We Finally Know the Case Against Trump, and It Is Strong

[Lesh]

Of course it is in question, it is a required element of the crime being charged. Without it, the DA can only charge falsification in the second degree.

The charging document only mentions the money paid to Stormy Daniels, but NDA's are not illegal.

They go on about "interfering with the election", which leads back to the DA's inference that the purpose of the NDA was election interference.

If that is the reasoning for charging the offense in the first degree, then any money spent by any politician to protect his reputation must be illegal as well.

Hey dummy… “it” is a fact. Cohen was CONVICTED of campaign finance illegalities and served time for it.

THAT is not in question. It’s FACT

 

[para bellum]

Hey dummy… “it” is a fact. Cohen was CONVICTED of campaign finance illegalities and served time for it.

THAT is not in question. It’s FACT

Hey dummy, Cohen pled guilty in a plea deal, to a Federal offense, in a Federal Court, and he is not the one being charged here.

Why is the DOJ not charging Trump with the same offense? They looked at it, and concluded there was nothing to charge. that's why.

So the DA can't use that as the crime being concealed unless there is a State statute that parallels the Federal one, and the DA can prove Trump violated that State law. And I don't think there is such a law, because it would have been cited in the indictment.

"Interfering with the election" is a propaganda slogan. It's not a crime unless you can cite the relevant criminal statute.

 

[Lesh]

Hey dummy, Cohen pled guilty in a plea deal, to a Federal offense, in a Federal Court, and he is not the one being charged here.

Exactly. Cohen pled guilty to a FELONY. That felony is what these state indictments claim Trump was trying to hide. That's a STATE felony

They looked at it, and concluded there was nothing to charge. that's why.

That's a lie

So the DA can't use that as the crime being concealed unless there is a State statute that parallels the Federal one, and the DA can prove Trump violated that State law.

Pure nonsense. These indictments allege that these acts were carried out to conceal that felony. That felony is a FACT

 

[para bellum]

Exactly. Cohen pled guilty to a FELONY. That felony is what these state indictments claim Trump was trying to hide. That's a STATE felony

That's a lie

Pure nonsense. These indictments allege that these acts were carried out to conceal that felony. That felony is a FACT

This is what's called grasping at straws, but whatever.

Trump was trying to hide someone else's felony, not one he committed personally. Okee-dokey, I guess we'll have to wait and see how that works out,

 

[Lesh]

Trump was trying to hide someone else's felony, not one he committed personally.

That would be ILLEGAL

 

[para bellum]

That would be ILLEGAL

So what is the applicable statute and why isn't it cited in the charging document?

 

[Mac1958]

Assuming the underlying crime is the Daniels payoff, he has to convince a jury that his motive was to benefit his election campaign an not to maintain his spotless image. If he can do that, all 34 counts become felonies.

Yeah, I think that's what this is. I don't know how Bragg proves motive just because of the timing. Trump could just say he didn't want the wife to know.

But again, the indictment was just a basic document. Maybe Bragg has more.

 

[Deplorable Yankee]

Ah, yes, so it appears that the Manhattan district attorney, Alvin Bragg, has been receiving quite a bit of flak for pursuing a case against none other than Donald Trump. However, I must say that upon closer inspection, the charges brought against Mr. Trump are anything but weak. In fact, the charge of creating false financial records is not novel and has been used time and time again in New York to prosecute individuals who create fake documentation to cover up campaign finance violations - precisely the accusation leveled against Mr. Trump, or rather, defendant Trump.

It's worth noting that the Manhattan D.A.'s office is hardly your run-of-the-mill local cog in the judicial system. Rather, it is unique, with jurisdiction over the financial capital of the world, which means the office regularly deals with complex white-collar crimes, including those involving high-profile individuals. Indeed, the office recently secured a conviction of the Trump Organization and a guilty plea from one of its top executives, Allen Weisselberg, on charges related to a tax fraud scheme.

Moreover, the books and records counts laid out in the charging papers against Mr. Trump are the bread and butter of the D.A.'s office. He is the 30th defendant to be indicted on false records charges by Mr. Bragg since he took office just over a year ago, with the D.A. bringing 151 counts under the statute so far. Indeed, the Trump Organization conviction and the Weisselberg plea included business falsification felonies.

