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:

1. 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.
2. 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.
3. 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.
4. 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:

The Trump Hush Money Trial JUST FLIPPED!

Really great analysis by my friend MeetKevin.

Mirror (for backup): https://t.co/MHyBUUaurx

See comments for full transcript pic.twitter.com/ywuDDedpFh

— DailyNoah.com (@DailyNoahNews) April 22, 2024

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 conspiracy 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

Stormy 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 pled
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

The Shocking Flip.
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 Stormy 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 Stormy
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 Clinton's 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 Stormy 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
Stormy 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