'He wrote all of it down?': Prosecutors claim to have handwritten notes of Trump hush money scheme

[Skylar]

How hard do you think I will be laughing at you when you lose yet again?

Like Trump 'won' in both of his Carrol trials and the fraud trial against resulting in hundreds of millions of dollars in judgments against him?

Smiling.....were you laughing then?

 

[Rawley]

Again, you're trying insinuate that Trump didn't know and it was some sort of mistake.

Trump had been crystal clear that the ledger entries in question were EXACTLY what he'd intended them to be, and were not a mistake. Again, in Trump's own words, in his own impromptu press conference, where he defends the citations.



The AMI editor made it clear that the express purpose of the payments was to funnel money to Stormy Daniels. Stormy Daniels offered Trump no legal service whatsoever. Making $130,000 in payments listed as 'legal expenses' and 'retainer' false and fraudulent in both the general ledger and in the checks Trump personally signed.

I'll ask again, what was the proper way for the accountant at the Trump organization to describe the checks written to their lawyer Cohen? Have you ever run a business? Ever write a check to your lawyer? Did you separately list the lawyer's disbursements in your checkbook?

 

[BluesLegend]

OMG Trump hand written notes found!! Oh wait, it's just his golf scorecard phew!

 

[eagle1462010]

So how is the WHORE'S and DEMS BLACKMAIL CASE GOING

 

[Skylar]

I'll ask again, what was the proper way for the accountant at the Trump organization to describe the checks written to their lawyer Cohen? Have you ever run a business? Ever write a check to your lawyer? Did you separately list the lawyer's disbursements in your checkbook?

In this instance, it was to purchase the rights to Stormy Daniel's account of an affair with Trump.

Purchasing story rights isn't listed as a 'legal expense' or 'retainer' in any ledger of any business. To say nothing of a real estate business. Nor did Stormy Daniels offer Trump any legal service.

In what business have you ever purchased story rights and listed them as 'retainer'.

Be specific, with evidence please.

 

[LAUGHatLEFTISTS]

Like Trump 'won' in both of his Carrol trials and the fraud trial against resulting in hundreds of millions of dollars in judgments against him?

Smiling.....were you laughing then?

Hahaha. Crazy Carol isn’t going to see a dime. She thought she bagged a millionaire thirty years ago when she let Trump bend her over in a dressing room. He doesn’t even remember the lay! Hahahahhahahahahahahaaaa!

 

[eagle1462010]

 

[Skylar]

Hahaha. Crazy Carol isn’t going to see a dime. She thought she bagged a millionaire thirty years ago when she let Trump bend her over in a dressing room. He doesn’t even remember the lay! Hahahahhahahahahahahaaaa!

Then you were delighted by Trump's 'victory' with each case, where he was found liable for $5 million, then $85 million, then $464 million!

Finally, some common ground. I was delighted with those outcomes as well.

 

[JimH52]

As it turns out, the underlying crime is not the specific crimes of which Cohen was convicted.

You can read about this in the reporting on the trial.

And Cohen lied to protect trump. the fat, sleepy, asshole.

 

[Rawley]

In this instance, it was to purchase the rights to Stormy Daniel's account of an affair with Trump.

Purchasing story rights isn't listed as a 'legal expense' or 'retainer' in any ledger of any business. To say nothing of a real estate business. Nor did Stormy Daniels offer Trump any legal service.

In what business have you ever purchased story rights and listed them as 'retainer'.

Be specific, with evidence please.

When it's an NDA negotiated by your lawyer. NDA's are 100% legal. The payment was a disbursement attendant to the legal services.

I'll ask a third and final time to the question you keep deflecting from, what was the proper way for the accountant at the Trump organization to describe the checks written to their lawyer Cohen?

 

[Skylar]

When it's an NDA negotiated by your lawyer. NDA's are 100% legal. The payment was a disbursement attendant to the legal services.

I'll ask a third and final time to the question you keep deflecting from, what was the proper way for the accountant at the Trump organization to describe the checks written to their lawyer Cohen?

It was an NDA already negotiated by AMI media, which had an explicit catch and kill scheme set up by Trump, with Trump being one of the three attendees at a meeting at Trump tower where the plot was hatched.

AMI purchased the story rights to Stormy Daniel's account, with the NDA being part of those rights where only those who held the rights could tell the story. What Trump was buying....were the story rights.

So I ask again, in what business have you EVER listed the purchase of story rights as 'retainer'. Or 'legal expenses'.

Which evidence, please. Its quite clear you never have, nor is there any legal or legitimate reason to list them as such.

