Is Braggs stretching it with a felony?

[WorldWatcher]

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?

Talking heads can say whatever they want. They are not in the courtroom.

There is no requirement in New York State law that the prosecution layout their case as part of the indictment/arraignment process. They MUST inform the defendant of the charges of course and the basis of the charges. Which they did in the indictment showing the violation of Section 175.10 of the New York State Penal Code. They even linked the crime to how it attempted to aid and conceal the occurrence of another crime - to whit - Cohen's illegal campaign finance law violations in the "Statement of Facts" submitted along with the indictment.

At this stage they have done what they needed to do. We are not at the trial stage yet - if we ever get there. People want trial level information at this point, which is understandable. But the case in being tried in court where there is a process, not in the court of public opinion.

WW

 

[SweetSue92]

Wow, nice rebuttal.

WW

Succinct and yet, so true.

 

[SeaMajor7]

View attachment 774369

Talking heads can say whatever they want. They are not in the courtroom.

There is no requirement in New York State law that the prosecution layout their case as part of the indictment/arraignment process. They MUST inform the defendant of the charges of course and the basis of the charges. Which they did in the indictment showing the violation of Section 175.10 of the New York State Penal Code. They even linked the crime to how it attempted to aid and conceal the occurrence of another crime - to whit - Cohen's illegal campaign finance law violations in the "Statement of Facts" submitted along with the indictment.

At this stage they have done what they needed to do. We are not at the trial stage yet - if we ever get there. People want trial level information at this point, which is understandable. But the case in being tried in court where there is a process, not in the court of public opinion.

WW

Congratulations AGAIN!
YOU and Bragg are both PRETZELS.

 

[kyzr]

Talking heads can say whatever they want. They are not in the courtroom.

There is no requirement in New York State law that the prosecution layout their case as part of the indictment/arraignment process. They MUST inform the defendant of the charges of course and the basis of the charges. Which they did in the indictment showing the violation of Section 175.10 of the New York State Penal Code. They even linked the crime to how it attempted to aid and conceal the occurrence of another crime - to whit - Cohen's illegal campaign finance law violations in the "Statement of Facts" submitted along with the indictment.

At this stage they have done what they needed to do. We are not at the trial stage yet - if we ever get there. People want trial level information at this point, which is understandable. But the case in being tried in court where there is a process, not in the court of public opinion.

WW

If your cut/paste is from the Cohen indictment, that does NOT prove that it applies to Trump. If I recall correctly Cohen said that Trump did NOT know about the payment.
I want you to ONLY refer to the Trump indictment. Prove a felony. The legal experts say you can't get there.

Michael Cohen letter, Stormy Daniels statement—what we know, what we don't

A letter by Michael Cohen suggests Donald Trump may not have been involved in Stormy Daniels payment.

www.newsweek.com

Timeline of Donald Trump-Stormy Daniels hush money case

Donald Trump was indicted by the Manhattan District Attorney's office following an investigation related to hush money payments to a porn star who has said she had a sexual relationship with him, a law enforcement source said, becoming the first former U.S. president to face criminal charges.

www.reuters.com

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

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

Falsification of what business records? Even if Trump did pay her it's likely he did so with his own money which is perfectly legal. If he didn't then the statute of limitations expired several years ago.

And if there was anything illegal, why didn't the FEC find it? According to Cohen's former attorney he paid her without Trump's knowledge. If Trump did anything, all he did was reimburse him which is not criminal on his part.

Money (especially large amounts) are not paid in cash. It would have to be a money transfer, a check, or something that's easily traceable.

 

[Lisa558]

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

And falsifying business records is a misdemeanor, which has expired.

 

[WorldWatcher]

Congratulations AGAIN!
YOU and Bragg are both PRETZELS.

Just for understanding of my thoughts on the short term vs. long term.

Short term we are at indictment/arraignment stage, that is all we know now.

