Is Braggs stretching it with a felony?

[Lesh]

Bragg should be disbarred and never allowed to use a “created” law as a means to target political,opponents.

Thanks for your considered “legal” opinion “counselor”

 

[Lesh]

Or it can be you are FOS and there are no tapes, receipts or records.

As usual Ray… you are very confidently WRONG

 

[JoeB131]

What do you mean that “thinking is not an option.” It’s the DEMS that won’t allow thinking! I was just called the c-word (it defaulted to the asterisks) by one of your fellow lefties because I dared think - and say - that this legal prosecution of Trump for obvious political purposes is disgraceful.

Let's not forget, your side impeached Bill Clinton for lying about a blow job in a civil suit.

You can't say Bill was wrong about lying about Monica, but it was okay that Trump lied about Stormy Daniels.

 

[Clipper]

This is just one of many issues on the list that make this case a complete joke. You have to add Fat Alvin's predecessor and even state officials all came to the same conclusion that the FEC did.

In the end I see this guy getting disbarred, a Trump lawsuit against him, a Trump lawsuit against the city, and maybe even criminal charges of election interference.

Trump is not being brought up on Federal charges, fool.

 

[Clipper]

Seek help soon.

He admitted to lying under oath to Congress.

ZERO credibility, Simp.

trump has lied to you thousands & thousands of times but because he sends you selfies of his ass, he's a good guy.

Seek help soon, Ace.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Trump is not being brought up on Federal charges, fool.

So where did I say he did Mr. Illiterate?

 

[Lesh]

So where did I say he did Mr. Illiterate?

Your FEC link was referencing FEDERAL CHARGES Mr. Moron

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Your FEC link was referencing FEDERAL CHARGES Mr. Moron

No dumbass, it showed that the feds (who are in charge of campaign finance laws) decided there was nothing there.

 

[Lesh]

No dumbass, it showed that the feds (who are in charge of campaign finance laws) decided there was nothing there.

They claimed that there is nothing HERE… but their jurisdiction is FEDERAL. These are state charges

They did NOT declare that what Cohen was convicted of was legal.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

They claimed that there is nothing HERE… but their jurisdiction is FEDERAL. These are state charges

They did NOT declare that what Cohen was convicted of was legal.

The charges are falsifying records in a federal election. It's 100% federal and 0% state or city. It's one of the many reasons that a non-partisan judge would throw it out of court. Of course that won't be the case here because Democrats are Communist and don't respect law or the Constitution. That's why the judge in this case won't recuse himself given his daughter worked for the Biden/Harris campaign.

 

[scruffy]

Ask Cohen

Cohen's crime was making an excessive payment.

That's what you're claiming is the original crime?

 

[WorldWatcher]

The charges are falsifying records in a federal election. It's 100% federal and 0% state or city. It's one of the many reasons that a non-partisan judge would throw it out of court. Of course that won't be the case here because Democrats are Communist and don't respect law or the Constitution. That's why the judge in this case won't recuse himself given his daughter worked for the Biden/Harris campaign.

Sorry Ray, to say "The charges are falsifying records in a federal election." is not correct.

The charges against Trump are violation of Section 175.10 of the New York State Penal Code Falsification of Business Records in the First Degree. Falsifying business records, not election violations.

WW

 

[SweetSue92]

Sorry Ray, to say "The charges are falsifying records in a federal election." is not correct.

The charges against Trump are violation of Section 175.10 of the New York State Penal Code Falsification of Business Records in the First Degree. Falsifying business records, not election violations.

WW

Here it is:

A person is guilty of falsifying business records in the first degree when he commits the crime of falsifying business records in the second degree, and when his intent to defraud includes an intent to commit another crime or to aid or conceal the commission thereof.

You are beyond hope of rational cognition if you think ANYONE can prove that Trump "intended to defraud including an intent to commit another crime".

PLEASE

 

[kyzr]

Let's not forget, your side impeached Bill Clinton for lying about a blow job in a civil suit.
You can't say Bill was wrong about lying about Monica, but it was okay that Trump lied about Stormy Daniels.

1. Bubba took advantage of a young intern, which would have gotten any manager in the US fired instantly, and lost his law license for perjury a real crime that he deserved to get impeached for.
2. Prove Trump lied. Stormy's story keep changing. Trump paid the doorman too for a bogus claim as it turns out.