The 34 felony books and records counts in the Trump indictment turn on the misstatement of the hush-money payment to Stormy Daniels arranged by Michael Cohen in the waning days of the 2016 election and the repayment of that amount by Mr. Trump to Mr. Cohen, ostensibly as legal expenses. There are 11 counts for false invoices, 11 for false checks and check stubs and 12 for false general ledger entries. This allegedly violated the false records statute when various entries were made in business documents describing those repayments as legal fees.

While Mr. Trump's case may be unique in its particulars, his behavior is not. Individuals have often attempted to skirt the disclosure and dollar limit requirements of campaign finance regulations and falsified records to hide it. Contrary to Mr. Trump's protestations, New York prosecutors regularly charge felony violations of the books and records statute and win convictions when the crimes covered up were campaign finance violations, resulting in false entries in business records to conceal criminal activity.

All in all, my fellow members of this illustrious snakepit and a few ladies and gentlemen, it seems that Mr. Bragg is hardly navigating uncharted waters. His actions are supported by previous prosecutions in New York and elsewhere, which have demonstrated that state authorities can enforce state law in cases relating to federal candidates. It remains to be seen what will come of this case, but one thing is certain - Mr. Trump cannot persuasively argue that he is being singled out for some unprecedented theory of prosecution. He is being treated like any other New Yorker would be with similar evidence against him.

And let the war begin, the war of words, that is.

Cheers,
Rumpole.

Opinion | We Finally Know the Case Against Trump, and It Is Strong (Published 2023)

There’s nothing novel or weak about Alvin Bragg’s case.

www.nytimes.com

For weeks, Alvin Bragg, the Manhattan district attorney, has come under heavy fire for pursuing a case against Donald Trump. Potential charges were described as being developed under a novel legal theory. And criticism has come not only from Mr. Trump and his allies, as expected, but also from many who are usually no friends of the former president but who feared it would be a weak case.

With the release of the indictment and accompanying statement of facts, we can now say that there’s nothing novel or weak about this case. The charge of creating false financial records is constantly brought by Mr. Bragg and other New York D.A.s. In particular, the creation of phony documentation to cover up campaign finance violations has been repeatedly prosecuted in New York. That is exactly what Mr. Trump stands accused of.

 

[scruffy]

Hey dummy… “it” is a fact. Cohen was CONVICTED of campaign finance illegalities and served time for it.

THAT is not in question. It’s FACT

So? So what?

Bragg has to prove intent.

Good luck with that.

 

[Rumpole]

[...meme deleted...see original...]

[...meme deleted, see original...]

I wrote a musical, wrote the libretto, composed the music, and it's entitled 'Les Deplorables' ( a spin on 'les Miserables' , cute, eh?)
Well, in one of the chapters one of the deplorables thinks it would be cute to send a meme to someone, and the fellow whom the deplorable sent the email to replied as follows:

Dear Deplorable,

I'm sorry, but apparently you have confused me with a fish.

Please take your bait to another pond, where some other fool might take your bait.

But, my palate simply cannot stand the low grade stuff you have offered.

Cheers,
Rumpole

 

[Rumpole]

Indeed, we probably do.

That's a telling statement about your lack of objectivity.
1. Is it wrong for Trump to be "very rich"? Why? Many people in Washington are "very rich", and have done it by seemingly very dirty means.
2. You're smearing Trump's "base" as threatening?

I'm sorry, but you are ignoring the simple fact that a few ( not all, nor did I imply that) among Trump's base have sent threatening mail, voice mails, emails to prosecutors and election officials Trump has criticized, both repubs and democrats. The number is quite large, actually. What amazing me is the lack of concern by the likes of you, and your response are irrelevant whataboutisms.

I'm a Trump voter in 2016 and 2020.. am I "threatening"? Sounds quite hyperbolic and CNN-esque to me. Meanwhile, it's interesting to see you point out the Trump base as threatening while ignoring the BLM pro-Biden riots across America in 2020 that caused 30-40 deaths, billions in damage, and thousands of police in critical condition or severe hospital events.

BLM riots were not inspired by any US President, they were inspired by policy brutality ('perceived" police brutality, i'm NOT defending riots or violence). As such, the whataboutism is IRRELEVANT.

These quotes give me even more reason to think Bragg is doing this for his own namesake and notoriety.

How very partisan of you.

Why are you victimizing Bragg here?

I'm not. I'm 'empathizing', It's called putting yourself in someone else's shoes to understand them better.

Do you think Conservative people who stand up don't get their lives threatened?

Irrelevant.

