A wrench has been thrown in tRumps case with Stormy D.....

[a kennedy]

The grand jury weighing charges again embattled ex-president Donald Trump was told to stay home again on Thursday, RadarOnline.com can confirm, meaning the jury will not meet again until Monday at the earliest.

The cancellation of the jury’s session on Thursday came one day after Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg already ordered those on the panel to stay home on Wednesday for unknown reasons.

According to Daily Mail, there are reports that the Manhattan grand jury’s session may have been delayed because the panel is preparing to hear from at least one more witness before discussing whether to charge former President Trump with finance crimes connected to an alleged $130,000 hush money payment he made to adult film star Stormy Daniels in November 2016.

Even more surprising are reports that Manhattan DA Bragg and prosecutors in the case are having trouble convincing the jury to indict Trump on criminal charges connected to the alleged hush money payments made to Daniels nearly seven years ago.

“They are having trouble convincing the jury to swallow the case,” one source told Daily Mail on Thursday morning. “It's a weak case and has caused divisions in the DA's office.”

As RadarOnline.com previously reported, a letter penned by Michael Cohen’s attorney in 2018 has reportedly thrown a wrench in the Manhattan DA’s case against former President Trump.

According to the 2018 letter, neither Trump nor Trump’s 2016 campaign reimbursed Cohen for the $130,000 hush money payment made to Daniels from Cohen’s own personal funds in November 2016.

The letter seemingly contradicts Cohen’s previous testimony that, after paying Daniels with his own money, Cohen was eventually reimbursed by Trump using funds from the then-president's 2016 campaign.

"In a private transaction in 2016, before the U.S. presidential election, Mr. Cohen used his own personal funds to facilitate a payment of $130,000 to Ms. Stephanie Clifford," Stephen Ryan, Cohen’s attorney, wrote in a letter to the Federal Election Commission on February 8, 2018.

"Neither the Trump Organization nor the Trump campaign was a party to the transaction with Ms. Clifford, and neither reimbursed Mr. Cohen for the payment directly or indirectly,” the letter added.

From RADAR. (Sorry can’t copy article)

[Marcus IM]

1. But but but ... tRump said ... n/t

[sarisataka]

11. And sources

We can't forget all of those unnamed people "close to the investigation"

[Ocelot II]

2. Speculation from the Daily Mail? Oh, please.

Nobody knows what's going on in the grand jury, and especially not the Daily Mail, England's answer to the National Enquirer. Please don't spread this kind of nonsense here.

[Celerity]

18. not Daily Heil, it's RadarOnline, worse it's owned by American Media, owner of The National Enquirer

Radar Online

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radar_Online

Radar Online is an American entertainment and gossip website that was first published as a print and online publication in September 2003 before becoming exclusively online. As of 2008, the magazine has been owned by the publisher American Media Inc. American Media's former Chief Content Officer, Dylan Howard, oversaw the publication until 2020.

History

The magazine Radar published articles on entertainment, fashion, politics, and human interest and was founded and edited by Maer Roshan in September 2003. After a series of three test issues focused on satire, he relaunched it in 2005 and again in 2006 with help from investors and family members, including Jeffrey Epstein. Radar was awarded a General Excellence nomination by the American Society of Magazine Editors in 2007. Its website, Radar Online, earned an audience of one million a month soon after it launched.

The print magazine was suddenly shuttered in 2008 after its primary backer, billionaire Ron Burkle, who owned a substantial interest in Star and National Enquirer publisher American Media, withdrew. Radar Online was relaunched in March 2009 with a rebranding, focusing on celebrity items about gossip, fashion, and pop culture. All articles previously published by Radar Online were erased from the site.

[Ocelot II]

19. Radar Online was using the Daily Mail as its source, so the story is doubly unreliable.

[Celerity]

24. fair point, the DM is pretty shite as well, RO and DM are a pair of jokers in the pack

[NJCher]

3. I thought I saw

the check which Donald Trump signed reimbursing Cohen. I am seeing things?

note: shown on television, if I remember correctly. May have been shown by Cohen.

[John1956PA]

12. I saw an online image of a check. The image purported to be a check from 45 to Cohen.

I will search the web for the image. If I find it, I will post it. But, we should be cautious about the authenticity of such an image until it can be authenticated by reputable sources.

ON EDIT: I found an image of check from T. to C. The check dates from September 2017. The amount of the check is $35K. I am not going to post it. It is easily found via a web search.

[Beastly Boy]

27. I found a total of 7 images of checks made out to Cohen

five of them, each for $35,000, dated 5/23/17, 8/1/17, 9/21/17, 10/18/17 and 11/21/17 are from Trump to Cohen

two of them, a check dated 2/14/17 for $70,000 and a check dated 3/17/17 for $35,000, are from the Donald Trump Revocable Trust to Cohen

[Celerity]

20. here is one of the cheques

[onecaliberal]

4. They don't know shit. This is so ridiculous. It's all speculation.

[FrankBooth]

5. I'll wait for a better source

No offense meant at all to the OP, but the Daily Mail is a trashy right-leaning tabloid, and this so-called source could easily be one of Trump's lawyers. Radar's credibility is about on the same level as the National Enquirer.

[a kennedy]

7. I hear ya, and was skeptical myself.......just something to read while we wait for further news.

[Ocelot II]

9. Please delete this OP. We don't need to read bullshit from a right-wing tabloid.

[emulatorloo]

23. ++++

[BlackSkimmer]

29. In that case, people shouldn't be posting stuff from Fox News, but I see it here all the time.

I see Truth Social crap posted all the time, NewsMax, Hannity, you name it...it seems to be allowed now.

I don't get it.

[Ocelot II]

40. Those, too.

[blogslug]

15. Radaronline is trash too

And not because it's a gossip site but because it's run by Dylan Howard, of AMI/Karen McDougal/catch-and-kill fame.

