"Show me the man, I'll show you the crime": Beria
A NDA in exchange for money is legal. The question is, was the money used to protect Trump family (legal), or the campaign (illegal)?
Cohen originally said the exchange was to protect Melania, not the campaign; thus, not a campaign finance violation. Cohen is a prolific liar, remember he had recanted so much previous testimony and committed perjury. Cohen is the DA's star witness, who is now saying, yes, it was to protect the campaign.
BUT: Cohen's former attorney, Costello, no longer bound by atty-client privilege, testified to the grand jury that Cohen repeatedly said the money was to protect Melania, not the campaign, and that Cohen acted on his own and not at the behest of Trump. Furthermore, Costello said that Bragg his from the grand jury docs that corroborated Cohen's original testimony.
So: Cohen was lying then, or he is lying now; or he could have been lying all alone. BUT, if Bragg is suppressing evidence that corroborates Cohen's original testimony that a) he paid Daniels without Trump knowing, and b) did it to protect melania and not the campaign, there is no 'there' in this case.
What I think: the DA wants Trump to plead out believing that he could win a trial. If the grand jury indicts, I believe Trump and his attorneys want to go to trial, especially if they can call Cohen and Costello to testify, and verify there is documentation that support's Cohen's original testimony.
I know a handful of lawyers, not many, but none of them see a case here based on what we know from the media.
Reply With Quote
Originally Posted by FromMyColdDeadHand
Bookmarks