Bragg’s Pursuit of Trump Violates the Sixth Amendment

[WorldWatcher]

If done to conceal another crime. Otherwise, they are expired misdemeanors.

No other crime listed.

Correct. That's why at trial the evidence to connect the Falsification of Business Records was to aid/conceal another crime (Cohen's) as the basis for the felony level charges.

If they do that, then the felony stands. If not the court will downgrade to misdemeanors and likely dismiss.

WW

 

[g5000]

C. Suppressing Woman 1’s Account​

12. About five months before the presidential election, in or about June 2016, the editor-in-chief of the National Enquirer and AMI’s Chief Content Officer (the “AMI Editor-inChief”) contacted Lawyer A about a woman (“Woman 1”) who alleged she had a sexual relationship with the Defendant while he was married. The AMI Editor-in-Chief updated Lawyer A regularly about the matter over text message and by telephone. The Defendant did not want this information to become public because he was concerned about the effect it could have on his candidacy. Thereafter, the Defendant, the AMI CEO, and Lawyer A had a series of discussions about who should pay off Woman 1 to secure her silence.

13. AMI ultimately paid $150,000 to Woman 1 in exchange for her agreement not to speak out about the alleged sexual relationship, as well as for two magazine cover features of Woman 1 and a series of articles that would be published under her byline. AMI falsely characterized this payment in AMI’s books and records, including in its general ledger. The AMI CEO agreed to the deal after discussing it with both the Defendant and Lawyer A, and on the understanding from Lawyer A that the Defendant or the Trump Organization would reimburse AMI.

14. In a conversation captured in an audio recording in approximately September 2016 concerning Woman 1’s account, the Defendant and Lawyer A discussed how to obtain the rights to Woman 1’s account from AMI and how to reimburse AMI for its payment. Lawyer A told the Defendant he would open up a company for the transfer of Woman 1’s account and other information, and stated that he had spoken to the Chief Financial Officer for the Trump Organization (the “TO CFO”) about “how to set the whole thing up.” The Defendant asked, “So what do we got to pay for this? One fifty?” and suggested paying by cash. When Lawyer A disagreed, the Defendant then mentioned payment by check. After the conversation, Lawyer A created a shell company called Resolution Consultants, LLC on or about September 30, 2016.

15. Less than two months before the election, on or about September 30, 2016, the AMI CEO signed an agreement in which AMI agreed to transfer its rights to Woman 1’s account to Lawyer A’s shell company for $125,000. However, after the assignment agreement was signed but before the reimbursement took place, the AMI CEO consulted with AMI’s general counsel and then told Lawyer A that the deal to transfer the rights to Lawyer A’s shell company was off

 

[AsherN]

So they can use a crime Trump did not commit to change expired misdemeanors into felony charges?

interesting theory. Bat rap crazy, but interesting.

Trump falsified the records to conceal a crime. THAT is what he is being charged with. Not the underlying crime.

 

[WorldWatcher]

wow, just wow. The pretzels you all make is quite amusing. I'm laughing. So is trump.

He wasn't yesterday in court.

WW

 

[g5000]

D. Suppressing Woman 2’s Account​

16. About one month before the election, on or about October 7, 2016, news broke that the Defendant had been caught on tape saying to the host of Access Hollywood: “I just start kissing them [women]. It’s like a magnet. Just kiss. I don’t even wait. And when you’re a star, they let you do it. You can do anything. . . . Grab ’em by the [genitals]. You can do anything.” The evidence shows that both the Defendant and his campaign staff were concerned that the tape would harm his viability as a candidate and reduce his standing with female voters in particular.

17. Shortly after the Access Hollywood tape became public, the AMI Editor-in-Chief contacted the AMI CEO about another woman (“Woman 2”) who alleged she had a sexual encounter with the Defendant while he was married. The AMI CEO told the AMI Editor-in-Chief to notify Lawyer A.

18. On or about October 10, 2016, the AMI Editor-in-Chief connected Lawyer A with Woman 2’s lawyer (“Lawyer B”). Lawyer A then negotiated a deal with Lawyer B to secure Woman 2’s silence and prevent disclosure of the damaging information in the final weeks before the presidential election. Under the deal that Lawyer B negotiated, Woman 2 would be paid $130,000 for the rights to her account.

