Can anyone give a Lucid Explanation of Bragg's alleged "another crime?"

[forkup]

Exactly. If he were doing anything else but testilieing against Donald Trump, you would never cite him as a source of the truth.

Eh . . . You’re drifting off topic, sir. There are plenty of threads on which to obsess about Trump in general. This is about the Manhattan case.

Pecker publishes lies for a living. He is testifying under threat of prosecution. Did you believe him also when he said that Late Justice Scalia had been murdered by a $2,000 a night hooker? That Hillary Clinton deleted emails from lesbian lovers?

If the case is so strong, why not lead off with witnesses who are not tainted, especially not tainted due to lying to the whole country?

Then what do you need Cohen for? Just show the emails and the bank records. I wouldn’t want Cohen within a mile of my case if I thought I could win it.

The prosecution, not Trump, has the burden of proof. So far the only evidence you have suggested is that two professional liars say so, and the rhetorical question of what else could it be?

Even if it was reimbursement for the NDA, that’s not illegal, and calling payments to one’s lawyer to reimburse a legal expense he paid “legal fees” is a crime only in an overactive imagination.

Trump was under no obligation to enter into a ledger or check stub “paying back my lawyer for paying the NDA fee to keep the lying porn performer from publishing lies about me.”

Or he could have let the lawyer advance the money and then reimburse him, which is perfectly legal.

The “campaign contribution” idea is luducrious convoluted logic. That’s why Bragg hid it for so long. When I made this thread it was still not announced. That’s why y’all were stumped,

Oh yeah! I remember how well your side took Roe being rescinded. Yep, that was the decision and you never went after the justices for it!

I never said this case was rigged. I said and say, this a fake case brought mainly to confine Trump during the campaign season and force him to listen to paid liars smear him.

In fact, I think it is the opposite of rigged. They don’t expect a conviction.

Let me ask this: why do you doubt Trumps guilt in this case?

Exactly. If he were doing anything else but testilieing against Donald Trump, you would never cite him as a source of the truth.

Who says? If he was the only witness you are right I wouldn't. He however isn't. Not even close. Nor does the case just rely on his testimony. He taped Trump, there's email chains. Checks, etc. etc.

. . . You’re drifting off topic, sir. There are plenty of threads on which to obsess about Trump in general. This is about the Manhattan case.

Yes it is. Like it or not, Trump's previous run- ins with the law. Including run-ins that resulted in CONVICTIONS and sanctions in both the falsifying of business records and campaign finance violations are relevant. It's hilarious that that is a concept you recognize for Cohen AND Pecker but not for Trump.

If the case is so strong, why not lead off with witnesses who are not tainted, especially not tainted due to lying to the whole country?

They had Pecker, Cohen's banker, Pecker's lawyer and Hope Hicks. What's the "taint" of the last 3. What would compell them to perjure themselves?

Then what do you need Cohen for? Just show the emails and the bank records. I wouldn’t want Cohen within a mile of my case if I thought I could win it.

Cohen is the central figure. In order to NOT be considered untrustworthy his account needs to be corroborated. That's what's happening right now.

Trump was under no obligation to enter into a ledger or check stub “paying back my lawyer for paying the NDA fee to keep the lying porn performer from publishing lies about me.”

Sure he is. If done to help his election bid. Something that testimony is showing was the purpose of the payments. That's the crime. If he would have reported the payment he wouldn't be in this mess.

Or he could have let the lawyer advance the money and then reimburse him, which is perfectly legal.

Neither legal, nor credible. It was put on the books as a legal retainer while it was a reimbursement. Cohen took a home equity loan to provide the funds.

As I said there's not a lawyer in the world that would put himself on the hook for a loan in order to spot a billionaire client.

The “campaign contribution” idea is luducrious convoluted logic.

As I pointed out before this "logic" is very similar to the logic when they charged John Edwards.

I never said this case was rigged. I said and say, this a fake case brought mainly to confine Trump during the campaign season and force him to listen to paid liars smear him.

In fact, I think it is the opposite of rigged. They don’t expect a conviction.

Begging the question again I see. In any case, does that mean you will accept the jury verdict whatever it is?

Let me ask this: why do you doubt Trumps guilt in this case?

