Analysis of the Bragg prosecution.

[Rogue AI]

Of course the stubs reveal intent.

The checks were not retainers, and Trump knew that. He was paying back his loyal fixer for the money Cohen spent on Daniels.

It's not hard to understand. If you want to.

No they don't, they reveal a payment for a lawyer. Your interpretation is based on the stories told by a liar, thief, and convicted felon. Sensible folks see through that nonsense.

 

[g5000]

No they don't, they reveal a payment for a lawyer. Your interpretation is based on the stories told by a liar, thief, and convicted felon. Sensible folks see through that nonsense.

The ability of Trumptards to compartmentalize their minds is amazing. Truly amazing.


TRUMP: I didn't know about the $130K payment.

COHEN: What he said.

MAGATARDS: AHA! See? Cohen is a liar!

 

[Lisa558]

Alvin Bragg's case against Trump presents a tangle of interacting laws and intent puzzles

During four days of testimony in Donald Trump's trial, his estranged lawyer and fixer, Michael Cohen, supplied crucial evidence linking the former and

reason.com

A pretty detailed analysis of the various aspects of the “case” against Trump. It explores what the Bragg prosecution needs (minimally) to achieve a legally sufficient level of proof on the various interacting elements.

Personally, I don’t buy it.

I think a clearer more simplified analysis suffices.

1. The DA has to have proved (always beyond a reasonable doubt) that the misdemeanor of falsifying a business record took place in the first instance.

1b. Their position is that they “did so” by showing that Trump paid Cohen his retainer fee which he “knew” constituted a reimbursement for paying for an NDA.

1c. There is no realistic basis (in the evidence) to prove that Trump “knew” any such thing since that would require a jury to believe the lying, perjurer and thief, Cohen, the sole witness on that point.

1d. Assuming that the jury is conflicted enough (by hatred for Trump) to do something that irrational, then a conviction is possible. But otherwise, they are morally obligated to acquit.

And that’s the outcome of just the first element. The misdemeanor.

But there is at least one other complicating element. That’s the prosecution’s obligation to PROVE that the allegedly “false entry” was done with the “intent” to commit an alleged crime or conceal its alleged commission.

2. The “other” crime may be the NY State Election Law. It’s not like the prosecution ever clearly identified it as the “other” crime. But for the sake of convenience,

2b. How would “reimbursing” Cohen for the previously paid-for NDA (both the existence of which and payment for which was legal) be a plan to “commit” the crime? (The election was already over by the time Trump supposedly ”reimbursed” Cohen, after all.)

2c. It also couldn’t be a plan to “conceal” a crime since neither the NDA nor the payment for it was a crime in the first place. So there was no crime to conceal.
And that’s true regardless of the claim that Trump wished to hide the “purpose” of the NDA.

Again, therefore, on the assumption that the jury is logical and objective and fair, there doesn’t seem to be ANY way they could possibly render a verdict of “guilty” (especially beyond that good old reasonable doubt).

Let’s see what the anti-Trump pro-conviction crowd has to say about this analysis.

(I may check for needed edits before the timer runs out.)

Good analysis, but a couple of points:

1) The misdemeanor is a civil offense, and thus the standard is preponderance of the evidence - NOT beyond a reasonable doubt.

2) But he can’t be found guilty of a misdemeanor because the statute of limitations expired years ago.

3) Bragg twisted into a pretzel to get the misdemeanor into criminal court by claiming it was done to cover up an “underlying crime“ - as you note, never clearly identified - and THIS is where the standard of reasonable doubt comes in.

4) There is certainly reasonable doubt. The prosecutor had only a prostitute and a convicted perjurer - and now, an admitted embezzler - to claim the money was paid and that Trump reimbursed Cohen. But Cohen was caught in a lie, and the defense witness - a credible attorney - testified that Cohen said Trump knew nothing about the payoffs.

I would argue that the preponderance of the evidence is on Trump’s side, let alone the more demanding “beyond a reasonable doubt” standard.

If this were not a jury of leftist, brainwashed anti-Trumpers, I would be confident this would be a full acquittal. The case shoukd never have gone to court in the first place, But because it IS a jury of Manhattan leftists, I think a hung jury is more likely.

 

[Lisa558]

The ability of Trumptards to compartmentalize their minds is amazing. Truly amazing.


