Dershowitz Says Trump Will Lose In NY

[BackAgain]

But trashing the Capital, all good.

Not something he ever said.

Erroneous. LOL. Odd it took him almost 80 years to figure out the 5th. Not a scholar on the Constitution obviously.

Lots of folks never figure it out. And your math is off, too.

 

[pknopp]

Not something he ever said.

Lots of folks never figure it out. And your math is off, too.

No it isn't. Now we should see to his statements about defunding law enforcement.

 

[BackAgain]

No it isn't.

Yeah. It is

Now we should see to his statements about defunding law enforcement.

Go ahead. Have a blast.

 

[pknopp]

Yeah. It is

Go ahead. Have a blast.

Me? Don't you want to please Trump?

 

[Chillicothe]

I’m sorry you find words so difficult. And logic.

--------------------------------------------------


Oh, it has been a life-long challenge; however, in this instance it is a non-factor.

Rather, this Trump criminal case does seem to be relatively strong (tho I am not an attorney).
The following seems straightforward. So, put it before a jury. As is the American custom.

• "New York appellate courts have held in a long series of cases that intent to defraud includes circumstances in which a defendant acts “for the purpose of frustrating the state’s power” to “faithfully carry out its own law.” To the extent Mr. Trump was covering up campaign contributions that violated New York law, that seems to be exactly what he did."
  
• "AMI admitted that it made the payment to ensure that Woman 1 ‘did not publicize damaging allegations’ about the Defendant ‘before the 2016 presidential election and thereby influence that election.’
  
• " Pecker paid the doorman $30,000 to kill the story, though he later tried to release the doorman from the agreement after he “concluded that the story was not true.” According to the statement, Cohen instructed Pecker not to release the doorman from the agreement until after the presidential election.
  
  (underlining for emphasis by my avatar)

Notably, in the reportage of these transactions......Woman 1, Woman 2, and Doorman 1.......nobody mentions a concern about Melania's feelings.

Melania, it appears, is a non-entity, a non-consideration, in this little brouhaha.

 

[AntonToo]

When he tries to invoke federal election laws, he is (a) overstepping his jurisdiction

Bullshit, he is invoking a NY law, in relation to Federal election conducted by the state of New York:

N.Y. Elec. Law § 17-152​

Any two or more persons who conspire to promote or prevent the election of any person to a public office by unlawful means and which conspiracy is acted upon by one or more of the parties thereto, shall be guilty of a misdemeanor.

But of course another part of the scheme was fraudulet claiming of these payments as bussiness expenses to reduce tax liability to state and feds.

 

[BackAgain]

Me? Don't you want to please Trump?

No. Do you want to please President Potato?

 

[Nostra]

Alan Dershowitz, the former Trump lawyer, says nobody can get Trump off in the New York criminal case.
Alan says he wouldn't help the guy because he only helps a client one time. I guess that's Alan's way of saying he, himself, is a crappy attorney.

"During an interview with right-wing host Charlie Kirk on Wednesday, Dershowitz revealed that he would decline to represent Trump following Tuesday's arraignment in New York City"

"Well, I have a policy of only representing somebody once," he explained. "I don't think I could get this case dismissed so easily. I don't think that if you had the best lawyers in the history of the world, Abraham Lincoln and John Marshall, a New York City judge would dismiss this case because that New York City judge's life would be over."

Maybe MAGA Macho Man should chime in after that OP of his last Sunday where he posited Alan as the man.
In reality, Alan Dershowitz is all mouth and a perverted old shell of a pathetic useless man.

Alan Dershowitz on Trump charges: 'I think he probably will be convicted'

Harvard law professor Alan Dershowitz predicted former President Donald Trump would be convicted of falsifying business records to hide an alleged affair with porn star Stormy Daniels.During an interview with right-wing host Charlie Kirk on Wednesday, Dershowitz revealed that he would decline to...

www.rawstory.com

It's because the judge is a leftist hack, and the jury will come from a place that voted 87% for Chicom Joe.

Trump will have to win this on appeal.

 

[Cellblock2429]

If you read the article, he thinks Trump will be convicted because the whole judicial system in NYC is fucked. Judge is corrupt, brain dead jury, and so on.

What happens after conviction in this case (assuming it goes that way) is a total overturn, with prejudice, at the appeals level.

/——/ Sounds like a case for a change of venue.

 

[pknopp]

No. Do you want to please President Potato?

Why? I didn't vote for him.

 

[Nostra]

Bullshit, he is invoking a NY law, in relation to Federal election conducted by the state of New York:

N.Y. Elec. Law § 17-152​

Any two or more persons who conspire to promote or prevent the election of any person to a public office by unlawful means and which conspiracy is acted upon by one or more of the parties thereto, shall be guilty of a misdemeanor.

But of course another part of the scheme was fraudulet claiming of these payments as bussiness expenses to reduce tax liability to state and feds.