[a kennedy]

22. Damn, ok then........thanks for this.

[blogslug]

30. When it comes to gossip sites

I like D-Listed and Just Jared.

[BlackSkimmer]

31. These may be gossip sites, but I've yet to see them have to rescind a story.

Sadly, the National Enquirer broke the Edwards story wide open.

People tried to discount it here then too, I remember well, despite the fact there were photographs and other proof.

[FrankBooth]

37. That's right

They did break the Edwards story. Can't think of another big one though, and on the flipside there are many, many, many miles of BS they've published through the years. Stack up the real scoops vs. the bullshit and it's not even close to evening out. IMO the odious TMZ is more credible by a mile than trash like the Enquirer or Radar.

[FSogol]

6. Anonymous source from the Daily Fail?

[NJCher]

8. source credibility

If the source doesn't do their homework before writing stuff like this, then it means they don't even watch television. That's a pretty low standard! (see my post 3)

[a kennedy]

10. Right.......

[Ohio Joe]

13. Neither the payment nor the reimbursement are the crime

It's how it was hidden in reporting as legal expenses.

[uponit7771]

44. +1

[Zeitghost]

14. I can believe it

I'm still not sure how they plan to get around a 5 year statute of limitations on a 7 year old case.

I'd love to see MF45 be tried, but I really don't see this as the case to push forward on. There are just too many easy outs for Trump and beating the charges or having them get tossed on blatant violations of NY law is just going to back his persecution narrative.

[inthewind21]

26. Well

It's call the No President is above the law Act. Been around for 46 years.

"What the legislation does
The No President is Above the Law Act would start the five year statute of limitations after a president leaves office, rather than from the time a crime was committed."

[Zeitghost]

28. That's a federal statute

Which would not apply in NY State Court.

[Kaleva]

34. It's been reported that the clock stops when the person is out of state.

[Zeitghost]

41. I've seen that arguement

But I have not seen that it will hold up.

[Kaleva]

43. Somebody posted a link to the applicable law.

It may have been at FR where I saw that when lurking there.

[NJCher]

33. I think the NY statute

exempts time when the individual was away from NY. In fact, if you look up the statute, it will tell you the amount of time that can be excluded. I'm pretty sure it's years. I looked this up a while ago so I don't recall exactly.

So if the jury votes to indict and Bragg goes ahead, trump's lawyers will of course use this as an out. They will move for a dismissal, at which point is up to the judges.

It then becomes very ambigulous because trump will have to prove when he was in NY and when he was in DC and FL. That would be in an evidentiary hearing.

Nobody including judges is going to view trump with any sympathy, but he might get two shakes from the SC as a handout, since they will probably not hear any of his other appeals.

If any lawyers are reading and have corrections or see it otherwise, please chime in. I'm not an attorney but I have done my own cases for 30+ years now, including written appeals to the NJ Supreme Court.

---------

on edit: here's the law in case anyone wants to go through it:

https://codes.findlaw.com/ny/criminal-procedure-law/cpl-sect-30-10.html

I'd do it but I have to go back to work.

[Beastly Boy]

16. When it comes to gossip, I would choose Trump over Radar.com any time.

Radar.com is too timid for my taste. I like my gossip batshit crazy.

[Retrograde]

17. Given the number of half-truths, shadings,

evasions, double talk and outright lies that come from Donnie and his circle I currently view anything he or someone associated with him says with a lot of suspicion.

[emulatorloo]

21. Daily Mail is a crap rightwing source. I do not believe their "anonymous source."

who could well be totally fabricated.

[BlackSkimmer]

32. I guess we will see.

I've had a bad feeling about this case from the beginning.

[allegorical oracle]

35. Same here. Too many loose ends. And tfg seemed "okay" with it, which made me uncomfortable. nt

[pnwmom]

39. Their anonymous source could be Robert Costello or Rudy Giuliani. nt

[dem4decades]

25. If Cohen's attorney was a problem they would have recalled Cohen on Monday.

That said, Trump is above the law. I don't know what is worse, Trump's fixer Barr not bringing him to justice or Garland not doing it.

[Midnight Writer]

36. "They are having trouble convincing the jury to swallow the case"?

Do they just want to let Trump off with a spanking?

[Freethinker65]

38. Truth is lots of powerful connected men pay hush money to mistresses

Knowing Trump, he might never have even paid Cohen back but instead kept delaying because that's Trump. Was it illegal? Probably, but worth a trial if it were anyone but Trump?

The interference and threats made to the State of Georgia and other States to call the election for Trump by "finding" votes and/or certifying alternate slates of electors IS actionable as is inciting a (failed) insurrection and violence against the US Government. Taking classified documents, defying subpoenas, and lying about returning all documents is also troubling if Trump faces absolutely no consequences.

But there was evidence of violations of the emoluments clause, and Trump walked away from that unscathed.

[wishstar]

42. That letter was already discredited with checks proving Trump, Jr, and Weisselberg reimbursed Cohen

The new allegation you are posting about the letter is merely the latest right wing talking point being spread on right wing media sources to discredit the case but has no basis in truth since the payments to reimburse Cohen from Trump through his company have been thoroughly documented during the DOJ investigation and prosecution of Michael Cohen.

However it is possible that the wrench in the DA's handling of the case is the recent conflict of interest disclosure by Trump's attorney that he was in contact with Stormy back when she was seeking legal advice and representation to get out of the hush money agreement. The lawyer Tacopina made statements back then contradicting his current statements to the media.

[ForgedCrank]

45. Sounds to me

like they are expecting us to believe a lawyer paid out $130,000 on a clients behalf out of the goodness of his heart, never expecting to be reimbursed.
Yea, that's totally believable. How could you even question that?