I believe it is still the fact that admitting to paying off Ms Daniels is different than the money coming from his checking acct.

That is, his business paid her off and he considers his business to be himself. Legally, that's not true.

You're not right about what the NY case is about.

CW is actually correct about the case, but there are more details.

Yes, it's not a hush money case b/c there's nothing illegal about paying someone after the fact to keep an affair quiet.

The two aren't mutually exclusive. It's both a hush money case and a fraud case... a conspiracy to defraud the people.

As far as
"Trump gamed the system to suppress bad news about him which could have influenced how people voted." ~ CW

That's exactly what he did. He also entered into a conspiracy to promote himself over all of his other opponents.

No! How is that a violation in NYS?

* Campaign Receipts and Expenditures, Violations; Penalties New York Election Law Section 14-126

also

17-152. Conspiracy to promote or prevent election. Any two or more persons who conspire to promote or prevent the election of any person to a public office by unlawful means and which conspiracy is acted upon by one or more of the parties thereto, shall be guilty of a misdemeanor.

New York Election Law, Section 17-152 (2016)

NY went for Biden. NY experienced no tort.

It appears to me you are confusing damages for civil tort with violations of criminal law (and not for the first time on this forum). If Trump had conspired with someone to kill multiple persons to suppress their stories rather than entering into a conspiracy to "catch and kill" their multiple stories, would he not be guilty of conspiracy to commit murder because he didn't win the State of New York? Not succeeding in New York doesn't erase the violation of multiple laws of the State of New York.

To the extent that election interference was involved that might affect other states, that's a federal matter up to the (toothless) FEC to adjucate.

People can (and do) commit election interference without being successful, and it makes it no less a violation of criminal statute whether they succeed or they failed.

Trump did not pay hush money to Stormy Daniels.

Two of his personal lawyers admit that he did. Guiliani admitted on live television that Trump "funneled it through a law firm," and Cohen admits he paid it with the funds from a HELOC at the direction of Trump and was reimbursed by Trump. There's also a nondisclosure agreement, but Trump apparently never signed it. Trump himself (on live television) admitted to paying it:

Later on I knew. Later on. What he did — and they weren't taken out of the campaign finance, that's the big thing. That's a much bigger thing. Did they come out of the campaign? They didn't come out of the campaign, they came from me.

~ Donald Trump on Fox News, August 2018

That's what this case is about. Had he done so, there would be no case.

He did so and admitted to doing so, and there's definitely a case.

He used his business to pay her off and the business wrote it off as an expense.

Are you aware that Trump's lawyers are arguing that Trump's reimbursement checks to Cohen were not unlawful because Trump "cannot be said to have falsified business records of the Trump Organization by paying his personal attorney using his personal bank accounts."?

The SEC may not have clout with the current judiciary, but the Truth Social investors are the same people who fund things like the Federalist Society.

YEah, well, this whole article was speculative... a journey into Make-Believe Land...

:-)

-CW

I will check that article out, and that is a rather extensive list!

:-)

-CW

I am interested, since you are being so precise...

Why do you think the feds didn't go after Trump after he was out of office for the same thing? After all, they had already convicted Cohen of it, and Trump was named an "unindicted co-conspirator" in that case... so why didn't the feds pursue it when they could (after he was out of office)? Your points are valid, but they wouldn't even be an issue if Trump was being tried in federal court for the same thing... the damage then would have been to the whole country, not just to NY.

Merrick's timidity? Or something else?

-CW

Yes, it's not a hush money case b/c there's nothing illegal about paying someone after the fact to keep an affair quiet.

As far as
Trump gamed the system to suppress bad news about him which could have influenced how people voted.

No! How is that a violation in NYS? NY went for Biden. NY experienced no tort. To the extent that election interference was involved that might affect other states, that's a federal matter up to the (toothless) FEC to adjucate.

Trump did not pay hush money to Stormy Daniels. That's what this case is about. Had he done so, there would be no case. He used his business to pay her off and the business wrote it off as an expense.

Simply put.
1. NYS was deprived of tax revenue. NYS frowns on such behavior.
2. Large financial institutions (read: executive and donor class) in NYS were deprived of revenue. NYS frowns at that.

NYS goes after either of those. Put them together and the State goes "balls out," always.

* Ben Carson left sponge inside patient's brain
* Bernie Sanders caught in "child sex probe"
* Marco Rubio photographed at "man fest foam party"
* Ted Cruz "raging alcoholic"
* Ted Cruz "five secret mistresses"
* Ted Cruz named in madam's "black book"
* Ted Cruz's father linked to JFK assassination
* Hillary Clinton 103 pounds, eating herself to death
* Hillary Clinton ill (multiple invented stories)
- 3 strokes
- Alzheimer's
- Liver damage from booze

While at the same time the conspiracy included promotion of Donald Trump through AMI publications.

David Pecker and Dyland Howard are witnesses for the prosecution regarding AMI.

Interesting reading from an employee of AMI:

https://www.nytimes.com/2024/04/03/magazine/national-enquirer-trump-lachlan-cartwright.html

Or, he might just as easily have won by a lot more than a relative handful of votes if the 'bad' news about him had come out. I mean, that isn't much of a stretch, you have to admit.

To put it differently, we might now be in a frenzy of horserace speculation about which Democratic candidate would be the nominee to succeed President Hillary Clinton, at the end of her second term.

Well, she might also have been a one-term president. I mean, it wouldn't have surprised me. So, there's that. Of course, in any event, my guy would never have ended up in the White House if Trump had lost in 2016, perhaps. So, there's that on top of that. :)