TRUMP: I didn't know about the $130K payment.

COHEN: What he said.

MAGATARDS: AHA! See? Cohen is a liar!

Unreal! That’s not what happened. Cohen’s own lawyer testified that Cohen told him Trump knew nothing of the payment, and that he did it on his own.

You leftists are deranged idiots.

 

[ActionJackson]

"Analysis of the Bragg prosecution."​

One little correction:

Analysis of the Bragg persecution.​

 

[Lisa558]

Of course the stubs reveal intent.

The checks were not retainers, and Trump knew that. He was paying back his loyal fixer for the money Cohen spent on Daniels.

It's not hard to understand. If you want to.

Cohen said Trump knew nothing about it..

 

[DBA]

From the audio recording of Cohen and Trump discussing the payoff to Trupm's playboy model mistress.

"I need to open up a company for the transfer of all of that info regarding our friend, David."

David is David Pecker. Trump's capture and kill buddy at the National Enquirer rag.

The company in question was a shell company to be used for the payoff.

Every single time you hear Trump accusing other people of something, like crooked shell companies for example, you can be nearly 100 percent certain it is something he does himself.


COHEN: I need to open up a company for the transfer of all of that info regarding our friend David, you know?

TRUMP: Yes.

COHEN: So that -- I'm going to do that right away. I've actually come up, I've spoken--

TRUMP: Give it to me and--

COHEN: And I've spoken to Allen Weisselberg about how to set the whole thing up with--

TRUMP: So, what are we going to pay for this? 150?

COHEN: --funding. Yes. And it's all the stuff.

TRUMP: Yes, I was thinking about that.

COHEN: All the stuff. Because -- here, you never know where that company -- you never know what he's going to be.

TRUMP: Maybe he gets hit by a truck.

COHEN: Correct. So, I'm all over that. And I spoke to Allen about it, when it comes time for the financing which will be--

TRUMP: Listen. What financing?

COHEN: We'll have to pay.

TRUMP: So I'll pay with cash.

COHEN: No, no, no, no, no. I got -- no, no, no.

How does this correlate to the felony charge of a campaign finance violation? This relates directly to the misdemeanor whose statute of limitations has passed. The fact that he was a candidate at the time doesn’t mean that everything he did in his life revolved around his candidacy.

 

[g5000]

Good analysis, but a couple of points:

1) The misdemeanor is a civil offense,

Aaaaaaand you went off the rails right out of the gate!

The misdemeanor is a criminal offense. Will you parroting rubes PLEASE READ THE INDICTMENT?!?

There is no such thing as a misdemeanor in civil cases.

and thus the standard is preponderance of the evidence - NOT beyond a reasonable doubt.

2) But he can’t be found guilty of a misdemeanor because the statute of limitations expired years ago.

Under New York law, the limitation clock stopped the moment Trump left New York for the White House.

That's how the statute works.

3) Bragg twisted into a pretzel to get the misdemeanor into criminal court by claiming it was done to cover up an “underlying crime“

Aaaand you are now compounding your ignorance.

- as you note, never clearly identified - and THIS is where the standard of reasonable doubt comes in.

4) There is certainly reasonable doubt. The prosecutor had only a prostitute and a convicted perjurer - and now, an admitted embezzler - to claim the money was paid and that Trump reimbursed Cohen. But Cohen was caught in a lie, and the defense witness - a credible attorney - testified that Cohen said Trump knew nothing about the payoffs.

I would argue that the preponderance of the evidence is on Trump’s side, let alone the more demanding “beyond a reasonable doubt” standard.

If this were not a jury of leftist, brainwashed anti-Trumpers, I would be confident this would be a full acquittal. The case shoukd never have gone to court in the first place, But because it IS a jury of Manhattan leftists, I think a hung jury is more likely.

You watch a lot of Fox News, don't you.

Here's the thing. To bring down mob bosses, prosecutors often have no choice but to use members of the criminal organization as witnesses for the prosecution.

After all, insiders are the best people for explaining how the outfit works.

Juries get this because they are smarter than you.

Just ask Rudy Giuliani.

