Trump prosecutors are not there yet

I admit I have not been following the Trump trial closely, not reading the transcripts. The time put in won’t justify the result, I think, and I am already on record as to the outcome.

On April 30, I made the wise-guy but sincere prediction on Facebook you see above.

It was my way of saying some covert MAGA person would get on the jury and vote to acquit, no matter what. The jury would break 11-1, creating a mistrial. 

I now think it could be 10-2, or even 9-3.

Why?

I have been reading newspaper accounts, but leaning heavier on the three Big Three cable outlets — Fox, MSNBC, and CNN, listed in the order of their audience, largest to smallest.

On Fox, generally speaking, nothing has been proven. On MSNBC Monday night, everything is a “smoking gun,” in the words of Rachel Maddow. She sees a gun, I see a pee-shooter. CNN’s panels are overwhelmingly anti-Trump, but the network always has a Trump asshat advocate.

Monday’s Big Reveal was that ex-con and proven perjurer Michael Cohen, colluded with ex-con and former Trump CFO Allen Weisselberg, and future felon ex-President Donald J. Trump to pay porn actress Stormy Daniels to keep her mouth shut, something she does not do in her films.

There is a dispute as to whether Trump shagged Daniels. She says yes, he says no, but it is immaterial, as shtupping  a woman (even without a condom, she alleges) is not illegal. Immoral and a health risk, maybe, but not a crime.

And neither is the “hush money,” which is materially no different than Non Disclosure Agreements which many companies, such as the Philadelphia Inquirer,  force departing employees to sign as they leave if they want to take a pile of cash with them. 

Now, I could not write that previous paragraph, which is critical of the Inquirer, without getting sued — and in fact the Inquirer did sue me for breech of that NDA which prohibited any negative mention of the paper, its policies, its employees.

Long story short, it dropped its retaliatory and bullshit lawsuit against me, and deleted the gag order language from my contract, and everyone else’s. So we are all free to offer fair criticism. 

Point being, “hush money” is an SOP business practice.

Next point: Trump wrote it off as “legal expenses” because he was paying back Cohen, who had fronted the money. 

Could you not really call the payoff a “legal expense”? Sure, maybe a stretch, but someone on the jury will buy that, I think.

I mentioned the Inquirer’s  suit against me was retaliatory. My opinion, of course, but it followed my defamation suit against the Inquirer and architecture critic Inga Saffron. All I will say about that is this: I won, and the Inquirer sued me about three years after I sued it, as my case was heading to the jury. 

And for that case, as I remember, I bought lunch for my lawyers and paid their parking as they were working on contingency.

Was lunch a “legal expense”? 

I think it was, but unlike some people I could name, I don’t cheat on my taxes and didn’t write it off.

Trump is charged with disguising that payment as a legal transaction, and he falsified business records.

You already have my opinion on the former, and as to the latter — this is a felony? 

No doubt Trump’s lawyers will manage to introduce that D.A. Adam Bragg pumped up the charge from a misdemeanor to a felony, and used the law as it has never been used before.

That may not be factually germane to the case, but might influence a juror or two who, like me, don’t like Trump, but don’t like what’s called lawfare either.

Even if the prosecution proves Trump falsified business records, I stick with my prediction: He won’t be convicted.

Here’s another one: Bragg won’t seek a retrial.