Brett Kavanaugh was nearly assassinated in the overturning of Roe v. Wade, and the MSM didn't much cover it, nor did they victimize the harassed, slandered SCOTUS judge.

Irrelevant.

Just because you get some heat doesn't mean you deserve any more credit to your actions/ideology than what it was beforehand. You should stick to logic, and stop the emotional appeals. They get you nowhere.

The logic offered is sound.

Apparently you know him deeply, speaking about him passionately. I find this odd.

I see nothing in your reply that remotely quells/rebuts/refutes the points I made.

Cheers
Rumpole

 

[Rumpole]

According to Andrew Weisman that Trump card is supposed to be that other NY radical Get Trumper's civil case charge of inflating property values,

I'm a Weissman fan, and I do not recall this conversation. Please supply a link. However, the OP is not about the property values litigation.

which is not legit nor a felony (otherwise it wouldn't have been brought up as a civil suit by a political hit mob.)
Braggs hidden crime charge needed to be a felony for the statue of limitations to be ignored.

You are lost, this is not what the Bragg indictment is about.
Three things:
1. The statute of limitations for the charges in the indictment have not run out, due to NY 'tolling' law.
2. The enhancing crime has yet to be established, but two or three possibilities are listed in the SOF (statement of facts) none of which have anything to do with property value assessments but team Trump or anyone else.
3. The enhancing crime need not be a NY state crime, it could a federal crime, or a state crime from another state.
3. NY law has it that the enhancing crime (the crime that pushes a misdemeanor to a felony) does not have to be listed in the charging document. It is, expected, however, that the theory of the enhancement crime be listed in the SOF, which it is.

Which leads me to believe this is all a sham to tarnish or hinder Trump to eat at voters tolerance level and hope most will be hidden from the real news, so propaganda can help infect the minds of the voters.

Pure speculation without correct foundation.

Fact: Bragg would have had to bring that charge to every single realtor and home seller in his district of NY, especially those million dollar lister tv celebs, and some property appraisers who all mistate the value of properties, this includes most homeowners in his staff and perhaps himself who have violated the same.

That makes no sense. The indictment charges have nothing to do with real estate assessments, and, in fact, are related to checks paid to Stormy Daniels for the ostensible purpose of covering up a campaign felony from the electorate,, the crime of which has already been established in the Cohen indictment, for which he was convicted and served prison time, and then there is the tax angle.

FACT: mortgage companies always get their own appraisers since pricing is subjective and has varied values to varied personal reasons, including value given a celebrity name recognized possesion that carries a premium, or value in design features not known unless you study it thoroughly, most often appraisers don't take these into acct so appraisers, buyers banks might have a different value than the owner, who by the way has to have the nudge to sell. So values can be subjective and wide valued from realtor to realtor, owner to owner , situation to situation, premise of future worth, bank lender compared to owner can be frustrating, just ask anyone forced to come down in value, because of low ball appraisels done by appraisers working on behalf of the lenders. IN SHORT :IT'S UP THE THE BANK-OR LENDER TO DO DUE DILLIGENCE in appraising the value and choose not to loan if disagreed, =happens all the time.

Completely irrelevant. See above.

SO since Trump had properly disclosed on his contracts that they do this due dilligence and since it common sense policy by lenders, then there is no victim of a crime and no felony, nobody has been bamboozled but the public uneducated on the R.E. Business and processes and taken advantage of by corrupt DA's abusing their power to do political hit jobs to violate democracy, which they are not fans of (they are radical socialist DA's by chance)-no not by chance, it's not a coincidence nor the timing. They got the OP to post their propaganda, the dupes are numorous, all doing the communist parties dirty deeds.

You are utterly barking up the wrong tree.

Cheers,
Rumpole

 

[SweetSue92]

[...meme deleted...see original...]



I wrote a musical, wrote the libretto, composed the music, and it's entitled 'Les Deplorables' ( a spin on 'les Miserables' , cute, eh?)
Well, in one of the chapters one of the deplorables thinks it would be cute to send a meme to someone, and the fellow whom the deplorable sent the email to replied as follows:

Dear Deplorable,

I'm sorry, but apparently you have confused me with a fish.

Please take your bait to another pond, where some other fool might take your bait.

But, my palate simply cannot stand the low grade stuff you have offered.

Cheers,
Rumpole

Libretto is a term usually reserved for operas, but okay. Your musical has....chapters? On what instruments did you compose the score, or did you use production software?