Long term, at this point in time with what we know, I'd guess (<<-- yes guess):

• 50/50% Chance the case gets dismissed because of attempting to link Trumps New York State violations to Cohen's Federal illegal activity.
• 25% Chance that the Defense team looks at the evidence, realizes they are screwed, and plea deals the charges down to misdemeanor with an admission of guilt. Since the Statute of Limitations has passed for misdemeanors, that ends the case.
• 25% Chance of it actually going to trial on the felony charges and at that point my crystal ball becomes cloudy. A lot depends on what the actual evidence is, which none of us - including the TV talking heads have seen. He could be found guilty, could be not convicted. Don't know.
• 0% Chance that Trump, under any circumstances, sees the inside of a jail or prison.

WW

 

[WorldWatcher]

Falsification of what business records? Even if Trump did pay her it's likely he did so with his own money which is perfectly legal. If he didn't then the statute of limitations expired several years ago.

And if there was anything illegal, why didn't the FEC find it? According to Cohen's former attorney he paid her without Trump's knowledge. If Trump did anything, all he did was reimburse him which is not criminal on his part.

Money (especially large amounts) are not paid in cash. It would have to be a money transfer, a check, or something that's easily traceable.

The checks didn't come from Trumps personal account. They came from a Trump Organization business account, hence the falsification of business records.

Again, the FEC is irrelevant here as Trump isn't being charged with federal campaign violations.

WW

 

[Lisa558]

View attachment 774369

Talking heads can say whatever they want. They are not in the courtroom.

There is no requirement in New York State law that the prosecution layout their case as part of the indictment/arraignment process. They MUST inform the defendant of the charges of course and the basis of the charges. Which they did in the indictment showing the violation of Section 175.10 of the New York State Penal Code. They even linked the crime to how it attempted to aid and conceal the occurrence of another crime - to whit - Cohen's illegal campaign finance law violations in the "Statement of Facts" submitted along with the indictment.

At this stage they have done what they needed to do. We are not at the trial stage yet - if we ever get there. People want trial level information at this point, which is understandable. But the case in being tried in court where there is a process, not in the court of public opinion.

WW

He can’t get a fair trial in Manhattan, with an anti-Trump judge and a jury of Trump haters. It needs to be moved to Staten Island, where there will be a few pro-Trumpers on the jury.

 

[WorldWatcher]

And falsifying business records is a misdemeanor, which has expired.

He's charged under Section 175.10 Falsification of Business Records in the First Degree, a felony.

WW

 

[WorldWatcher]

He can’t get a fair trial in Manhattan, with an anti-Trump judge and a jury of Trump haters. It needs to be moved to Staten Island, where there will be a few pro-Trumpers on the jury.

I'm sure, that a change in venue will be requested by the Defense.

WW

 

[Lisa558]

Just for understanding of my thoughts on the short term vs. long term.

Short term we are at indictment/arraignment stage, that is all we know now.

Long term, at this point in time with what we know, I'd guess (<<-- yes guess):

• 50/50% Chance the case gets dismissed because of attempting to link Trumps New York State violations to Cohen's Federal illegal activity.
• 25% Chance that the Defense team looks at the evidence, realizes they are screwed, and plea deals the charges down to misdemeanor with an admission of guilt. Since the Statute of Limitations has passed for misdemeanors, that ends the case.
• 25% Chance of it actually going to trial on the felony charges and at that point my crystal ball becomes cloudy. A lot depends on what the actual evidence is, which none of us - including the TV talking heads have seen. He could be found guilty, could be not convicted. Don't know.
• 0% Chance that Trump, under any circumstances, sees the inside of a jail or prison.

WW

This is all for political purposes, or a DA would be trying Clinton for falsifying business records to reimburse the law firm who cooked up the entire Russia conspiracy hoax against Trump - which of course is much worse than Trump’s consensual affair with a floozy almost 20 years ago.