I don't doubt Trump's guilt at all. I doubt that the elements of the case are enough to overcome the beyond reasonable doubt standard required to convict and uphold the ruling on appeal. Both for legal and political reasons. Less so on the jury trial as the case is being presented, but on appeal I honestly don't know. Not so much because of the weakness of the case and more from the unprecedented nature of it. Considering the status of the accused.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

I don't believe anyone, other than you, is making that claim......if you can, provide links.................

He just provided a link to roger stone making that claim. In the post you quoted.

 

[Delldude]

He just provided a link to roger stone making that claim. In the post you quoted.

You missed the bus. Here is the claim he made that I commented on:

They arranged for Davidson to be involved in the Hulk Hogan sex tape scandal in 2012 so they could arrest Davidson, then close the case 7 months (still in 2012) so they could make arrangements for Davidson to supply Cohen's emails from 2016.

Damn, that's some foresight right there.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

You missed the bus. Here is the claim he made that I commented on:

That's the claim made by Roger stone. Try to keep up!

 

[Delldude]

That's the claim made by Roger stone. Try to keep up!

No it was WW's comment about the Stone quote...............take a nap.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

No it was WW's comment about the Stone quote...............take a nap.

Which was accurate. You're a little slow on the uptake.

And you're probably mad that you rebroadcast something so demonstrably stupid.

 

[Seymour Flops]

Who says? If he was the only witness you are right I wouldn't. He however isn't. Not even close. Nor does the case just rely on his testimony. He taped Trump, there's email chains. Checks, etc. etc.

Yes, and what have the witnesses said? That they never heard Donald Trump tell anyone to falsify a business record. It will be Cohen who will say that. Cohen, literally a professional liar, and convicted perjuror will be the witness to say that Trump made the decision about to call money paid to a lawyer a legal fee.

And the Dems will believe it like a kid believing in Santa.

Yes it is. Like it or not, Trump's previous run- ins with the law. Including run-ins that resulted in CONVICTIONS and sanctions in both the falsifying of business records and campaign finance violations are relevant. It's hilarious that that is a concept you recognize for Cohen AND Pecker but not for Trump.

Trump has never been convicted of falsifying a business record.

They had Pecker, Cohen's banker, Pecker's lawyer and Hope Hicks. What's the "taint" of the last 3. What would compell them to perjure themselves?

The last two testified to nothing incriminating of Trump whatsoever. Pecker didn't either, for that matter, but Pecker is the kind of professional liar that Matthew Colangelo wants us to believe.

Cohen is the central figure. In order to NOT be considered untrustworthy his account needs to be corroborated. That's what's happening right now.

No one has said that Trump falsified a record, or ordered a record to be falsified.

Sure he is. If done to help his election bid. Something that testimony is showing was the purpose of the payments. That's the crime. If he would have reported the payment he wouldn't be in this mess.

If that bizarre logic held water, that would be a violation of campaign finance law, not falsifying a record. But the DOJ considered and rejected prosecuting him for campaign finance violation, because that bizarre logic doesn't hold water, even for them.

Neither legal, nor credible. It was put on the books as a legal retainer while it was a reimbursement. Cohen took a home equity loan to provide the funds.

We have only the word of Cohen for that, and his word carries zero credibility.

As I said there's not a lawyer in the world that would put himself on the hook for a loan in order to spot a billionaire client.

In anticipation of future legal fees? Damn skippy they would.

Of course, Cohen anticipated more than that. The little sleaze actually expected to be Attorney General or WH Chief of Staff. He seemed suicidal at not being "brought to Washington" according to a prosecution witness. That kind of anger is plenty of motivation to lie about Trump, especially for a guy who lies for a living anyway.

As I pointed out before this "logic" is very similar to the logic when they charged John Edwards.

Obviously not, because they did not charge Trump with it.

Begging the question again I see. In any case, does that mean you will accept the jury verdict whatever it is?

I don't accept the validity of the whole trial. It's an injustice that a politically charged prosecutor and a politically charged judge can collude to force a presidential frontrunner, on track to defeat their parties president, to sit day in and day out in court, so I won't accept the results if it's a one hour not-guilty. The Trial is a sham.

