How Judge Merchan Is Orchestrating Trump’s Conviction

[cnm]

Was she telling the truth when she signed a statement saying no affair took place?

Got a link? But if she did say Trump didn't screw her I'd say that was a lie. I'm sure you're as gratified as I am that she decided to straighten up and fly right.

 

[cnm]

The only fool in here are you progressives hell bent on making up elaborate schemes, and using the justice system to perpetuate a fraud on the American voter.

That's the LOTUS's entire business model.

Every conservative accusation really is a confession.

 

[WorldWatcher]

You know, this does bring to mind an interesting observation. And this is what you may have been eluding to, but, the book keeping error was a misdemeanor that had run its statute of limitations, however, Bragg is reviving that by saying if it was done in furtherance of another crime, this reinstated the statute of limitations.

Now, Bragg never specified the underlying crime in the indictment, only in the supporting documents. However, even if he had, I’m not sure it would have validated his case because the underlying crime he’s using (allleged campaign finance violations), is not a crime for which Trump has been charged, or convicted.

In essence, Bragg case is assuming a further felony that trump hasn’t been convicted of, and he’s trying to use his case to assert that crime.

I’m not sure that’s how it works. First, Trump would have to be charged and found guilty of committing the crime if campaign finance violations, Bragg could then use that felony as his underlying crime for his book keeping misdemeanor case.

Is this not right ?

Correct, this is not right.

#1 FPOTUS#45 doesn't have to have committed the crime(s) that FPOTUS#45 has to have intended to hide/aid in. Cohen was convicted for criminal campaign contributions and went to prison. That is an established fact, therefore the DA has to show that the falsification of Trump Organization business records was to conceal/hide/aid the commission of Cohen's crimes.

#2 There is also the case - which is one the prosecution is using - is that FPOTUS#45 violated New York election law (not federal) in conspiring to influence the election through illegal means. Again that can go back to Cohen as the crime, the support of Cohen's crimes and the falsification of business records being the "illegal means".
.
.
.
FPOTUS#45 does not have to be charged or convicted of the secondary crime for the falsification enhancement to the felony, the DA only has to show that the intent of the falsification was to cover-up/hide/aid in the commission of other crimes by himself or others. Not that he had to succeed in those other crimes.

WW

 

[WorldWatcher]

Trump could have told her pound sand, called the proper law enforcement agency to have it investigated. But he chose the wrong path and is now dealing with those choices

He had no call to call law enforcement.

Daniels did not approach him with a any kind of extortion or blackmail.

Daniels was re-shopping a known story that had been published in 2011 to news media. She didn't approach FPOTUS#45 or the campaign. This is in previous court documents and David Pecker testified in this case that he was acting as "eyes and ears" in case any such negative stories started floating around.

It was Pecker that contacted the FPOTUS#45/Campaign with the information that Daniels was putting her story out again but he was unwilling to front the "catch and kill" again. Because of that FPOTUS#45/Cohen reach out to her to make a bid.

WW

 

[Care4all]

No campaign funds were spent on payoffs, and Bragg does not even try to allege that. Cohen used a home equity line of credit to pay Daniels and was reimbursed by Trump from personal funds. AMI used their own funds, and were never reimbursed by anyone.

You have Trump confused with Hillary again- the only candidate in 2016 who actually DID illegally use campaign funds to create the Russia Collusion Hoax...

Fyi

It was the opposite. They were SUPPOSE to claim the donation / expense as a campaign donation, not a business expense in the false manner that they did.

 

[ThisIsMe]

Correct, this is not right.

#1 FPOTUS#45 doesn't have to have committed the crime(s) that FPOTUS#45 has to have intended to hide/aid in. Cohen was convicted for criminal campaign contributions and went to prison. That is an established fact, therefore the DA has to show that the falsification of Trump Organization business records was to conceal/hide/aid the commission of Cohen's crimes.

#2 There is also the case - which is one the prosecution is using - is that FPOTUS#45 violated New York election law (not federal) in conspiring to influence the election through illegal means. Again that can go back to Cohen as the crime, the support of Cohen's crimes and the falsification of business records being the "illegal means".
.
.
.
FPOTUS#45 does not have to be charged or convicted of the secondary crime for the falsification enhancement to the felony, the DA only has to show that the intent of the falsification was to cover-up/hide/aid in the commission of other crimes by himself or others. Not that he had to succeed in those other crimes.

WW

That makes sense, but the campaign finance violation is a bogus charge. Biden was fined at least twice for it and wouldn’t the fund raiser be just had also be a campaign finance violation? Where he was getting up to $500,000 per ticket.

I can see where you are going with this and I think it has merit, but many people think braggs case is thin, and he’s basing it on a felony that even Biden himself has committed at least twice.

