Hush Money Verdict

 

 

Shake it Off 

'Cause the players gonna play, play, play, play, play
And the haters gonna hate, hate, hate, hate, hate
Baby, I'm just gonna shake, shake, shake, shake, shake
I shake it off, I shake it off (hoo-hoo-hoo)
Heartbreakers gonna break, break, break, break, break
And the fakers gonna fake, fake, fake, fake, fake
Baby, I'm just gonna shake, shake, shake, shake, shake
I shake it off, I shake it off (hoo-hoo-hoo) 

And I guess pundits gonna tout, tout, tout, tout, tout 

I admit to being a tout myself but unlike pundits, I know that a single event like a jury verdict is random and can not be determined. Still I can't resist the opportunity to make a prediction, to tout, the verdict of that little trial in NYC.   

Did Trump have an affair with Stormy Daniels, nee Stephanie Clifford?   I admit to benefiting from the testimony of Ms. Daniels.  I could not understand the context of the transaction before, but I did after that testimony.  It is no more an "affair" than E. Jean Carroll had a "affair" with Donald Trump.  It was a sexual encounter, not an affair. 

Did DJT benefit from Stormy Daniels not disclosing this before the election?  Almost certainly, and the testimony of Hope Hicks was that this was the reason for the payment. 

Was a transaction with Stormy Daniels even too sleazy for the National Enquirer, and if so how sleazy must that be 😆  and was any transaction to "catch and kill" a campaign contribution? That was David Pecker's testimony. 

Was Stormy Daniels paid for her silence and did this happen before the election?  Yes. That is the testimony of Michael Cohen and confirmed by corroborating evidence. 

Did DJT falsify business records to hide this transaction?  Yes, but after the election. 

Is this falsification of business records a misdemeanor under NY law and not the felony as charged?  Unfortunately, IMHO, yes.  The falsification happened after the election, and the statue of limtaions on any misdemeanor has passed, so it was technically not a campaign contribution and thus I expect the jury to find DJT "Not Guilty" as charged. 

Will DJT lie, er...present the "alternate fact",  that a finding of "Not Guilty" (or a hung jury) is a finding of "Innocence"? DJT did after his two impeachments.  He did after his E. Jean Carroll criminal rape trial.  He claimed after the Supreme Court's Colorado opinion that he was found innocent of insurrection.  But just as speed is not acceleration, "Not Guilty" is NOT "Innocence". A "Not Guilty" verdict only means that the law as charged was not violated and as Dickens said long ago, "The law is an idiot.  An ass" 

This means that DJT might win in this Court of Law, but hopefully the testimony has meant that he lost in the Court of Public Opinion, and his strategy of delay, running out the clock, only works if he also wins in the Court of Public Opinion.  

IOW, DJT may have won the battle, but he lost the war. Get ready for bad things in November.  But DJT's behavior in the NYC tabloids years ago was Bob Gale's inspiration for Biff Tannen in Back to the Future.  And remember that had a happy ending. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xvacBzZtYag