I'm genuinely curious

 

[Rumpole]

Incompetent, weak, case - weakest 1 yet in 7 years. You're a retard - no argument. YOU are dismissed.

Incompetent rebuttal; no substantive argument offered.

I'd be happy to engage, if and when you ever do offer a competent argument (doesn't have to be correct, but it does have to be on point, on topic, contain a sensible path of reasoning and substantiation), which, given the tone, tenor, and caliber of your replies, I sincerely doubt will ever happen.

But, feel free to prove me wrong.

Cheers,
Rumpole

 

[Dante Reawakened]

Ah, yes, so it appears that the Manhattan district attorney, Alvin Bragg, has been receiving quite a bit of flak for pursuing a case against none other than Donald Trump. However, I must say that upon closer inspection, the charges brought against Mr. Trump are anything but weak. In fact, the charge of creating false financial records is not novel and has been used time and time again in New York to prosecute individuals who create fake documentation to cover up campaign finance violations - precisely the accusation leveled against Mr. Trump, or rather, defendant Trump.

It's worth noting that the Manhattan D.A.'s office is hardly your run-of-the-mill local cog in the judicial system. Rather, it is unique, with jurisdiction over the financial capital of the world, which means the office regularly deals with complex white-collar crimes, including those involving high-profile individuals. Indeed, the office recently secured a conviction of the Trump Organization and a guilty plea from one of its top executives, Allen Weisselberg, on charges related to a tax fraud scheme.

Moreover, the books and records counts laid out in the charging papers against Mr. Trump are the bread and butter of the D.A.'s office. He is the 30th defendant to be indicted on false records charges by Mr. Bragg since he took office just over a year ago, with the D.A. bringing 151 counts under the statute so far. Indeed, the Trump Organization conviction and the Weisselberg plea included business falsification felonies.

The 34 felony books and records counts in the Trump indictment turn on the misstatement of the hush-money payment to Stormy Daniels arranged by Michael Cohen in the waning days of the 2016 election and the repayment of that amount by Mr. Trump to Mr. Cohen, ostensibly as legal expenses. There are 11 counts for false invoices, 11 for false checks and check stubs and 12 for false general ledger entries. This allegedly violated the false records statute when various entries were made in business documents describing those repayments as legal fees.

While Mr. Trump's case may be unique in its particulars, his behavior is not. Individuals have often attempted to skirt the disclosure and dollar limit requirements of campaign finance regulations and falsified records to hide it. Contrary to Mr. Trump's protestations, New York prosecutors regularly charge felony violations of the books and records statute and win convictions when the crimes covered up were campaign finance violations, resulting in false entries in business records to conceal criminal activity.

All in all, my fellow members of this illustrious snakepit and a few ladies and gentlemen, it seems that Mr. Bragg is hardly navigating uncharted waters. His actions are supported by previous prosecutions in New York and elsewhere, which have demonstrated that state authorities can enforce state law in cases relating to federal candidates. It remains to be seen what will come of this case, but one thing is certain - Mr. Trump cannot persuasively argue that he is being singled out for some unprecedented theory of prosecution. He is being treated like any other New Yorker would be with similar evidence against him.

And let the war begin, the war of words, that is.

Cheers,
Rumpole.

Opinion | We Finally Know the Case Against Trump, and It Is Strong (Published 2023)

There’s nothing novel or weak about Alvin Bragg’s case.

www.nytimes.com

For weeks, Alvin Bragg, the Manhattan district attorney, has come under heavy fire for pursuing a case against Donald Trump. Potential charges were described as being developed under a novel legal theory. And criticism has come not only from Mr. Trump and his allies, as expected, but also from many who are usually no friends of the former president but who feared it would be a weak case.

With the release of the indictment and accompanying statement of facts, we can now say that there’s nothing novel or weak about this case. The charge of creating false financial records is constantly brought by Mr. Bragg and other New York D.A.s. In particular, the creation of phony documentation to cover up campaign finance violations has been repeatedly prosecuted in New York. That is exactly what Mr. Trump stands accused of.

Great case and great OP

ty

DR

 

[Rumpole]

So where's the grand jury for the hildabitch? She was actually fined by the FEC for doing the same thing. Her campaign books were kept at her HQ in NYC. She wrote off her expenses for the Russia hoax as legal expenses and used campaign money to pay for it.

.

It's important to understand that prosecutors exercise discretion when deciding whether to indict, based on the unique facts and circumstances of each case. Comparing Trump's indictment to Hillary not being indicted oversimplifies the complexities of the legal system. Each case is assessed on its own merits, and differences in evidence, severity, and likelihood of conviction all play a role in the decision to prosecute.