 

[kyzr]

Sorry Ray, to say "The charges are falsifying records in a federal election." is not correct.
The charges against Trump are violation of Section 175.10 of the New York State Penal Code Falsification of Business Records in the First Degree. Falsifying business records, not election violations.
WW

True. A misdemeanor, no biggie.

 

[WorldWatcher]

Here it is:

A person is guilty of falsifying business records in the first degree when he commits the crime of falsifying business records in the second degree, and when his intent to defraud includes an intent to commit another crime or to aid or conceal the commission thereof.

You are beyond hope of rational cognition if you think ANYONE can prove that Trump "intended to defraud including an intent to commit another crime".

PLEASE

: SHRUG :

What can be proven in court is yet to be seen, we are only at the indictment/arraignment stage right now. (A) we have not seen the evidence presented to the Grand Jury that voted to indict, and (B) we have yet to see how it will play out in a jury trial - if it gets that far.

We do know from some reporting the types of evidence which includes:

• Personal testimony by Allen Weissenberg (Sp?) Chief Financial Officer for the Trump Organization
• Personal testimony by David Pecker (AMI Media?) owner of the National Enquirer involved in the "catch-n-kill" process
• Personal testimony by Michael Cohen Trump personal attorney at the time
• Probably testimony by others involved (staff, assistants, accountants, etc.)
• Audio recordings that Cohen made of Trump
• Texts
• Emails
• Travel documents
• Phone records
• Invoices
• Checks
• Business ledger entries
• Contemporaneous notes
• etc.

So the crime is Falsification of Business Records and the DA will link it to Cohen's crimes as the crimes that were being aided and concealed in an attempt to illegally coverup Cohen's illegal activities.

How that will play out in the future, I don't know. We do know that Cohen had (and turned over) audio recordings of Trump regarding the illegal payments. If Trump is on those tapes talking about "catch-n-kill" to help the campaign, then the link is made.

WW

 

[WorldWatcher]

True. A misdemeanor, no biggie.

175.10 is a felony not a misdemeanor.

WW

 

[SweetSue92]

: SHRUG :

What can be proven in court is yet to be seen, we are only at the indictment/arraignment stage right now. (A) we have not seen the evidence presented to the Grand Jury that voted to indict, and (B) we have yet to see how it will play out in a jury trial - if it gets that far.

We do know from some reporting the types of evidence which includes:

• Personal testimony by Allen Weissenberg (Sp?) Chief Financial Officer for the Trump Organization
• Personal testimony by David Pecker (AMI Media?) owner of the National Enquirer involved in the "catch-n-kill" process
• Personal testimony by Michael Cohen Trump personal attorney at the time
• Probably testimony by others involved (staff, assistants, accountants, etc.)
• Audio recordings that Cohen made of Trump
• Texts
• Emails
• Travel documents
• Phone records
• Invoices
• Checks
• Business ledger entries
• Contemporaneous notes
• etc.

So the crime is Falsification of Business Records and the DA will link it to Cohen's crimes as the crimes that were being aided and concealed in an attempt to illegally coverup Cohen's illegal activities.

How that will play out in the future, I don't know. We do know that Cohen had (and turned over) audio recordings of Trump regarding the illegal payments. If Trump is on those tapes talking about "catch-n-kill" to help the campaign, then the link is made.

WW

The evidence the Grand Jury has is their Butthurt

 

[WorldWatcher]

The evidence the Grand Jury has is their Butthurt

Wow, nice rebuttal.

WW

 

[kyzr]

175.10 is a felony not a misdemeanor.
WW

That's not how the legal experts explained the indictment.

Bragg’s Legal Slurpee: The Trump Indictment is Designed for Instant Satisfaction Without Substance

Below is my column in the New York Post on the release of the indictment against former President Donald Trump. Warning: it has no legally nutritional content… Here is the column:

jonathanturley.org

"Legal experts went immediately into a frenzy over what this could mean and exactly what was the crime that Trump was allegedly covering up with payments to cover up alleged affairs with three women. If these experts were left scratching their heads on such key elements, how did laypersons on a grand jury understand the basis for this indictment?"

The Grand Jury only had 12 indict votes and 11 no votes. So in a jury made up of 90% Trump hating democrats Bragg confused 12 to vote yes is NOT how Law should work.
Call it "prosecutorial abuse".

The FEC said it was not even a crime.