 

[para bellum]

The indictment cites the invoice from Cohen. Trump didn't falsify Cohen's invoice. It also cites a general ledger entry. Trump didn't make any general ledger entries. And the indictment doesn't allege the underlying crime Trump was supposedly covering up. Bragg told Trump's lawyers to go fuck themselves when they asked why the crime was.

We have spent a lot of effort trying to discover the predicate crime the DA is relying on for the felony enhancement. The lefties here have made all sorts of nonsensical comments about the obligation of the prosecutor to identify the crime- those comments are just made in ignorance- they didn't know the answer so they pretended it was not required.

The judge ruled on this back in February. His ruling was that the underlying (predicate) crime did not have to be included in the indictment, if the facts presented to the Grand Jury were sufficient to show there was grounds for alleging one, and the defense was provided with a bill of particulars that spelled out the crime alleged.

The ruling identified 3 crimes and eliminated one possibility, I listed those 3 that would be allowed in my post #33.

Yesterday in a sidebar, the prosecution finally identified by statute the primary underlying crime they are alleging- it is NY Election Law 17-152. It states:

"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."

So the prosecution's case is that the agreement with Pecker, Cohen, and Trump constitutes a "conspiracy using unlawful means" to promote the election of Trump. Presumably the "unlawful means" is the recording of the payments to Cohen in the accounting system as "legal expenses" and not "hush money", since NDA's are not illegal.

In order to convict, the jury will have to be convinced that Trump was aware that the suppression of the stories was an illegal conspiracy, and that the recording of the payments as legal expenses was intended to hide the agreement with AMI to find and suppress negative stories about Trump.

 

[Lesh]

Focus - FatFuck Bragg charged Trump with falsifying records. What records did he falsify and how did he falsify them? And what was the crime he was allegedly covering up?

Trump's 4 indictments in detail: A quick-look guide to charges, trial dates and key players for each case

A brief overview of the key players and allegations in each of Donald Trump's four criminal cases.

www.cbsnews.com

 

[Skylar]

We have spent a lot of effort trying to discover the predicate crime the DA is relying on for the felony enhancement. The lefties here have made all sorts of nonsensical comments about the obligation of the prosecutor to identify the crime- those comments are just made in ignorance- they didn't know the answer so they pretended it was not required.

The judge ruled on this back in February. His ruling was that the underlying (predicate) crime did not have to be included in the indictment, if the facts presented to the Grand Jury were sufficient to show there was grounds for alleging one, and the defense was provided with a bill of particulars that spelled out the crime alleged.

The ruling identified 3 crimes and eliminated one possibility, I listed those 3 that would be allowed in my post #33.

Yesterday in a sidebar, the prosecution finally identified by statute the primary underlying crime they are alleging- it is NY Election Law 17-152. It states:

"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."

So the prosecution's case is that the agreement with Pecker, Cohen, and Trump constitutes a "conspiracy using unlawful means" to promote the election of Trump. Presumably the "unlawful means" is the recording of the payments to Cohen in the accounting system as "legal expenses" and not "hush money", since NDA's are not illegal.

In order to convict, the jury will have to be convinced that Trump was aware that the suppression of the stories was an illegal conspiracy, and that the recording of the payments as legal expenses was intended to hide the agreement with AMI to find and suppress negative stories about Trump.

There's no legal requirement of 'awareness of an illegal conspiracy'. Here's the law. There's no mention of it.

NYS Open Legislation | NYSenate.gov

www.nysenate.gov

The jury will to be convinced that the purpose of the payments was to influence the election , that two or more people were involved, that the ledger entries were false and unlawful, and that the purpose of the falsified records was to cover up the attempt to influence the election.

If Bragg can land the claims in the statement of fact, those will be low bars. Especially with the AMI head confirming that Trump was part of the 3 person meeting where the catch and kill plot was hatched at Trump Tower right after Trump announced his presidential run. Sticking the landing on the two hardest right there.

Strongly establishing the 'why' both explicitly (as confirmed by Cohen and the AMI head) and by timing (immediately after announcing his presidential run). Nor is there any chance of using the 'but I didn't know shit' defense by Trump, as he went full Hamilton.

He was in the room where it happened.

 

[Rawley]

It was an NDA already negotiated by AMI media

Nope

, which had an explicit catch and kill scheme set up by Trump, with Trump being one of the three attendees at a meeting at Trump tower where the plot was hatched.

AMI purchased the story rights to Stormy Daniel's account

Nope

, with the NDA being part of those rights where only those who held the rights could tell the story. What Trump was buying....were the story rights.

So I ask again, in what business have you EVER listed the purchase of story rights as 'retainer'. Or 'legal expenses'.

Which evidence, please. Its quite clear you never have, nor is there any legal or legitimate reason to list them as such.