Cheers,
Rumpole

 

[Rumpole]

/——/ Oh, go grab some guns from drug dealers and show us how great you are.

Incompetent rebuttal; soporific. sophomoric cheap shots do not merit a proper response.

I'd be happy to engage if and when you can offer a well reasoned rebuttal, preferably with substantiation.

Until then,

Cheers,
Rumpole

 

[Rumpole]

/——/ Meanwhile Bill Clinton and other democRATs who paid off hookers get a free pass.

Clinton was disbarred and impeached. The following democrats did NOT get a 'free pass', so your premise is flawed:

1. hard J. Daley (former Mayor of Chicago): Convicted on charges of mail fraud and obstruction of justice in 1980.
2. Daniel J. Flood (U.S. Representative from Pennsylvania): Pleaded guilty to a conspiracy charge in 1980.
3. Raymond Lederer (U.S. Representative from Pennsylvania): Convicted in the Abscam bribery scandal in 1981.
4. Harrison A. Williams (U.S. Senator from New Jersey): Convicted in the Abscam bribery scandal in 1981.
5. Mario Biaggi (U.S. Representative from New York): Convicted on charges of racketeering, bribery, and extortion in 1987.
6. Mel Reynolds (U.S. Representative from Illinois): Convicted on charges of sexual assault, obstruction of justice, and solicitation of child pornography in 1995.
7. James A. Traficant Jr. (U.S. Representative from Ohio): Convicted on charges of bribery, racketeering, and tax evasion in 2002.
8. William J. Jefferson (U.S. Representative from Louisiana): Convicted on charges of bribery, racketeering, and money laundering in 2009.
9. Rod Blagojevich (former Governor of Illinois): Convicted on charges of corruption, including attempting to sell Barack Obama's Senate seat, in 2011.
10. Chaka Fattah (U.S. Representative from Pennsylvania): Convicted on charges of racketeering, fraud, and money laundering in 2016.

 

[Cellblock2429]

Clinton was disbarred and impeached. The following democrats did NOT get a 'free pass', so your premise is flawed:

1. hard J. Daley (former Mayor of Chicago): Convicted on charges of mail fraud and obstruction of justice in 1980.
2. Daniel J. Flood (U.S. Representative from Pennsylvania): Pleaded guilty to a conspiracy charge in 1980.
3. Raymond Lederer (U.S. Representative from Pennsylvania): Convicted in the Abscam bribery scandal in 1981.
4. Harrison A. Williams (U.S. Senator from New Jersey): Convicted in the Abscam bribery scandal in 1981.
5. Mario Biaggi (U.S. Representative from New York): Convicted on charges of racketeering, bribery, and extortion in 1987.
6. Mel Reynolds (U.S. Representative from Illinois): Convicted on charges of sexual assault, obstruction of justice, and solicitation of child pornography in 1995.
7. James A. Traficant Jr. (U.S. Representative from Ohio): Convicted on charges of bribery, racketeering, and tax evasion in 2002.
8. William J. Jefferson (U.S. Representative from Louisiana): Convicted on charges of bribery, racketeering, and money laundering in 2009.
9. Rod Blagojevich (former Governor of Illinois): Convicted on charges of corruption, including attempting to sell Barack Obama's Senate seat, in 2011.
10. Chaka Fattah (U.S. Representative from Pennsylvania): Convicted on charges of racketeering, fraud, and money laundering in 2016.

/-------/ "Clinton was disbarred and impeached."
I stopped reading at your first lie. Clinton wasn't impeached because he paid off Paula Jones. He was impeached for perjury and subornation of perjury. He got a pass on the hush money.

 

[Cellblock2429]

You are not suppose to be able to figure it out. Indictments only include the bare minimum needed to go to trial. It seems like the underlying crime is a violation of election law, i.e. Trump paying hush money to Daniels. However, that could be a red herring.

/------/ "It seems like the underlying crime is a violation of election law, i.e"
It seems? You're basing Trump's guilt or innocence on "what seems?" "

You are not suppose to be able to figure it out.

WTF? You can be indicted for some unknown reason?
(1) In General. The indictment or information must be a plain, concise, and definite written statement of the essential facts constituting the offense charged and must be signed by an attorney for the government.

Rule 7. The Indictment and the Information

www.law.cornell.edu