Giuliani assigned federal prosecutor Michael Chertoff to take the Commission case to trial. The government called 207 witnesses. Giuliani arranged for his star witnesses, Cleveland Mob underboss Angelo Lonardo, to testify, then the highest-ranking mobster to agree to serve as a witness. The case brought to light the Concrete Club, a scheme where Castellano and other mobsters demanded and received kickbacks on the cost of cement for building projects in New York in exchange for peace from Mob-controlled labor unions. In November 1986, the mobster defendants – including family leaders Salerno, Persico and Corallo – were convicted in the 21-count indictment and made to serve sentences of 40 to 100 years in prison, a crippling blow to the decades-old New York Mafia.

Rudolph Giuliani

In 1989, when Rudolph Giuliani stepped down after six years as U.S. attorney for the Southern District of New York, he was perhaps the most famous law enforcement official in the United States.

themobmuseum.org

 

[g5000]

Cohen said Trump knew nothing about it..

Yes, Cohen was doing his duty, lying to protect his boss.

That's what mobsters do for each other.

 

[g5000]

How does this correlate to the felony charge of a campaign finance violation? This relates directly to the misdemeanor whose statute of limitations has passed. The fact that he was a candidate at the time doesn’t mean that everything he did in his life revolved around his candidacy.

I have explained in this topic already how and why Trump's crime was elevated to a felony.

As for the statute of limitations, under New York law the countdown clock stopped the day Trump left New York for the White House.

 

[Lisa558]

Yes, Cohen was doing his duty, lying to protect his boss.

That's what mobsters do for each other.

OMG. He was lying about his boss KNOWING. Even the phone call he claimed took place in which they were discussing it was shown to be a lie - it was about some kid trolling him.

You leftards can’t get anything straight.

 

[Lisa558]

I have explained in this topic already how and why Trump's crime was elevated to a felony.

As for the statute of limitations, under New York law the countdown clock stopped the day Trump left New York for the White House.

Do you just make things up? The statute of limitations on the misdemeanor ran out. That’s why Bragg had to figure out some unidentified “underlying crime” to elevate it to a misdemeanor.

 

[g5000]

Do you just make things up? The statute of limitations on the misdemeanor ran out. That’s why Bragg had to figure out some unidentified “underlying crime” to elevate it to a misdemeanor.

Statute of limitations ​

Fourth, Trump argues that the prosecution is barred by the statute of limitations. But the elephant in the room is that the Governor’s COVID-19 Executive Orders extended the statute of limitations for these criminal charges. Additionally, Trump’s absence from the state while serving as President after allegedly committing the charged crimes tolled (paused the clock on) the statute of limitations, as New York law expressly provides.

A Guide to Thursday’s Hearing on Trump’s Motion to Dismiss the Manhattan Prosecution

A guide to the hearing where the Manhattan court will take up former President Trump's motion to dismiss District Attorney Alvin Bragg's prosecution for hush money payment in 2016 election.

www.justsecurity.org

All caught up now?

Unlike you parrots and Trump, I never make shit up.

 

[Lisa558]

Statute of limitations ​

Fourth, Trump argues that the prosecution is barred by the statute of limitations. But the elephant in the room is that the Governor’s COVID-19 Executive Orders extended the statute of limitations for these criminal charges. Additionally, Trump’s absence from the state while serving as President after allegedly committing the charged crimes tolled (paused the clock on) the statute of limitations, as New York law expressly provides.

A Guide to Thursday’s Hearing on Trump’s Motion to Dismiss the Manhattan Prosecution

A guide to the hearing where the Manhattan court will take up former President Trump's motion to dismiss District Attorney Alvin Bragg's prosecution for hush money payment in 2016 election.

www.justsecurity.org

All caught up now?

Unlike you parrots and Trump, I never make shit up.

That’s just the misdemeanor - a civil violation that is rectified by a fine, if proven. And even that hasn’t been proven, unless you choose to believe the convicted perjurer.

 

[JackOfNoTrades]

Alvin Bragg's case against Trump presents a tangle of interacting laws and intent puzzles

During four days of testimony in Donald Trump's trial, his estranged lawyer and fixer, Michael Cohen, supplied crucial evidence linking the former and

reason.com

A pretty detailed analysis of the various aspects of the “case” against Trump. It explores what the Bragg prosecution needs (minimally) to achieve a legally sufficient level of proof on the various interacting elements.

Personally, I don’t buy it.

I think a clearer more simplified analysis suffices.

1. The DA has to have proved (always beyond a reasonable doubt) that the misdemeanor of falsifying a business record took place in the first instance.

