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

[BluesLegend]

Breaking: Trump using $1M of taxpayer money each year for international travel.

 

[MagicMike]

Why is paying off a bimbo a violation? Of any law?

Do you have a learning disability?

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Thank you for raising your hand and proving my point

Your point was that people cannot commit fraud by overestimating value of assets to lenders. That is false. Sorry. You just don't know what you're talking about.

 

[MagicMike]

It's not. The Demonicreeps have paid her off to lie, lie, LIE. Another thing prostitutes are good at, in a variety of ways from what I hear.

She's going to be the one ending up in jail for purjury and false witness.

And as Trumps lawyers have already pointed out, AND HAVE PROOF OF........she was NOT paid off by Trump, but someone in his employ.
She was also paid with PRIVATE money, not Trumps money, and not tax payers money. This happened before Trump even considered running for President.

They have NO factual, hard evidence of anything they are blaming him for. As has been happening for the past 6 years!

Do you have a learning disability.
You have apparently COMPLETELY missed EVERYTHING!
"She" is not even a factor in any of this anymore!
This is all about the fraudulent book and fraudulent affidavits signed by Trump.
It isn't about Trump's hooker.
Although I'm sure all you "make better sexual decisions," anti abortion people out there would agree that had The Orange Cat Turd King kept his pecker in his pants in the first place he could have avoided this self-imposed world of hurt.

 

[Flopper]

financed the commission of an election law violation by Cohen,

What election law did Cohen violate? Post it please.

He was convicted of making illegal campaign contributions, among other charges. The hush money payments were considered a campaign contribution.

Cohen pleaded guilty to five counts of willful tax evasion; one count of making false statements to a bank; one count of causing an unlawful campaign contribution; and one count of making an excessive campaign contribution.

Michael Cohen Pleads Guilty In Manhattan Federal Court To Eight Counts, Including Criminal Tax Evasion And Campaign Finance Violations

www.justice.gov

All of these legal charges, both Cohen's and Trump's could have been easily avoided if Trump would have written the payoff checks on his personal account, not altered any business records, and reported those amounts as campaign contributions in October 2016. Then he could have reported the payoffs as campaign expenses in November after the election and it would have been all perfectly legal.

Of course we know that is not how Trump operates. His first thought is how can I hide these payments so no one will discover them? So he creates with Cohen's help this elaborate ruse where Cohen creates a shell corporation and a bank account using a fictitious name. Cohen transfers funds from his account to a the shell corporation and writes hush money checks in October 2016. Trump agrees to pay him back after the election. The payments by Trump to Cohen would be disguised as legal fees. Then Trump really screwed up because the checks were written out of the business account and recorded in the books as legal fees which is a violation of New York laws. Recording the payments as legal fees allowed the Trump Organization to deduct these payments from his federal and state taxes. I'll bet Trump got a good laugh out of that. Not only had he hidden the hush money payments securely, but the American tax payer would be paying part of his hush money payments through these tax deductions.

 

[MagicMike]

He was convicted of making illegal campaign contributions, among other charges. The hush money payments were considered a campaign contribution.

Cohen pleaded guilty to five counts of willful tax evasion; one count of making false statements to a bank; one count of causing an unlawful campaign contribution; and one count of making an excessive campaign contribution.

Michael Cohen Pleads Guilty In Manhattan Federal Court To Eight Counts, Including Criminal Tax Evasion And Campaign Finance Violations

www.justice.gov

Al of these legal charges, both Cohen's and Trump's could have been easily avoided if Trump would have written the payoff checks on his personal account, not altered any business records, and reported those amounts as campaign contributions in October 2016. Then he could have reported the payoffs as campaign expenses in November after the election and it would have been all perfectly legal.

Of course we know that is not how Trump operates. His first thought is how can I hide these payments so no will discover them? So he creates with Cohen's help this elaborate ruse where Cohen creates a shell corporation and a bank account using a fictitious name. Cohen transfers funds from his account to a the shell corporation and writes hush money checks. Trump agrees to pay him back after the election. The payments would be disguised as legal fees. Then Trump really screwed up because the checks were written out the business account and recorded in the books as legal fees which is violation of New York laws. Recording the payments as legal fees allowed the Trump Organization to deduct these payments from his taxes. I'll bet Trump got a good laugh out of that. Not only had he hide the hush money payments, but the American tax payer would be paying part of the hush money payments.

What a GREAT head for business huh?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Do you have a learning disability?

Why is paying off a bimbo a violation? Of any law?

Do you have an answer?

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Zzzzzzzzzz

 

[Ropey]

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.

^Still doesn't get IT.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

He was convicted of making illegal campaign contributions, among other charges. The hush money payments were considered a campaign contribution.

Cohen pleaded guilty to five counts of willful tax evasion; one count of making false statements to a bank; one count of causing an unlawful campaign contribution; and one count of making an excessive campaign contribution.

Michael Cohen Pleads Guilty In Manhattan Federal Court To Eight Counts, Including Criminal Tax Evasion And Campaign Finance Violations

www.justice.gov

All of these legal charges, both Cohen's and Trump's could have been easily avoided if Trump would have written the payoff checks on his personal account, not altered any business records, and reported those amounts as campaign contributions in October 2016. Then he could have reported the payoffs as campaign expenses in November after the election and it would have been all perfectly legal.