Ok you can't or won't answer the question. I won't bother you with facts or evidence again. You have the narrative that your cult wants to push and you can't deviate from it.

 

[para bellum]

There's no legal requirement of 'awareness of an illegal conspiracy'. Here's the law. There's no mention of it.

Yes there is. You cannot have "intent to defraud" without knowledge that the act is illegal. That is a requirement for the falsification of records charge at a minimum.

N.Y. Penal Law § 175.05 – Falsifying business records in the second degree

A person is guilty of falsifying business records in the second degree when, with intent to defraud, he, 1. Makes or causes…

newyork.public.law

You even admit as much:

"The jury will to be convinced that the purpose of the payments was to influence the election , that two or more people were involved, that the ledger entries were false and unlawful, and that the purpose of the falsified records was to cover up the attempt to influence the election."

Since the falsification of records was to cover up the "conspiracy", you can't convict Trump under 175.10 if he was not aware that the records were illegal. That is the "intent to defraud" part of the base charge.

 

[Seymour Flops]

Is it Allen Weisselberg who provided these notes and will testify about them?

Has Allen Weisselberg ever falsified a document, or lied under oath?

Anyone?

Anyone?

If he has, he wouldn't have much credibility.

 

[Rawley]

We have spent a lot of effort trying to discover the predicate crime the DA is relying on for the felony enhancement. The lefties here have made all sorts of nonsensical comments about the obligation of the prosecutor to identify the crime- those comments are just made in ignorance- they didn't know the answer so they pretended it was not required.

The judge ruled on this back in February. His ruling was that the underlying (predicate) crime did not have to be included in the indictment, if the facts presented to the Grand Jury were sufficient to show there was grounds for alleging one, and the defense was provided with a bill of particulars that spelled out the crime alleged.

The ruling identified 3 crimes and eliminated one possibility, I listed those 3 that would be allowed in my post #33.

Yesterday in a sidebar, the prosecution finally identified by statute the primary underlying crime they are alleging- it is NY Election Law 17-152. It states:

"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."

So the prosecution's case is that the agreement with Pecker, Cohen, and Trump constitutes a "conspiracy using unlawful means" to promote the election of Trump. Presumably the "unlawful means" is the recording of the payments to Cohen in the accounting system as "legal expenses" and not "hush money", since NDA's are not illegal.

In order to convict, the jury will have to be convinced that Trump was aware that the suppression of the stories was an illegal conspiracy, and that the recording of the payments as legal expenses was intended to hide the agreement with AMI to find and suppress negative stories about Trump.

Seems rather circular, the crime is the falsification of records and the crime they are hiding is the same falsification of records.

They really didn't think this one through, did they.

Hey, thanks for the particulars, I hadn't been able to find the cite to the "other crime" they are alleging.

 

[Seymour Flops]

We have spent a lot of effort trying to discover the predicate crime the DA is relying on for the felony enhancement. The lefties here have made all sorts of nonsensical comments about the obligation of the prosecutor to identify the crime- those comments are just made in ignorance- they didn't know the answer so they pretended it was not required.

The judge ruled on this back in February. His ruling was that the underlying (predicate) crime did not have to be included in the indictment, if the facts presented to the Grand Jury were sufficient to show there was grounds for alleging one, and the defense was provided with a bill of particulars that spelled out the crime alleged.

The ruling identified 3 crimes and eliminated one possibility, I listed those 3 that would be allowed in my post #33.

Yesterday in a sidebar, the prosecution finally identified by statute the primary underlying crime they are alleging- it is NY Election Law 17-152. It states:

"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."

So the prosecution's case is that the agreement with Pecker, Cohen, and Trump constitutes a "conspiracy using unlawful means" to promote the election of Trump. Presumably the "unlawful means" is the recording of the payments to Cohen in the accounting system as "legal expenses" and not "hush money", since NDA's are not illegal.

In order to convict, the jury will have to be convinced that Trump was aware that the suppression of the stories was an illegal conspiracy, and that the recording of the payments as legal expenses was intended to hide the agreement with AMI to find and suppress negative stories about Trump.

Unless they are steath jurors, the two attorneys on the jury will see through that in a New York minute, no pun intended.

 

[Rawley]

Yes there is. You cannot have "intent to defraud" without knowledge that the act is illegal. That is a requirement for the falsification of records charge at a minimum.

N.Y. Penal Law § 175.05 – Falsifying business records in the second degree

A person is guilty of falsifying business records in the second degree when, with intent to defraud, he, 1. Makes or causes…

newyork.public.law

Clearly these folks have never researcher how this law is typically applied - insurance fraud - making a false claim to an insurer.