I don't accept it, anymore than I would have accepted it when Democrats used to put black men on trial for rape at the word of a white woman caught in bed on the wrong side of the track in front of an all white jury. I am not obliged to "accept" this judicial sham to make the modern Democrat lynch mob feel good about themselves.

I don't doubt Trump's guilt at all. I doubt that the elements of the case are enough to overcome the beyond reasonable doubt standard required to convict and uphold the ruling on appeal. Both for legal and political reasons. Less so on the jury trial as the case is being presented, but on appeal I honestly don't know. Not so much because of the weakness of the case and more from the unprecedented nature of it. Considering the status of the accused.

Speaking of unprecedented, did you know that Mattew Colangelo is a consultant for the DNC?

Revealed: DNC previously paid Trump hush money prosecutor

The New York prosecutor in the New York City hush money case against Donald Trump was previously hired for 'political consulting' by the Democratic National Committee.

www.dailymail.co.uk

The New York prosecutor in the New York City hush money case against Donald Trump was previously hired for 'political consulting' by the Democratic National Committee.

The revelations regarding attorney Matthew Colangelo raises concerns over the perceived politicalization of the multiple cases against the former president – and specifically the first case brought by Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg's office.

Colangelo, according to a Fox News Digital review of Federal Election Commission records, was paid $12,000 by the DNC on January 31, 2018. It was distributed by DNC Services Corp/Democratic National Committee in two separate payments of $6,000 on the same day.

Yeah. A real crime-fighter, there.

Do you really think that Bragg prosecuting this case is the best use of his community's law enforcement resources?

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

quotes --​

Manhattan district attorney Alvin L. Bragg had suggested that Mr. Trump concealed three potential crimes, although he has not charged him with any of those.

Prosecutors do not need to prove such crimes were committed — only that there was “the intent to commit or conceal” an additional crime.

What crimes do prosecutors believe Trump was trying to conceal?​

Prosecutors have suggested three possible crimes since filing the charges against Mr. Trump last year: a federal campaign finance violation, tax fraud and a state election-law crime. But since the start of the trial, they have largely focused on the state election-law crime: conspiracy to promote or prevent election.

Why Does Trump Face Felony Charges? Prosecutors Say He Was Hiding Other Crimes.

Donald J. Trump faces 34 felony counts in his Manhattan trial, but none involve the other misconduct that prosecutors say he engaged in.

www.nytimes.com

Prosecutors have framed the falsified documents as concealing a broader conspiracy to protect Mr. Trump’s campaign. They allege that Mr. Trump and Mr. Cohen coordinated with the former publisher of The National Enquirer, David Pecker, to bury stories that could damage Mr. Trump’s campaign and promote others that would harm his political rivals.

 

[Delldude]

Prosecutors have framed the falsified documents as concealing a broader conspiracy to protect Mr. Trump’s campaign. They allege that Mr. Trump and Mr. Cohen coordinated with the former publisher of The National Enquirer, David Pecker, to bury stories that could damage Mr. Trump’s campaign and promote others that would harm his political rivals.

Pecker shot a big hole in that.

 

[Ropey]

quotes --​

Manhattan district attorney Alvin L. Bragg had suggested that Mr. Trump concealed three potential crimes, although he has not charged him with any of those.

Prosecutors do not need to prove such crimes were committed — only that there was “the intent to commit or conceal” an additional crime.

What crimes do prosecutors believe Trump was trying to conceal?​

Prosecutors have suggested three possible crimes since filing the charges against Mr. Trump last year: a federal campaign finance violation, tax fraud and a state election-law crime. But since the start of the trial, they have largely focused on the state election-law crime: conspiracy to promote or prevent election.

Why Does Trump Face Felony Charges? Prosecutors Say He Was Hiding Other Crimes.

Donald J. Trump faces 34 felony counts in his Manhattan trial, but none involve the other misconduct that prosecutors say he engaged in.

www.nytimes.com

Prosecutors have framed the falsified documents as concealing a broader conspiracy to protect Mr. Trump’s campaign. They allege that Mr. Trump and Mr. Cohen coordinated with the former publisher of The National Enquirer, David Pecker, to bury stories that could damage Mr. Trump’s campaign and promote others that would harm his political rivals.

Meanwhile, the Democrat party is coming apart and Humpty Dumpty can't help them since Hamas threw him off of the wall.