19. The Defendant directed Lawyer A to delay making a payment to Woman 2 as long as possible. He instructed Lawyer A that if they could delay the payment until after the election, they could avoid paying altogether, because at that point it would not matter if the story became public. As reflected in emails and text messages between and among Lawyer A, Lawyer B, and the AMI Editor-in-Chief, Lawyer A attempted to delay making payment as long as possible.

20. Ultimately, with pressure mounting and the election approaching, the Defendant agreed to the payoff and directed Lawyer A to proceed. Lawyer A discussed the deal with the Defendant and the TO CFO. The Defendant did not want to make the $130,000 payment himself, and asked Lawyer A and the TO CFO to find a way to make the payment. After discussing various payment options with the TO CFO, Lawyer A agreed he would make the payment. Before making the payment, Lawyer A confirmed with the Defendant that Defendant would pay him back.

21. On or about October 26, shortly after speaking with the Defendant on the phone, Lawyer A opened a bank account in Manhattan in the name of Essential Consultants LLC, a new shell company he had created to effectuate the payment. He then transferred $131,000 from his personal home equity line of credit (“HELOC”) into that account. On or about October 27, Lawyer A wired $130,000 from his Essential Consultants LLC account in New York to Lawyer B to suppress Woman 2’s account.

 

[Lesh]

So Bragg has no jurisdiction for the underlying crime you claim he is using.

Doesn’t need to have JD. That crime is an established fact

 

[g5000]

If Trump wasn't such a cheap bastard, he would not be indicted now.

 

[OldFlame]

Michael Cohen (lawyer) - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

My God is everyone's internet broken today.

WW

Wiki??

 

[g5000]

E. Post-Election Communications with AMI CEO​

22. On November 8, 2016, the Defendant won the presidential election and became the President-Elect. Thereafter, AMI released both the doorman and Woman 1 from their nondisclosure agreements.

23. The Defendant was inaugurated as President on January 20, 2017. Between Election Day and Inauguration Day, during the period of the Defendant’s transition to his role as President, the Defendant met with the AMI CEO privately in Trump Tower in Manhattan. The Defendant thanked the AMI CEO for handling the stories of the Doorman and Woman 1, and invited the AMI CEO to the Inauguration. In the summer of 2017, the Defendant invited the AMI CEO to the White House for a dinner to thank him for his help during the campaign.

 

[OldFlame]

https://www.manhattanda.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/04/Donald-J.-Trump-SOF.pdf

Read yourself.

WW

I want you to explain since you're claiming to understand it.

 

[Lisa558]

All this because of a romp in the hay with a willing floozy? Democrats were more forgiving of Clinton’s sexual assaults upon unwilling victims.

 

[john doe 101]

Bragg has charged Trump with falsifying business records (a misdemeanor past the statute of limitations) and the “intent to commit a future more serious crime” (the unarmed felony).

Trump has a right to know what this unnamed future crime he intends to commit is. Otherwise, the Democrats could arrest me, and every Trump voter, on the grounds that we intend to commit a felony in the future.

The case against Trump is unconstitutional and should be tossed. Bragg should be disbarred for using the power of his office, along with his personal hate for a citizen, to violate that citizen’s Sixth Amendment Rights. And Biden should be insisting on that, instead of that evil smile when asked about it.

Sixth Amendment

www.law.cornell.edu

Hey look another red hat piece of shit that has never even seen a Constitutional Law text book.

 

[Nostra]

He's not charging the underlying crime, Cohen was already convicted for that.

Bragg is charging the New York State crimes.

WW

Then he has squat.

 

[jc456]

So they can use a crime Trump did not commit to change expired misdemeanors into felony charges?

interesting theory. Bat rap crazy, but interesting.

pretzel making now.

 

[WorldWatcher]

I want you to explain since you're claiming to understand it.

Then go back and read the thread, I've explained it.

If you have a new question I'll be happy to help. (If I can.)

WW

 

[Marener]

Then there isn’t one.

That’s some real shitty logic even for you.

 

[Nostra]

Trump falsified the records to conceal a crime. THAT is what he is being charged with. Not the underlying crime.

So they can use a crime Trump did not commit to change expired misdemeanors into felony charges?

interesting theory. Bat rap crazy, but interesting

 

[g5000]

II. The Defendant Falsified Business Records​

24. Shortly after being elected President, the Defendant arranged to reimburse Lawyer A for the payoff he made on the Defendant’s behalf. In or around January 2017, the TO CFO and Lawyer A met to discuss how Lawyer A would be reimbursed for the money he paid to ensure Woman 2’s silence. The TO CFO asked Lawyer A to bring a copy of a bank statement for the Essential Consultants account showing the $130,000 payment.