He invoked that law?

Where did he cite that statue in the indictment?

 

[BackAgain]

--------------------------------------------------


Oh, it has been a life-long challenge; however, in this instance it is a non-factor.

Rather, this Trump criminal case does seem to be relatively strong (tho I am not an attorney).
The following seems straightforward. So, put it before a jury. As is the American custom.

• "New York appellate courts have held in a long series of cases that intent to defraud includes circumstances in which a defendant acts “for the purpose of frustrating the state’s power” to “faithfully carry out its own law.” To the extent Mr. Trump was covering up campaign contributions that violated New York law, that seems to be exactly what he did."
• "AMI admitted that it made the payment to ensure that Woman 1 ‘did not publicize damaging allegations’ about the Defendant ‘before the 2016 presidential election and thereby influence that election.’
• " Pecker paid the doorman $30,000 to kill the story, though he later tried to release the doorman from the agreement after he “concluded that the story was not true.” According to the statement, Cohen instructed Pecker not to release the doorman from the agreement until after the presidential election.
  
  (underlining for emphasis by my avatar)

Notably, in the reportage of these transactions......Woman 1, Woman 2, and Doorman 1.......nobody mentions a concern about Melania's feelings.

Melania, it appears, is a non-entity, a non-consideration, in this little brouhaha.

I am not interested in what AMI says about its intent. I am not interested in what cohen says about his own alleged intent. I am not interested in what Pecker says his intent might have been.

It is of some note that court cases discuss what the law requires. But that has little to do with what the People can prove about what was or wasn’t involved in Trump’s intent.

)By the way you avatar didn’t do any underling. That was you. Your avatar is not you and you are not your avatar. You actually don’t even have an avatar.)

I don’t give a rat’s ass about who failed to mention Melanie either. The failure of others to mention her or the boy has not a damn thing to do with the issue of it wrong part of Trump’s intent.

 

[BackAgain]

Why? I didn't vote for him.

Because you’re speaking on behalf of the DNC.

 

[BackAgain]

Bullshit, he is invoking a NY law, in relation to Federal election conducted by the state of New York:

N.Y. Elec. Law § 17-152​

Any two or more persons who conspire to promote or prevent the election of any person to a public office by unlawful means and which conspiracy is acted upon by one or more of the parties thereto, shall be guilty of a misdemeanor.

But of course another part of the scheme was fraudulet claiming of these payments as bussiness expenses to reduce tax liability to state and feds.

Bullshit. He himself spoke of Federal election law. It’s cool that he also invoked NY Election Law and Tax Law. But that doesn’t mean he hasn’t invoked federal law.

And there is no conspiracy to elect himself via any unlawful means if the NDA payment itself is legal. And it is.

And paying Cohen’s invoices isn’t evidence of any effort to avoid paying any taxes, either.

 

[Chillicothe]

I am not interested in what AMI says.....

I am not interested in what cohen says.....

I am not interested in what Pecker says........

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

However, that 'intent'-thingy is a thing as, very likely, the above will testify.

As offered earlier:

• "New York appellate courts have held in a long series of cases that intent to defraud includes circumstances in which a defendant acts “for the purpose of frustrating the state’s power” to “faithfully carry out its own law.” To the extent Mr. Trump was covering up campaign contributions that violated New York law, that seems to be exactly what he did."

So, tho I ain't a lawyer, I could see an argument going this way:

• Witness Pecker said he paid this money to these folks so they wouldn't hurt the election.
• Witness Cohen said he paid this money to these gals so they wouldn't hurt the election.

Prosecutor: Who asked you to pay this money? Don Trump did? OK, thank you.
Prosecutor: Did he say why he wanted you to pay this money? OK, He said it would harm his election chances. OK, thank you.
Prosecutor: Oh by the way, did he ever mention it was his intent to keep the revelation of these serial infidelities away from his current wife? He never did, OK, thank you.

So, you see, good poster BackAgain.....the above is my imagination, but......but if this thing goes to trial, intent will be a thing, in this prosecution thing.

I ain't a lawyer.....but I think it will be a thing*.




*So does my avatar. So right there is at least two of us. Maybe more.

 

[pknopp]

Because you’re speaking on behalf of the DNC.

I should be paid better then.

 

[AntonToo]

And there is no conspiracy to elect himself via any unlawful means if the NDA payment itself is legal.

No dummy, unlawful means is not the payment to Stormy, but the FRAUD commited when these payments were filed as bussiness expenses.

It's illegal to lie in financial filings and cheat on taxes. Did they not teach you that in law school?

 

[AntonToo]

Bullshit. He himself spoke of Federal election law.

Really? Which one did he cite?

 

[AntonToo]

Literally no intelligent person believes that.

You are literally dumb.

 

[Billiejeens]

You are literally dumb.

No thank you.