 

[forkup]

Yes, and what have the witnesses said? That they never heard Donald Trump tell anyone to falsify a business record. It will be Cohen who will say that. Cohen, literally a professional liar, and convicted perjuror will be the witness to say that Trump made the decision about to call money paid to a lawyer a legal fee.

And the Dems will believe it like a kid believing in Santa.

Trump has never been convicted of falsifying a business record.

The last two testified to nothing incriminating of Trump whatsoever. Pecker didn't either, for that matter, but Pecker is the kind of professional liar that Matthew Colangelo wants us to believe.

No one has said that Trump falsified a record, or ordered a record to be falsified.

If that bizarre logic held water, that would be a violation of campaign finance law, not falsifying a record. But the DOJ considered and rejected prosecuting him for campaign finance violation, because that bizarre logic doesn't hold water, even for them.

We have only the word of Cohen for that, and his word carries zero credibility.

In anticipation of future legal fees? Damn skippy they would.

Of course, Cohen anticipated more than that. The little sleaze actually expected to be Attorney General or WH Chief of Staff. He seemed suicidal at not being "brought to Washington" according to a prosecution witness. That kind of anger is plenty of motivation to lie about Trump, especially for a guy who lies for a living anyway.

Obviously not, because they did not charge Trump with it.

I don't accept the validity of the whole trial. It's an injustice that a politically charged prosecutor and a politically charged judge can collude to force a presidential frontrunner, on track to defeat their parties president, to sit day in and day out in court, so I won't accept the results if it's a one hour not-guilty. The Trial is a sham.

I don't accept it, anymore than I would have accepted it when Democrats used to put black men on trial for rape at the word of a white woman caught in bed on the wrong side of the track in front of an all white jury. I am not obliged to "accept" this judicial sham to make the modern Democrat lynch mob feel good about themselves.

Speaking of unprecedented, did you know that Mattew Colangelo is a consultant for the DNC?

Revealed: DNC previously paid Trump hush money prosecutor

The New York prosecutor in the New York City hush money case against Donald Trump was previously hired for 'political consulting' by the Democratic National Committee.

www.dailymail.co.uk

The New York prosecutor in the New York City hush money case against Donald Trump was previously hired for 'political consulting' by the Democratic National Committee.

The revelations regarding attorney Matthew Colangelo raises concerns over the perceived politicalization of the multiple cases against the former president – and specifically the first case brought by Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg's office.

Colangelo, according to a Fox News Digital review of Federal Election Commission records, was paid $12,000 by the DNC on January 31, 2018. It was distributed by DNC Services Corp/Democratic National Committee in two separate payments of $6,000 on the same day.

Yeah. A real crime-fighter, there.

Do you really think that Bragg prosecuting this case is the best use of his community's law enforcement resources?

Engoron, who ruled before the trial that Trump and his co-defendants committed fraud with his financial statements, found Trump liable on five of the six remaining claims in James’ lawsuit: falsifying business records, issuing false financial statements, conspiracy to commit insurance fraud and conspiracy to falsify business records.

Here's a look inside Donald Trump's $355 million civil fraud verdict

On the witness stand last year, Donald Trump proclaimed: “I have a lot of cash.” After Friday’s eye-popping penalty, he’s going to need it — and maybe more.

apnews.com

I always wonder how this happens. This is neither new information or something that happened ages ago. Are you unable or unwilling to absorb any information that doesn't fit your narrative?

What also is interesting that you deny the trial is rigged right up until the moment I ask you whether you'd accept a jury verdict. At that point you immediately entrench, and beg the question.

As I said before. It's so incredibly telling that you, or for that matter any Trump supporter reject out of hand the conclusion of a jury without knowing what that conclusion is when pressed. It shows that for all the protestations you kind of know Trump is a criminal.

 

[Seymour Flops]

Engoron, who ruled before the trial that Trump and his co-defendants committed fraud with his financial statements, found Trump liable on five of the six remaining claims in James’ lawsuit: falsifying business records, issuing false financial statements, conspiracy to commit insurance fraud and conspiracy to falsify business records.

Here's a look inside Donald Trump's $355 million civil fraud verdict

On the witness stand last year, Donald Trump proclaimed: “I have a lot of cash.” After Friday’s eye-popping penalty, he’s going to need it — and maybe more.

apnews.com

I always wonder how this happens. This is neither new information or something that happened ages ago. Are you unable or unwilling to absorb any information that doesn't fit your narrative?

