Too Bad President Trump Couldn’t Use Cash

Key Point. I don’t say this because of someone else’s potential legal trouble. It’s the hassle.
Fani Willis and Nathan Wade were smart and knew how to cover up an at-least impropriety. Cash. And no receipts or journal or ledger. You can’t deduct cash, and only those who say they exchanged the cash know for sure.
But you gotta both agree. And be specially close. You can’t hold anyone to an agreement if it isn’t documented, and a non-disclosure agreement needs to have an amount in it. So apparently now we are introduced to rich and usually famous people having legal representation with good experience in covering things up. Oh, right, that’s part of every legal curriculum.
But wait; suppose we admit all that. What does doing an entirely legal thing in supposedly committing a speciously illegal thing have to do with the crime? I’m still trying to figure that one out…
Frankly, on the face of it, seems like an attempt simply to embarrass the former President or perhaps, to be generous, the DAss is building a house of cards that somehow will wind its way to conclusion (to mix a metaphor). I mean, let’s say the DAss asks early witnesses like David Pecker of the Enquirer about hush money, nondisclosures, and “Catch and Kill” projects. A Catch and Kill is buying a story from source(s), paying them, getting exclusive rights to publish, and then never printing the story. Well, sometimes this stuff is unsavory. So first off, is any story like this actually relevant to the case at hand? If not, then usually the defendant lawyer will try to have it barred from the testimony. Well, not happening in this case because the judge is demonstrably averse to defendant Trump.
But let’s say the line of questioning is not relevant, the judge indulges the DAss strategy to include it, and it’s true. It starts to set up the line for the jury, “Oh, Trump did this, paid money to try to hide it, tried to conceal it, and in the end it’s true. They’re going to show me more and more stuff that’s shadowy Huh.” At that point the fact these acts are not illegal sort of fades into that shadowy background. They get confused that the things that are true, and unpleasant, are not anything alleged as a crime. The jury gets in the mindset that Trump does stuff and tries to hide it. It sets the mindset for other stuff that could be illegal, and even if Trump didn’t do those things, the jury may think so because they’ve already seen he did other things he was accused of. Or they may be trying to add other activities to the structure of the case to make it seems more complete, like ornaments on a Christmas tree. This “associated bad acts” ploy works very well; it gets the Jury into the habit of thinking anything the prosecution accuses the defendant of, he’s guilty of. The defendant’s attorney needs to take great care to refute this habituation throughout the trial with well-planned testimony, for example from expert witnesses who will affirm these accusations are not illegal.
In any case, it’s US public that has the problem in the end, because we’ve been manipulated and deprived of a reasonable and free choice in an election.