think Trump will testify as promised or will he weasel out the lying coward everyone knows him to be?
Trump is in a bit of a bind here.
the defense his team seems to want to push, is that "Trump was unaware Cohen was making these payments to Stormy and it was a scheme Michael did on his own out of some, perhaps, warped loyalty to Trump'.
It is a challenging defense for many factual reasons that Pecker and documents will show but beyond that, Trumps lawyers cannot introduce it as a defense if Trump does not take the stand and say it. His lawyers cannot simply say 'what Trump was thinking or knew or did not know' and only Trump himself can do that.
So if they stick with that defense, thinking it is their only chance to win that would mean they will put Trump in to testify. In which case...
Dutch Uncle
* Tertia Optio * Defend the Constitution
ExpressLane
Verified User
So you are taking the word of a PROVEN liar. Cohen has served time for lying. Man are you an idiot.
So do you think Trump wanted to conceal the alleged affair from his wife and family?
QP!
Verified User
I love that some Magats are so dumb that they think it is a defense to say Michael Pecker and the National Enquirer were known for spreading lies, as if that is a defense for Trump.
Yes they are known for spreading lies, which is why Trump was happy to work with them in his ongoing campaigns of Election interference.
As i have pointed out in another threat, Pecker will speak to a very organized campaign of ELECTION INTERFERENCE, going back to the PRE 2016 Primaries, where Trump engaged with Pecker and used the Enquirer to smear Ted Cruz, amongst others challenging Trump in those Primaries.
He will then speak to how once Trump was the nominee, they shifted to attacking Hillary,on Trumps behalf.
He will then speak to the "Catch and Kill' program where, in the run up to the election, it was agreed to with Trump, that the Enquirer would look for and engage with any women accusing Trump of wrong doing, and to get them to sign NDA in return for selling their stories exclusively to the Enquirer who would then never print them. This happened with more than just one woman.
He will also speak to how the National Enquirer lawyers became nervous about that, saying the paying off of the women could be seen as an illegal campaign contribution and how they had to let Trump and his team know, which then lead to MIchael Cohen having to make those payments and the false accounting records to hide it, that Trump then had to have his team do.
So what is the defense that Trump will NEED to push and hope the jury believes instead?
That the National Enquirer just bought and buried stories, without his knowledge out of good will?
That Cohen just mortgaged his house out of warped loyalty and he, Trump, did not know?
Meanwhile they have recordings and documents showing Trump involved at every stage.
Ya good luck with that Donald.
Yes they are known for spreading lies, which is why Trump was happy to work with them in his ongoing campaigns of Election interference.
As i have pointed out in another threat, Pecker will speak to a very organized campaign of ELECTION INTERFERENCE, going back to the PRE 2016 Primaries, where Trump engaged with Pecker and used the Enquirer to smear Ted Cruz, amongst others challenging Trump in those Primaries.
He will then speak to how once Trump was the nominee, they shifted to attacking Hillary,on Trumps behalf.
He will then speak to the "Catch and Kill' program where, in the run up to the election, it was agreed to with Trump, that the Enquirer would look for and engage with any women accusing Trump of wrong doing, and to get them to sign NDA in return for selling their stories exclusively to the Enquirer who would then never print them. This happened with more than just one woman.
He will also speak to how the National Enquirer lawyers became nervous about that, saying the paying off of the women could be seen as an illegal campaign contribution and how they had to let Trump and his team know, which then lead to MIchael Cohen having to make those payments and the false accounting records to hide it, that Trump then had to have his team do.
So what is the defense that Trump will NEED to push and hope the jury believes instead?
That the National Enquirer just bought and buried stories, without his knowledge out of good will?
That Cohen just mortgaged his house out of warped loyalty and he, Trump, did not know?
Meanwhile they have recordings and documents showing Trump involved at every stage.
Ya good luck with that Donald.
QP!
Verified User
/ExpressLaneStupiditySo you are taking the word of a PROVEN liar. Cohen has served time for lying. Man are you an idiot.
Mobsters and guys like Trump can only be credible accused by people involved in his crimes who are credible church goers who never engaged in any crimes. You cannot use fellow mobsters to indict a mobster. You cannot use other bank robbers to nail a bank robber. No criminal via being a criminal can be a witness.