Finding liability =/= conviction. Engoron is just another weasel on the GET TRUMP! bandwagon.

What also is interesting that you deny the trial is rigged right up until the moment I ask you whether you'd accept a jury verdict. At that point you immediately entrench, and beg the question.

well, now you are just lying. I said very clearly that I would not accept a verdict that comes out of this sham trial. Sham trial means the verdict is a sham, no matter how it comes out.

You expect me to believe that with a hired DNC gun prosecuting Trump, a DA who promised as part of his political campaign to go after Trump, and the last eight years of the Democrats pulling out all stops to go after Trump, that if they finally managed to convince 12 people to find Trump guilty, I’m gonna say “oh, I guess he really is guilty.”

You certainly would not accept that if Republicans went after a democrat president/presidential candidate in this way.

As I said before. It's so incredibly telling that you, or for that matter any Trump supporter reject out of hand the conclusion of a jury without knowing what that conclusion is when pressed. It shows that for all the protestations you kind of know Trump is a criminal.

Well, there you go. I do not beg the question, I answered. No,I don’t kind of know that Trump is a criminal, but you definitely know what a shame that prosecution is.

 

[BULLDOG]

See how you roll. He was not guilty. But Several grand juries put him on trial.

Delay's case was similar to trump. People went to prison for unethical behavior done under the direction of Delay. That is a good analog to Cohen going to prison for his actions taken under orders of trump.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Prosecutors have framed the falsified documents as concealing a broader conspiracy to protect Mr. Trump’s campaign. They allege that Mr. Trump and Mr. Cohen coordinated with the former publisher of The National Enquirer, David Pecker, to bury stories that could damage Mr. Trump’s campaign and promote others that would harm his political rivals.

you commment

Pecker shot a big hole in that.

Not sure wtf you have been paying attention to, but Pecker as he did in the civil case, is helping to dig Trump into the ground on this one.

Pecker testified that Trump was not worried about the embarrassment to his family, but was worried about the upcoming election.

 

[leftwinger]

I don't doubt Trump's guilt at all.

Thanks for sharing, you sickening stench of death. Your post sums up every filthy maggot commee D on this site since 2015. Sod off you disgusting animal//

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Pecker shot a big hole in that.

In what the rest of us call reality, Pecker corroborated that and was a greta witness for the prosecution.

 

[Delldude]

Pecker testified that Trump was not worried about the embarrassment to his family, but was worried about the upcoming election.

Todd Blanche:

Blanche suggested that Trump “fought back” against Stormy Daniels’ allegations, which Blanche described as false, ”to protect his family, his reputation, and his brand — and that is not a crime.”

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Todd Blanche:

Blanche suggested that Trump “fought back” against Stormy Daniels’ allegations, which Blanche described as false, ”to protect his family, his reputation, and his brand — and that is not a crime.”

Trump cheated on all of his wives. His family grew up with him being a clown and mocked. So, Blanche is full of it.

The previous testimonies of people close to the working at Trump Tower, belie this line. Go ahead. Hold on to hope. Grasp onto anything put of context. Spin it for some cheap, tawdry MAGA political argument. Go ahead. But wee all hear the woosh of the guillotine coming down on Donnie's neck.

It was all designed to keep Trump's campaign viable, and to destroy the reputations (with false stories) of Trump's rivals. It's the coverup that became the crimes. The coverup. The lying. The covering up.

This man had the Hollywood Access tapes out there. Good gawd, reputation? Brand? Embarrassment to family (who defended his disgusting degenerate behavior)?

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Todd Blanche:

Blanche suggested that Trump “fought back” against Stormy Daniels’ allegations, which Blanche described as false, ”to protect his family, his reputation, and his brand — and that is not a crime.”

Wait, a defense lawyer said that?

NO WAY

 

[Delldude]

In what the rest of us call reality, Pecker corroborated that and was a greta witness for the prosecution.

Greta Thunberg on trial now??

Somewhere along the line, I believe, Pecker made a statement of Trump not knowing about the payment issue and Cohen took care of without Trumps knowledge at the time. Like maybe the first day of testimony.