Search Posts

Laura, you know, you hit the nail on the head, the media doesn't focus on what, if any, crime there is here. There's salacious details on them and they're very interesting to some people. But you asked how could the case get this far? The answer to that is Judge Murchand. No normal judge would allow this case to go forward, just since the DA's office didn't think it should go forward when Mark Pomerance presented it. The question is, do we ever, do we really believe that for a candidate to want to either pay extortion money or hide some fact that may be unpleasant from the public, that that's really election interference, but the problem is we don't even know what they claim the charge is. We don't necessarily even get to the misdemeanor because that requires an intent to defraud with the way the thing was booked. You can be sure President Trump didn't direct how this was to be booked, but if you got to that, they then have to prove that he did that with the intent to commit some other crime. If the grand jury ever charging what that other crime is, it's impossible to defend. Let's say that through this witness, it's to cover up some salacious fact to help himself in the election. But another witness says, well, it's really a campaign finance violation. Another one says, no, it's really a tax violation. A defendant doesn't have to hit a moving target all of the time. I think today's testimony perfectly highlights what many of the problems are with this case. And by the way, would it be to advance a campaign if someone plagiarized and then covered that up? Or if somebody ruined a server that might have had embarrassing details on it and emails on it to promote a candidacy? Would those be illegal? Were they ever charged against any other candidate? Did you get the sense that they're just kind of almost given up over at the law practice of never Trump LLC? I mean, today really kind of took the cake for me. They never give up, Laura, and they never will give up no matter how many times they're slapped down. There was nothing in today's testimony that changed the underlying legal problems that I think Bragg is going to have or that changes the key facts in the case. And the key problem is it's not illegal, as you pointed out, it's not illegal to pay somebody money to catch and kill a story. It's not illegal to reimburse a publisher who pays that money. To convict Trump under the latest esoteric theory, you have to show that he conspired to promote his own election by unlawful means. But as we have pointed out, apparently the theory is the unlawful means was that they didn't report this or they were trying to stop from reporting this as a federal campaign expenditure. But as we know, that actually is not the federal campaign expenditure law. So I don't see any movement by them at all here. It's a very troubling case. Even if they get a conviction, I think it stands a chance of being reversed on appeal.

Transcribed automatically. Expect errors in names and numbers.

>> It dignifies this assault to even pretend that there is a legal theory here. The only legal theory a question is tried to throw Joe Biden's political opponent behind bars. That is it. So when you hear them say that democracy is on trial, they're right. Democracy is on trial. Freedom is on trial. The rule of law is on trial. All these things are on trial. They're on trial with Donald Trump. Because if Donald Trump is convicted- >> We're on trial, Steven. >> Are convicted and destroyed with him. >> Steven Miller, you and I are on trial. Every single person watching is on trial right now, cuz if they can do this to someone, they can do it to anyone. That's a coined phrase, but think about that.

Transcribed automatically. Expect errors in names and numbers.