Monday, 18 November 2024

The Trump Hush Money Trial JUST FLIPPED!


This is so good!

Today we got a classic Trump move in a game of 4D chess and it’s looking like the Teflon Don is going to beat ANOTHER one of these sham trials.

Allow me to explain….

Actually, I’ll let my friend Kevin Paffrath “MeetKevin” explain because he absolutely knocked it out of the park with this video.

If you find the so-called “Hush Money” trial hard to follow, you’re not alone.

It is confusing and not easy to understand.

But the video below will make it all clear for you.  Kevin does a great job of giving a quick summary of who the key players are and how we got here before he explains the huge new twist and turn we got today.

One thing I wanted to add to Kevin’s video, which will make more sense after you watch it, is that Michael Avenatti has recently gone on record saying he is ready to testify FOR Trump:

Michael Avenatti: ‘Ready To Testify For Trump’

So in terms of this just coming down to credibility between Donald Trump and Stormy Daniels, he could be the factor that tips the scales in Trump's favor.

But also I have heard rumors that Stormy Daniels herself may claim the entire thing never happened.

That would be the death knell to the bogus case.

After all, don't forget about this letter:

BOMBSHELL: Trump Posts Letter From Stormy Daniels on Truth Social

And the last thing I want to add is that Kevin thinks the prosecution will bring up Trump's other legal trials as character evidence.

Character evidence is not always so easily allowed, and the Trump Team could be successful in keeping that out.

In criminal trials, rules of criminal procedure and evidence typically restrict the admission of character evidence, which pertains to the likelihood of a person's conduct based on their disposition or character. The primary rule in the United States is governed by Rule 404 of the Federal Rules of Evidence, though state rules can vary somewhat while generally following the same principles.

Rule Against Character Evidence

Rule 404(a) states that evidence of a person’s character or character trait is not admissible to prove that on a particular occasion, the person acted in accordance with the character or trait. This rule is based on the principle that such evidence can lead to unfair prejudice, confuse the issues, or mislead the jury.

Exceptions to the Rule

However, there are significant exceptions to this general prohibition:

  • Defendant's Character in Criminal Cases:
  • Rule 404(a)(2)(A): A defendant may introduce evidence of their own pertinent trait, and if the defendant does so, the prosecution can rebut with evidence to the contrary.
  • Rule 404(a)(2)(B): If the defendant attacks the character of the alleged victim, the prosecution may introduce evidence to prove the victim's character trait and evidence of the defendant's same trait.
  • Character of Victim:
  • Rule 404(a)(2)(C): In homicide cases, the prosecution may offer evidence of the victim’s peaceful character to rebut evidence that the victim was the first aggressor.
  • Other Crimes, Wrongs, or Acts:
  • Rule 404(b): This rule provides that while evidence of a crime, wrong, or other act is not admissible to prove a person’s character in order to show action in conformity therewith, it may be admitted for another purpose, such as proving motive, opportunity, intent, preparation, plan, knowledge, identity, absence of mistake, or lack of accident. This exception is often invoked to show a pattern of behavior that is directly relevant to the crime charged, rather than merely to suggest a disposition to commit the crime.
  • Witnesses' Character:
  • Rule 608 and 609: These rules allow for the introduction of evidence concerning the character for truthfulness or untruthfulness of a witness as a means to bolster or attack the witness's credibility.
  • Ok, enough with all the legal mumbo jumbo....

    Let's get on with the video so you can see just how this thing flipped today.

    It's glorious.

    Watch here (and for those who always request it, I also have the full transcript for you below):

    Backup here if needed:

    FULL TRANSCRIPT FOR THOSE WHO PREFER TO READ:

    wow the Donald Trump strategy to defeat
    the hush money trial against him just
    got really interesting let's go through
    this first let me catch you off to speed
    my goal is to cover this entire trial
    I'm just going to give you a quick
    background so if you're already used to
    the background I'll put a little time
    stamp down below you could skip forward
    to the interesting part but let's just
    give you a little quick background we'll
    make it simple just so you know the
    names of people involved and what's
    going on so when you hear Alvin Bragg I
    want you to think district attorney when
    you hear Matt I want you to think the
    prosecutor he's the guy actually in the
    courtroom pound in the pavement for
    Alvin brag when you hear Leticia James
    think of a state of New York attorney
    general these names sometimes blend
    together so I'll add some reminders so
    keep in mind that this entire case is
    designed to paint what Donald Trump did
    as a criminal conspir iry and a coverup
    to influence the election now the Trump
    campaign's response to this is pretty
    remarkable already in their opening
    statement so we're going to hit that as
    far as some other names that are going
    to be important David pecker CEO of the
    company that owned the national Inquirer
    stormmy Daniels who signed a statement
    in 2018 January 30th 2018 stating she
    never had an affair with Trump but then
    she later said that wasn't her signature
    and then in a different case said that
    okay was her signature but she had no
    choice because she was uh forced to sign
    the statement via a non-disclosure
    agreement in exchange for accepting the
    $130,000 and felt like she had no choice
    to accept $130,000 so that'll come up
    that all relates to of course her
    allegations that the national Inquirer
    was thinking about taking public which
    then she recanted and kind of kept her
    story uh hushed up if you will because
    allegedly she made a deal with Trump
    you'll hear Todd blanch he's the Trump
    defense attorney now this guy is really
    interesting because he has a history of
    being a federal prosecutor in Manhattan
    which is interesting because now he's
    playing defense attorney in other words
    he used to be the guy working for
    Manhattan now he's the guy working for
    the defendants against Manhattan so it's
    kind of a really interesting flip-flop
    of a role he has limited experience as a
    defense attorney and he also helped Paul
    manord avoid avoid State charges of
    mortgage fraud so somehow hooked up with
    Donald Trump and here we are so the idea
    probably is that Trump's got a guy who
    used to work for the state and knows how
    they operate right that's the idea then
    you've got uh judge M I like to call him
    work judge M I call him judge M he's the
    justice of uh a Justice of the New York
    state supreme court in Manhattan he is
    not only presiding over the hush money
    trial but he also previously oversaw the
    5we trial against the Trump Organization
    for tax fraud which the Trump
    organization was convicted icted of 17
    counts he also oversaw the trial of
    Alan velber the former Financial chief
    of the Trump organization who plad
    guilty to a 15y yearlong tax fraud
    scheme judge am sentenced Allen to five
    months at Riker's Island all right then
    of course you've got to know Michael
    Cohen now here's another interesting
    character everybody's got an interesting
    kind of story because Michael C actually
    pled guilty to lying to Congress lying
    in court and lying to the media he
    actually went to prison he was sentenced
    to 3 years in prison and ordered to pay
    $50,000 and then got disbarred so he can
    no longer be an attorney he went to
    prison in 2019 and got out in 2021 so he
    spent Co in prison anyway this guy's
    like 57 years old at one point Donald
    Trump sued Cohen for breach of legal
    trust because of that audio recording
    against uh Donald Trump or that people
    are trying to use against Donald Trump
    I'll explain that in a moment uh and
    then of course he's now being used as a
    key witness against Donald Trump that's
    because of I'm not going to play the
    audio recording because I'll show you
    why Donald Trump's defense kind of
    messes all of that audio recording stuff
    off but basically there's this audio
    recording where Michael Cohen's like hey
    so I'm going to set up a shell company
    I'm going to make the payments to deal
    with the pecker issue that's the
    national inquire story referring to
    Stormy Daniels okay so that's really
    just just like a catchup of everything
    and Michael Cohen recorded that why he
    recorded that who knows but he did and
    you hear Trump kind of you know going
    along with it whatever okay none of that
    is necessarily wrong what's wrong is
    what the district attorney alleges and
    that's 34 counts of basically writing uh
    checks invoices and documenting items in
    like quick books like a ledger uh saying
    these are normal necessary and ordinary
    legal business expenses is that's what
    the Trump organization claims and the
    district attorney is claiming no those
    expenses were used to cover up something
    that the electing the voting public
    should have known of therefore not only
    did you lie about a business expense
    being a business expense which would be
    a misdemeanor but you used it to cover
    something else up and that rises to a
    classy felony which is the lowest form
    of a felony uh so the argument is you
    paid off Stormy Daniels through your
    family trust via Michael Cohen Cohen has
    admitted to such okay so what is the
    Trump defense and this is where things
    get really interesting so you just had a
    good little four minute-ish five
    minute-ish catch up on everything that's
    being uh alleged those 34 counts by the
    way come out of uh three different
    situations the payment to Stormy Daniels
    the deal with Karen McDougall and the
    30k payment to the doorman who alleged
    that Donald Trump fed a child out of
    wedlock okay there now we're fully
    caught up so today
    we started hearing opening statements
    and this is where we got a really
    interesting point of view from the Trump
    defense and that's what we've got to
    talk about uh first worth getting out of
    of the way that Matt the prosecutor
    suggested that Donald Trump is a penny
    pincher that he approves every invoice
    and that Trump never negotiated Cohen's
    price instead Trump doubled the price
    Cohen was charging because he wanted
    this issue to go away now the Trump
    defense here is is like really really
    fascinating okay so you ready for this
    I'm going to set this up let's assume
    for a moment that Trump did something
    wrong with Stormy Daniels and then
    covered it up well then these
    allegations you know they could have
    some
    weight but what if you argue all that
    stormy Daniel stuff was all a lie and
    therefore all of the other expenses that
    happened
    the invoices the legal expenses the
    reimbursements the shell company the
