Trump appears to have been done in by.......pardon the pun........

....a Pecker.

Not the oddly shaped one described by Stormy, his porn star paramour, the one he used to schtoink her. But rather his buddy Dave. Maybe former buddy?

One of the more uncomfortable things Dave testified to was his concern that catching and killing the Karen McDougal story might violate campaign finance law. He was so concerned he consulted a number of attorneys on the matter. When the prosecution asked him if after those conversations he concluded buying Karen's story would be a bad idea, he answered yes. Why?

Because in answer to a previous question..........."Were you aware that expenditures by a corporation made for the purpose of influencing an election at the request of a candidate are illegal?".......he similarly answered yes. Hmmmmmmmm.

No wonder he didn't want Trump, through Cohen, to reimburse him for the cash paid to Karen. No wonder when it came time to pay Stormy he refused. Which set in motion the process of Cohen setting up an LLC to hide the payments to Daniels for which Trump reimbursed him. And subsequently the falsified financial documents Bragg has charged Don with creating.

As an aside, I can't help feeling a little bad for Karen. She seems to be remorseful for her part in an adulterous affair and genuinely duped in to thinking Don cared for her and not just her vajayjay.

 

The catch and kill plan wasn't illegal. It happens all the time.

 

Pecker paid for the Karen MacDougal story. He did not pay for Stormy's story.

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2024/apr/25/trump-hush-money-trial-key-takeaways
Embarrassing stories, and who pays? Trump trial key takeaways, day seven

 

Schtoink? That's a new one. Is it a cross between schtup and boink?

As I said on another thread, I've heard the word "pecker" enough in the last few days to last me two lifetimes. Men . . .

 

Now all you need is evidence that any of that is illegal, which it isn't.

 

If this was illegal, then all the people involved in killing the Hunter laptop story are guilty of election interference, making illegal in-kind contributions and a large number of people violated the Hatch Act.

 

But the way it was paid for was.

 

What did Cohen do time for? BTW - apart from Dick Pics - what was on that laptop? RW wishful thinking?

 

OK put your hand up to be a witness for the defence at the trial

 

They prosecution needs a witness to testify to something criminal. So far a lot of testimony about stuff that mignt be unseemly and most of it isn't even unprecedented and none of it is illegal.

 

And your legal background is………

 

Prick seems to carry more correct connotations. The gifts of DFT that keep on giving. The man behind the Nat Enq is being described by MSNBC talking heads as Grandfatherly, personable and unapologetic. Dick Cheney was welcomed by Pelosi on the House floor a couple of years back. His daughter Liz is now seen by the left as a respectable voice of conservatism. All thanks largely to Donald Effing Trump. Oh, and women now are property of the state. Yay Maga.

 

Cohen was convicted in a Federal court of making an excessive campaign contribution. Now, explain how that makes Trump criminally liable at the state level.

What was in the laptop is irrelevant. A lot of people covered up the story to help Biden's campaign. Some of those people were government employees that lied about it. There were 50 former Intel officials that openly lied about the laptop's authenticity. That's a bunch of in-kind contributions and violations of the Hatch Act. Yeah, yeah...I know..."that differeeeeent".

 

How so? Explain.

 

Since you claim to be a lawyer, please explain how it's illegal.

 

It is if it is to help a campaign and isn't reported as a campaign contribution. Catch up.

 

Another person who hasn't even tried keeping up with the case.

 

Former National Enquirer publisher David Pecker testified that he believed Donald Trump had knowledge about the $150,000 contract to buy Karen McDougal's silence regarding an alleged year-long affair.

"Do you know if anyone else besides Michael Cohen had any knowledge of this contract?" prosecutor Joshua Steinglass asked.

"Yes, I believe Donald Trump did," Pecker responded.

"Was your principal purpose to suppress the story to prevent it from influencing the election?" Steinglass asked.

"Yes," Pecker said.

"Were you aware that expenditures by corporations made for the purpose of influencing an election made in coordination with or at the request of a candidate or campaign were unlawful?" Steinglass asked.
https://abcnews.go.com/US/live-upda...Pecker said.,were unlawful?" Steinglass asked.

The case the prosecution is building has yet to be dented by the defense.

 

When and how the repayment was structured and run through the companies is the felony WBK.

A bow on this pecker for you brah, if Agent Oranges had not stiffed Pecker on the McDougal NDA catch and kill, he would NOT have been in this situtiation brah. He stiffed Pecker and Pecker would not pony up another hand out.

See, he did this to himself, karma can be peckered out too.

Well, I'm peckered out..

 

If I have the details right I believe Pecker told Cohen he did not want reimbursement for the McDougal hush money payment because he was concerned about the illegality of doing so. Which resulted in Cohen being the one to pay Stormy and then subsequently getting reimbursed by the fat guy with orange hair and makeup.

 

How was it illegal? Because just saying "it was illegal" doesn't make it illegal. Y'all still haven't figured that out, bruh...lol

 

If Cohen was reimbursed, then that means Cohen didn't make a campaign contribution. Therefore, he was wrongfully convicted.

 

Ditto that.. But lots of material for comedy central.

 

Pecker said he had reason to be nervous about making the payment through AMI. He replied that the company had once bought a story from a woman with a story about Arnold Schwarzenegger while he was running for governor of California. She ended up going public anyway, and AMI was investigated by the authorities for potential campaign contribution violations, Pecker said.

While Pecker did not go into detail about the fallout from the Schwarzenegger story, he confirmed to prosecutors that AMI consulted with an election law attorney when they were considering paying McDougal for her story.

In the agreement AMI made with McDougal, the company included language that said she would be doing work for the company, writing a monthly column on ageing and fitness. The company wanted to make it seem like they had a “basis” for paying McDougal.

“I wanted the contract to be a record for the services that she was going to perform for American Media,” Pecker said.

The jury was shown records of the $150,000 payment, including an invoice from McDougal’s lawyer.

While AMI was on the verge of giving Cohen, and thus Trump, the rights to McDougal’s story for $125,000, Pecker said he ultimately backed out of the agreement after talking with lawyers. He would not say what they discussed, citing attorney-client privilege.

Cohen was “very, very angry, screaming basically” when the agreement was called off. He recalled Cohen saying, “I can’t believe it, I’m a lawyer, I’m your friend, I don’t understand why you’re concerned.” Ultimately, Cohen agreed to call off the agreement.
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2024/apr/25/david-pecker-testimony-trump-trial

 

you couldn't make up a story like this, no one would believe you - lol - National Enquirer, Pecker, covering up Trump affairs