 

[WorldWatcher]

If your cut/paste is from the Cohen indictment, that does NOT prove that it applies to Trump. If I recall correctly Cohen said that Trump did NOT know about the payment.
I want you to ONLY refer to the Trump indictment. Prove a felony. The legal experts say you can't get there.

Michael Cohen letter, Stormy Daniels statement—what we know, what we don't

A letter by Michael Cohen suggests Donald Trump may not have been involved in Stormy Daniels payment.

www.newsweek.com

Timeline of Donald Trump-Stormy Daniels hush money case

Donald Trump was indicted by the Manhattan District Attorney's office following an investigation related to hush money payments to a porn star who has said she had a sexual relationship with him, a law enforcement source said, becoming the first former U.S. president to face criminal charges.

www.reuters.com

Of course he said that early on.

That changed once he was charged, IIRC correctly he even had audio recordings of Trump that were turned over as part of the plea deal.

WW

 

[WorldWatcher]

Wife's up. Got to go food shopping.

Will be back later, ya'll have a nice day. See you soon.

WW

 

[SeaMajor7]

Just for understanding of my thoughts on the short term vs. long term.

Short term we are at indictment/arraignment stage, that is all we know now.

Long term, at this point in time with what we know, I'd guess (<<-- yes guess):

• 50/50% Chance the case gets dismissed because of attempting to link Trumps New York State violations to Cohen's Federal illegal activity.
• 25% Chance that the Defense team looks at the evidence, realizes they are screwed, and plea deals the charges down to misdemeanor with an admission of guilt. Since the Statute of Limitations has passed for misdemeanors, that ends the case.
• 25% Chance of it actually going to trial on the felony charges and at that point my crystal ball becomes cloudy. A lot depends on what the actual evidence is, which none of us - including the TV talking heads have seen. He could be found guilty, could be not convicted. Don't know.
• 0% Chance that Trump, under any circumstances, sees the inside of a jail or prison.

WW

Twistin', twistin', twisting the night away.

 

[Lisa558]

View attachment 774377

He's charged under Section 175.10 Falsification of Business Records in the First Degree, a felony.

WW

Linking to a false charge on the indictment doesn’t explain away the pretzel twisting. The biased DA, who ran on the promise to “get Trump,” is tying it to a campaign violation, which is a federal crime, and to which Cohen already testified Trump knew nothing about.

 

[Lesh]

And falsifying business records is a misdemeanor, which has expired.

It is NOT a misdemeanor when done to hide some other felony as in this case.

You know this. It has been pointed out to you over and over.

And the statute of limitations had not run out. Do you think Trump’s lawyers missed that and you caught it?

 

[Lesh]

Linking to a false charge on the indictment doesn’t explain away the pretzel twisting. The biased DA, who ran on the promise to “get Trump,” is tying it to a campaign violation, which is a federal crime, and to which Cohen already testified Trump knew nothing about.

And Cohen has testified both that Trump did and didn’t know about this.

But he has EVIDENCE(ie. Tapes) that show that Trump not only knew but planned it with him

 

[DBA]

25% Chance of it actually going to trial on the felony charges and at that point my crystal ball becomes cloudy. A lot depends on what the actual evidence is, which none of us - including the TV talking heads have seen. He could be found guilty, could be not convicted. Don't know.

If it went to trial in Manhatten, evidence can be thrown out the window. Democratic jurors are no better than Democratic policiticians/lawyers. They couldn’t care less about the rule of law, they just want to get Trump at all costs. As always with this crowd, supporting the Party and it’s ideology outweighs everything else.

 

[Lesh]

If it went to trial in Manhatten, evidence can be thrown out the window. Democratic jurors are no better than Democratic policiticians/lawyers. They couldn’t care less about the rule of law, they just want to get Trump at all costs. As always with this crowd, supporting the Party and it’s ideology outweighs everything else.

Yea that shit ain’t gonna wash.

But it’ll feed your grievance fetish when Trump gets convicted. So there’s that