So, legally speaking, you may be right, but beyond that, it appears this is just another in a long line of “get trump”.

 

[Care4all]

Go tell Soros.

no crimes there! Soros donations are on the up and up. All above board and recorded.... We know the non profits he donates to....It is not hidden.

 

[OldFlame]

Yeah Trump should be keeping better company. He laid down with dogs now he is dealing with the fleas. Not having an affair would have been the better choice to make.

So you have morals now, affairs bad, drag queens reading to young children and exposing themselves, awesome.

If you want to try every politician who paid someone off during a campaign to keep them quiet about unscrupulous activities, you'd have to line up all of DC, who do you want to start with?

 

[ThisIsMe]

Correct, this is not right.

#1 FPOTUS#45 doesn't have to have committed the crime(s) that FPOTUS#45 has to have intended to hide/aid in. Cohen was convicted for criminal campaign contributions and went to prison. That is an established fact, therefore the DA has to show that the falsification of Trump Organization business records was to conceal/hide/aid the commission of Cohen's crimes.

#2 There is also the case - which is one the prosecution is using - is that FPOTUS#45 violated New York election law (not federal) in conspiring to influence the election through illegal means. Again that can go back to Cohen as the crime, the support of Cohen's crimes and the falsification of business records being the "illegal means".
.
.
.
FPOTUS#45 does not have to be charged or convicted of the secondary crime for the falsification enhancement to the felony, the DA only has to show that the intent of the falsification was to cover-up/hide/aid in the commission of other crimes by himself or others. Not that he had to succeed in those other crimes.

WW

Question though…

From what I’ve read, the indictment against Trump was falsifying business records, with intent to defraud, in the first/second degree. However, wasn’t the records he changed merely internal records? In other words, records that nobody else would see? That kind of takes away the “intent to defraud” stipulation out of the indictment doesn’t it? How can you “intend to defraud” if the records you falsified were internal only? If the false entries were tax violations, perhaps they can fine him for a tax code issue, but if the records were for internal purposes, then who was he trying to defraud, for the purposes of the NY indictment?

Doesn’t that take the wind out of the sails of his indictment?

I still don’t understand why Bragg never mentions the underlying felony in his indictment. He says it’s because the law doesn’t require him to, but, wouldn’t you, in an effort to be transparent, wasn’t to include it? I can’t see a reason why he wouldn’t want to put it in there.

Also, I’m curious what law or exemption he’s referring to when he says that the law doesn’t require him to state the underlying crime in the indictment.

 

[WorldWatcher]

That makes sense, but the campaign finance violation is a bogus charge.

FPOTUS#45 isn't charged with campaign finance volitions under federal law.

Biden was fined at least twice for it and wouldn’t the fund raiser be just had also be a campaign finance violation? Where he was getting up to $500,000 per ticket.

If the funds went to the campiagn? I assume so.

Wanna bet that the funds went to a PAC which isn't subject to campaign limitations.

You know, like the $50,000,000 that FPOTUS#45 just raised for his PAC by hosting donors as MAL/


WW

 

[WorldWatcher]

Question though…

From what I’ve read, the indictment against Trump was falsifying business records, with intent to defraud, in the first/second degree. However, wasn’t the records he changed merely internal records? In other words, records that nobody else would see? That kind of takes away the “intent to defraud” stipulation out of the indictment doesn’t it? How can you “intend to defraud” if the records you falsified were internal only? If the false entries were tax violations, perhaps they can fine him for a tax code issue, but if the records were for internal purposes, then who was he trying to defraud, for the purposes of the NY indictment?

Doesn’t that take the wind out of the sails of his indictment?

Not really.

I still don’t understand why Bragg never mentions the underlying felony in his indictment. He says it’s because the law doesn’t require him to, but, wouldn’t you, in an effort to be transparent, wasn’t to include it? I can’t see a reason why he wouldn’t want to put it in there.

Also, I’m curious what law or exemption he’s referring to when he says that the law doesn’t require him to state the underlying crime in the indictment.

You'd have to research New York law and case precedent.

But as fare as I know, I could be wrong, the defense didn't even bother to challenge it in court filings as it's well established.

https://manhattanda.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/04/2023-04-04-SOF.pdf

However, the logic was mentioned in the accompanying Statement of Facts wiled with the court and made available to the public at the time the indictment was filed.

WW

 

[para bellum]

Fyi

It was the opposite. They were SUPPOSE to claim the donation / expense as a campaign donation, not a business expense in the false manner that they did.

AMI, maybe in theory if the NDA's for McDougal and the Doorman were not intended to be reimbursed. Pecker said that was not the case- he initially expected to be reimbursed based on his discussions with Cohen. Trump told him at first, "don't pay it, these things never stay secret anyway."