25. The TO CFO and Lawyer A agreed to a total repayment amount of $420,000. They reached that figure by adding the $130,000 payment to a $50,000 payment for another expense for which Lawyer A also claimed reimbursement, for a total of $180,000. The TO CFO then doubled that amount to $360,000 so that Lawyer A could characterize the payment as income on his tax returns, instead of a reimbursement, and Lawyer A would be left with $180,000 after paying approximately 50% in income taxes. Finally, the TO CFO added an additional $60,000 as a supplemental year-end bonus. Together, these amounts totaled $420,000. The TO CFO memorialized these calculations in handwritten notes on the copy of the bank statement that Lawyer A had provided.

26. The Defendant, the TO CFO, and Lawyer A then agreed that Lawyer A would be paid the $420,000 through twelve monthly payments of $35,000 over the course of 2017. Each month, Lawyer A was to send an invoice to the Defendant through Trump Organization employees, falsely requesting payment of $35,000 for legal services rendered in a given month of 2017 pursuant to a retainer agreement. At no point did Lawyer A have a retainer agreement with the Defendant or the Trump Organization.

27. In early February 2017, the Defendant and Lawyer A met in the Oval Office at the White House and confirmed this repayment arrangement.

28. On or about February 14, 2017, Lawyer A emailed the Controller of the Trump Organization (the “TO Controller”) the first monthly invoice, which stated: “Pursuant to the retainer agreement, kindly remit payment for services rendered for the months of January and February, 2017.” The invoice requested payment in the amount of $35,000 for each of those two months. The TO CFO approved the payment, and, in turn, the TO Controller sent the invoice to the Trump Organization Accounts Payable Supervisor (the “TO Accounts Payable Supervisor”) with the following instructions: “Post to legal expenses. Put ‘retainer for the months of January and February 2017’ in the description.”

29. Lawyer A submitted ten similar monthly invoices by email to the Trump Organization for the remaining months in 2017. Each invoice falsely stated that it was being submitted “[p]ursuant to the retainer agreement,” and falsely requested “payment for services rendered” for a month of 2017. In fact, there was no such retainer agreement and Lawyer A was not being paid for services rendered in any month of 2017.

30. The TO Controller forwarded each invoice to the TO Accounts Payable Supervisor. Consistent with the TO Controller’s initial instructions, the TO Accounts Payable Supervisor printed out each invoice and marked it with an accounts payable stamp and the general ledger code “51505” for legal expenses. The Trump Organization maintained the invoices as records of expenses paid.

31. As instructed, the TO Accounts Payable Supervisor recorded each payment in the Trump Organization’s electronic accounting system, falsely describing it as a “legal expense” pursuant to a retainer agreement for a month of 2017. The Trump Organization maintained a digital entry for each expense, called a “voucher,” and these vouchers, like vouchers for other expenses, became part of the Trump Organization’s general ledgers.

32. The TO Accounts Payable Supervisor then prepared checks with attached check stubs for approval and signature. The first check was paid from the Defendant’s Trust and signed by the TO CFO and the Defendant’s son, as trustees. The check stub falsely recorded the payment as “Retainer for 1/1-1/31/17” and “Retainer for 2/1-2/28/17.” The second check, for March 2017, was also paid from the Trust and signed by two trustees. The check stub falsely recorded the payment as “Retainer for 3/1-3/31/17.”

33. The remaining nine checks, corresponding to the months of April through December of 2017, were paid by the Defendant personally. Each of the checks was cut from the 10 Defendant’s bank account and sent, along with the corresponding invoices from Lawyer A, from the Trump Organization in New York County to the Defendant in Washington, D.C. The checks and stubs bearing the false statements were stapled to the invoices also bearing false statements. The Defendant signed each of the checks personally and had them sent back to the Trump Organization in New York County. There, the checks, the stubs, and the invoices were scanned and maintained in the Trump Organization’s data system before the checks themselves were detached and mailed to Lawyer A for payment.

34. The $35,000 payments stopped after the December 2017 payment.

 

[jc456]

He's not charging the underlying crime, Cohen was already convicted for that.

How's that on trump? still don't know the pretzel you're trying to configure.

 

[Nostra]

That’s some real shitty logic even for you.

Cite it then.