Of course we know that is not how Trump operates. His first thought is how can I hide these payments so no one will discover them? So he creates with Cohen's help this elaborate ruse where Cohen creates a shell corporation and a bank account using a fictitious name. Cohen transfers funds from his account to a the shell corporation and writes hush money checks in October 2016. Trump agrees to pay him back after the election. The payments by Trump to Cohen would be disguised as legal fees. Then Trump really screwed up because the checks were written out of the business account and recorded in the books as legal fees which is a violation of New York laws. Recording the payments as legal fees allowed the Trump Organization to deduct these payments from his federal and state taxes. I'll bet Trump got a good laugh out of that. Not only had he hidden the hush money payments securely, but the American tax payer would be paying part of his hush money payments through these tax deductions.

He was convicted of making illegal campaign contributions, among other charges. The hush money payments were considered a campaign contribution.

Yeah, that's funny. It clearly wasn't a campaign contribution.

All of these legal charges, both Cohen's and Trump's could have been easily avoided if Trump would have written the payoff checks on his personal account, not altered any business records, and reported those amounts as campaign contributions in October 2016.

If Trump wrote a personal check for the NDA, that would have been a campaign contribution?

Then he could have reported the payoffs as campaign expenses in November after the election and it would have been all perfectly legal.

Paying off a bimbo with campaign contributions is perfectly legal? Are you sure?

His first thought is how can I hide these payments so no one will discover them?

When you're paying someone to keep something quiet, it's pretty much the
point that no one discovers them. Right?

Recording the payments as legal fees allowed the Trump Organization to deduct these payments from his federal and state taxes.

From what I've seen, payments for most, not all, NDAs are already tax deductible.

 

[Leo123]

Bragg is getting excoriated by victims of crime in NY. Maybe he should do something about that instead of pursuing Trump?

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

^Still doesn't get IT.

And you do?

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Bragg is getting excoriated by victims of crime in NY. Maybe he should do something about that instead of pursuing Trump?

nah, the case against Trump is in place, and it's going to trial.

 

[Flopper]

Being convicted of falsification of business record under state law is not a disqualification for running for President.

As a matter of fact if convicted Trump could still run from (a) jail or (b) MAL house arrest.

(DISCLAIMER: IMHO, Trump may be convicted, but if he is it will not involve jail time or house arrest time.)

WW

I tend to agree that Trump is not likely to be jailed or put under house arrest. However, if the underlying charge is a criminal conspiracy which is a state as well as a federal crime and Bragg decides to add it to the existing list of charges, I think it would really be stretching 1st time offender status for him to walk. The judge might balk at allowing a person to walk after being convicted of 34 felonies and a criminal conspiracy charge. Even thou Trump is an ex-president and presidential candidate, there is a limit to how forgiving the court can be. Of course Trump did say, I could stand in the middle of Fifth Avenue and shoot somebody and wouldn't lose any voters. Maybe he also means he would never spend a day in jail for it.

 

[Flopper]

There was no other crime, see post 843.

.

The NDA is totally irrelevant to the charges. Trump is being charged with 34 felony counts of falsifying business records. How does an NDA have any bearing on record falsification?

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

I tend to agree that Trump is not likely to be jailed or put under house arrest. However, if the underlying charge is a criminal conspiracy which is a state as well as a federal crime and Bragg decides to add it to the existing list of charges, I think it would really be stretching 1st time offender status for him to walk. The judge might balk at allowing a person to walk after being convicted of 34 felonies and a criminal conspiracy charge. Even thou Trump is an ex-president and presidential candidate, there is a limit to how forgiving the court can be. Of course Trump did say, I could stand in the middle of Fifth Avenue and shoot somebody and wouldn't lose any voters. Maybe he also means he would never spend a day in jail for it.

He could suspended a sentence and place Trump on probation. Then Trump has to keep his nose clean, or go to jail.

 

[Flopper]

Periodic update as a public service message:

There is no case against Trump. The so-called “case” against Trump is pathetically weak and should be tossed out. (That’s not to say it will be. It would be a monumental mark of judicial courage for a judge in NYC to make the legally correct call in this circus atmosphere.)

It's great have a clairvoyant in the discussion who is able to determine that the case against Trump is pathetically week without ever seeing a single piece of evidence.

 

[Chillicothe]

(DISCLAIMER: IMHO, Trump may be convicted, but if he is it will not involve jail time or house arrest time.)

I tend to agree that Trump is not likely to be jailed or put under house arrest

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
No jail.....probably.

But........

No vote ----...at least until parole or probation ends.
No owning guns .......
Disbarred from some licenses and positions.
Some existing business agreements may be impacted.

And his reputation? Well, you be the judge.

 

[Ropey]

And you do?

Often and for long periods...

 

[Flopper]

He could suspended a sentence and place Trump on probation. Then Trump has to keep his nose clean, or go to jail.

That is certainly a possibility. Of course if he is found guilty and released, the question is going to be asked of that judge, "If this defendant who was convicted of 34 felonies was not an ex-president and presidential candidate would he still walk? I think Bragg is going to make it clear to the jury and the Judge that Trump set in motion a criminal conspiracy, an elaborate scheme to hide illegal hush money payments from law enforcement as well as the public and to turn those payments into tax deductible business expenses.