1b. Their position is that they “did so” by showing that Trump paid Cohen his retainer fee which he “knew” constituted a reimbursement for paying for an NDA.

1c. There is no realistic basis (in the evidence) to prove that Trump “knew” any such thing since that would require a jury to believe the lying, perjurer and thief, Cohen, the sole witness on that point.

1d. Assuming that the jury is conflicted enough (by hatred for Trump) to do something that irrational, then a conviction is possible. But otherwise, they are morally obligated to acquit.

And that’s the outcome of just the first element. The misdemeanor.

But there is at least one other complicating element. That’s the prosecution’s obligation to PROVE that the allegedly “false entry” was done with the “intent” to commit an alleged crime or conceal its alleged commission.

2. The “other” crime may be the NY State Election Law. It’s not like the prosecution ever clearly identified it as the “other” crime. But for the sake of convenience,

2b. How would “reimbursing” Cohen for the previously paid-for NDA (both the existence of which and payment for which was legal) be a plan to “commit” the crime? (The election was already over by the time Trump supposedly ”reimbursed” Cohen, after all.)

2c. It also couldn’t be a plan to “conceal” a crime since neither the NDA nor the payment for it was a crime in the first place. So there was no crime to conceal.
And that’s true regardless of the claim that Trump wished to hide the “purpose” of the NDA.

Again, therefore, on the assumption that the jury is logical and objective and fair, there doesn’t seem to be ANY way they could possibly render a verdict of “guilty” (especially beyond that good old reasonable doubt).

Let’s see what the anti-Trump pro-conviction crowd has to say about this analysis.

(I may check for needed edits before the timer runs out.)

Analysis?...They got him. Now, it's just a question of how bad he's going to pay for it.

 

[SeaMajor7]

Analysis?...They got him. Now, it's just a question of how bad he's going to pay for it.

They've got him with what? How?
This time?

 

[postman]

I think a clearer more simplified analysis suffices.

1. The DA has to have proved (always beyond a reasonable doubt) that the misdemeanor of falsifying a business record took place in the first instance.

1b. Their position is that they “did so” by showing that Trump paid Cohen his retainer fee which he “knew” constituted a reimbursement for paying for an NDA.

1c. There is no realistic basis (in the evidence) to prove that Trump “knew” any such thing since that would require a jury to believe the lying, perjurer and thief, Cohen, the sole witness on that point.

Next time pay attention to the trial.
They have the paperwork from Weisselberg, and the testimony of Hope Hicks to show that Cohen didn't pay off the NDA out of the goodness of his heart. And he was paid back in adjusted for his tax bracket, "legal fees".

 

[postman]

Good analysis, but a couple of points:

1) The misdemeanor is a civil offense, and thus the standard is preponderance of the evidence - NOT beyond a reasonable doubt.

I don't know who told you that, but stop listening to them.

A misdemeanor is still a criminal offense, under the states penal code.

Falsifying Business Records: NY PL 175.10 and 175.15

Free Consultation - Call (212) 312-7129 - Former Manhattan Prosecutor. Saland Law aggressively represents the accused against charges in Criminal Defense & Crime cases. Serving the Bronx, Brooklyn, Queens & Manhattan. Falsifying Business Records: NY PL 175.10 and 175.15 - New York Criminal...

www.new-york-lawyers.org

Simply, if you delete, alter or make a false entry in the business records of an enterprise and you do so with the intent to defraud, you have run afoul of the misdemeanor crime. If when you do so, you also have the intent to further or conceal another criminal offense, then you have committed the felony crime.

Falsifying Business Records in the Second Degree - NY Penal Law 175.05
Falsifying Business Records in the First Degree - NY Penal Law 175.10

 

[postman]

That’s just the misdemeanor - a civil violation that is rectified by a fine, if proven. And even that hasn’t been proven, unless you choose to believe the convicted perjurer.

Falsifying Business Records in the Second Degree - NY Penal Law 175.05

That's NY's criminal law

 

[postman]

That’s just the misdemeanor - a civil violation that is rectified by a fine, if proven. And even that hasn’t been proven, unless you choose to believe the convicted perjurer.

It's a criminal violation

Second Degree Falsifying Business Records: NY PL 175.05
An "A" misdemeanor punishable by up to one year in jail,