When it came down to it, he told Cohen to tear up the agreement and he released McDougal from the NDA. He also said they had been doing that same thing for years- suppressing bad press and pushing positive stories about Trump because it sold magazines.

And Trump never had any control over AMI's accounting practices.

Cohen, that payment to Daniels was always to be reimbursed by Trump, Cohen never intended it to be a campaign contribution.

It is not a false manner to record a legal cost as a legal cost, whatever Bragg claims. And the money was personal funds, not subject to the same accounting rules that businesses adhere to. You can write a personal check to a lawyer and record it any way you choose, or not record it at all. It's how you treat it on your taxes that matters.

 

[Lord-Humungus]

So you have morals now, affairs bad, drag queens reading to young children and exposing themselves, awesome.

If you want to try every politician who paid someone off during a campaign to keep them quiet about unscrupulous activities, you'd have to line up all of DC, who do you want to start with?

Why do you need to lie to try and make a point? I have never supported anyone expos themselves to kids. That is your fantasy.

Looks Like we are starting with Trump.

 

[j-mac]

Got a link?

It’s been posted on this site. Look it up…

But if she did say Trump didn't screw her I'd say that was a lie.

Oh, im sure you do think that, because you so badly want to “get Trump “ you’ll accept lies if it achieves your ends…

I'm sure you're as gratified as I am that she decided to straighten up and fly right.

If you say so…

 

[ThisIsMe]

FPOTUS#45 isn't charged with campaign finance volitions under federal law.



If the funds went to the campiagn? I assume so.

Wanna bet that the funds went to a PAC which isn't subject to campaign limitations.

You know, like the $50,000,000 that FPOTUS#45 just raised for his PAC by hosting donors as MAL/


WW

Very possible to a PAC, none of the articles ever mention a pac though. Still Biden has been fined at least twice for campaign violations…it appears to be be fairly standard thing. Just pay the fine, you’ll be ok, except for trump…

 

[WorldWatcher]

Very possible to a PAC, none of the articles ever mention a pac though. Still Biden has been fined at least twice for campaign violations…it appears to be be fairly standard thing. Just pay the fine, you’ll be ok, except for trump…

FPOTUS#45 hasn't been fined by the FEC.

Nor is FPOTUS#45 on trial for violating federal campaign finance laws. Although part of Cohens crimes he was convicted of were criminal federal campaign finance and he went to prison.

WW

 

[ThisIsMe]

Not really.

View attachment 940045




You'd have to research New York law and case precedent.

But as fare as I know, I could be wrong, the defense didn't even bother to challenge it in court filings as it's well established.

https://manhattanda.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/04/2023-04-04-SOF.pdf

However, the logic was mentioned in the accompanying Statement of Facts wiled with the court and made available to the public at the time the indictment was filed.

WW

Not really.

View attachment 940045

Well, that’s my point. If the records were internal records, not meant for the public, how does that rise to the level of intent to defraud?

However, the logic was mentioned in the accompanying Statement of Facts wiled with the court and made available to the public at the time the indictment was filed.

Indeed it was, but it’s odd that Bragg didn’t want to include the indictment. Why would he shy away from transparency ?

The dubious legal theory at the heart of the Trump indictment, explained

No one knows if Donald Trump can be prosecuted for the hush money payment to Stormy Daniels.

www.vox.com

I mean, when you have vox saying braggs case is shaky…that’s saying something

 

[ThisIsMe]

FPOTUS#45 hasn't been fined by the FEC.

Nor is FPOTUS#45 on trial for violating federal campaign finance laws. Although part of Cohens crimes he was convicted of were criminal federal campaign finance and he went to prison.

WW

I understand that, but braggs case hinges on campaign finance violations…which other presidents have been guilty of, yet faced only fines for.

Even Vox says this is a highly unproven legal theory and that they think his case will fail because of it…this is VOX saying that…vox is a left wing site.

 

[WorldWatcher]

I understand that, but braggs case hinges on campaign finance violations…which other presidents have been guilty of, yet faced only fines for.

Even Vox says this is a highly unproven legal theory and that they think his case will fail because of it…this is VOX saying that…vox is a left wing site.

The DA's case hinges on showing falsification of business records.

The campaign violations in this case were committed in a criminal manner by others:

• Cohen, convicted and went to prison.
• Pecker/AMI realized they were opening themselves up to criminal liability and secured a non-prosecution agreement for their crimes.

WW

 

[Wild Bill Kelsoe]

No, it's for falsifying business records - to influence an election.

https://www.reuters.com/legal/what-charges-does-trump-face-new-yorks-hush-money-case-2023-04-05/

Influencing an election isn't a crime. Influencing elections is literally what campaigns do...lol