    audio recording all of that doesn't
    matter because we were just simply
    paying for a false story to go away so
    we wouldn't have to publicly defend a
    false story right before the
    election now that is a really
    interesting twist I was not expecting
    this see I was expecting that the state
    was going to come in and say Donald
    Trump knew about these expenses which
    they did say today Donald Trump knew
    about these expenses and he had an
    affair and he used this money to cover
    up that he had an affair that's what I
    was expecting the defense or the the
    prosecution to say and I thought the
    defense would come in and say Donald
    Trump knew nothing about these payments
    which would be problematic because they
    have that audio recording that the FBI
    got their hands on right but Trump's
    defense is going 4D chess move and
    saying you know what yeah that audio
    recording we own it you know what we did
    make payments to Stormy Daniels in fact
    all those invoices the checks we wrote
    and The Ledger absolutely right those
    were a necessary an ordinary business
    expense because stormmy Daniels came up
    with a false story and it is not illegal
    to pay somebody to shut up about a lie
    instead she's the criminal because she's
    storting us with a defamatory lie now
    that is such an interesting argument
    because it changes everything here it
    basically lets Donald Trump lean into
    all of the fraud charges about the
    general ledger the checks and the
    invoices and it allows Michael Cohen to
    say yep we paid her and then he can go
    up on the stand and say we paid her
    Donald Trump agrees we paid her Donald
    Trump will go yep yep we paid her and
    then when Michael Cohen gets asked well
    did Donald Trump have an affair with her
    how am I supposed to know and then
    Donald Trump's going to go I didn't have
    an affair with her and then stormmy
    Daniel is going to go I had an affair
    with him and so then this whole case
    doesn't actually come down to the
    payments what it actually comes down to
    is do you believe Donald Trump had an
    affair with her or not which which then
    all of a sudden this case is like what
    this is like you know the the case of
    probably this year right the case of
    2024 uh public trial of a former
    president uh and it kind of reminds me
    of very much like Bill clintones like
    you know I did not have sexual relations
    with like it reminds me a lot of the
    Monica Lewinsky scandal and so this is
    like wow we are no longer actually
    arguing about whether or not these
    checks were made or invoices were made
    or the tapes or uh you know whether or
    not stormmy Daniels uh statement was
    true or or or false like her written
    statement right what we're actually now
    asking the jury to do is do you believe
    that Donald Trump had an affair if he
    did not have an affair then all of the
    stuff that came after that not illegal
    as Trump's defense says that is a
    legitimate use of money to defend
    against a false story and it is not
    election interference and you know what
    it is not illegal to influence an
    election by covering up false lies like
    you're under no obligation to tell
    somebody something if it's a lie because
    you're just reiterating somebody's lie
    that's very very interesting it's a very
    interesting defense and it totally
    contrasts with a what I thought we were
    going to get going into this but it's
    also going to then lead jurors to have
    to decide okay so how credible is
    stormmy Daniel's story because really
    you just basically can put Michael Cohen
    up there and he's going to say yeah we
    were the checks but now all going to
    come down to what evidence the Stormy
    Daniels have that an affair actually
    occurred and that is going to be used if
    there's a lack of evidence or a lack of
    you know uh the stained dress so to
    speak or text or whatever it's going to
    be pretty hard to get Trump now again of
    course the prosecution is going to try
    to set up a challenge against Donald
    Trump's credibility so what they're
    going to do is they're going to come
    after his is uh assets case this is
    basically where there's the allegation
    that Donald Trump inflated assets so
    they're going to go after him uh for
    that they'll bring that up uh and they
    will bring up uh any other potential uh
    issues or misstatements that have
    occurred such as Donald Trump's
    compliance with gag orders and his
    defaming of Jean Carroll which obviously
    Jee Carroll won a lot of people like
    trumped didn't def whatever all of those
    things are going to come up because what
    the prosecution is going to try to do is
    break down Trump's credibility and pump
    up the credibility of stormmy Daniels
    and on the other side they're just going
    to be trying to collapse stormmy
    Daniel's credibility and boost their own
    so this is wild because it's really
    going to come down to an opinion of a
    jury and the trial actually ended early
    today because apparently one of the
    jurors had a toothache you can't make
    this stuff up anyway if you like my
    perspective make sure to subscribe I'll
    be bringing a lot more updates you can
    also meet me live at the road show click
    the link down below or going to
    metkevin.com Road Show to learn about my
    real estate startup uh and investing in
    that especially if you're an accredited
    investor read the solicitation over at
    house.com 2024 and make sure to click
    that RSVP button if you want to come in
    person thanks bye advertise these things
    that you told us here I feel like nobody
    else knows about this we'll we'll try a
    little advertising and see how it goes
    congratulations man you have done so
    much people love you people up to you
    Kevin PA there financial analyst and
    YouTuber meet Kevin always great to get
    your
    take even though I'm a licensed
    financial advisor licensed real estate
    broker and becoming a stock broker this
    video is not personalized advice for you
    it is not tax legal or otherwise
    personalized advice tailored to you this
    video provides generalized perspective
    information and commentary any third
    party content I show shall not be deemed
    endorsed by me this video is not and
    shall never be deemed reasonably
    sufficient information for the purposes
    of evaluating a security or investment
    decision any links or promoted products
    are either paid affiliations or products
    or Services we may benefit from I also
    personally operate an actively managed
    ETF I may personally hold or otherwise
    hold long or short positions in various
    Securities potentially including those
    mentioned in this video however I have
    no relationship to any issuer other than
    house act nor am I presently acting as a
    market maker make sure if you're
    considering investing in house Haack to
    always read the PPM at house.com

    SHARE!

    This is a Guest Post from our friends over at WLTReport.

    View the original article here.


    Source link