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

[Flopper]

Clairvoyance not required. Don’t be silly, Flops. We know the bullshit allegations. All 34 of them.

You don’t seem as agitated by the dopey OP contention that the case is “strong.” Why is that?

Everything I have said is based on the indictment and statement of facts and my interpretation. I have no way of knowing if Bragg has a really strong case and no idea of what the defendants case will be like.

Going through statement facts, it appears Bragg has a good case but he has to convince a jury that Trump intentionally falsified business records and it was not just oversight. He also is going to have to give the jury a good reason why Trump did it. If Bragg fails here, the whole case will fail.

It would appear that Bragg has a lot of evidence that Trump was behind the hush money payments by Cohen Of course the Jury and most of the country already believes that. However, Bragg may have a problem with payments from Trump to Cohen. Trump will claim they are legal fees and Bragg will claim they are reimbursements to Cohen. So Bragg will have to put Cohen on the witness stand and unless Brag has really good evidence, the case could ride on whether the jury believes Cohen, not a good place for prosecution to be in.

Frankly, it could go ether way. It all depends on exactly what the evidence is and how interested the jury is.

Also, if the jury really believes that nothing is going to happen to Trump if he is convicted, they may not pay much attention to the case voting based on personal prejudices. Spending days listening to testimony and understanding the cases may well be seen by the jury as a complete waste of time.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Frankly, it could go ether way. It all depends on exactly what the evidence is and how interested the jury is.

It's safe to say they have:

- All the receipts and signed checks.
- Testimony of his co-conspirators. I think that's where the defense will be aiming like a laser: trying to split apart four people's stories (Daniels, Cohen, Pecker, and Trump. Maybe Giuliani, too, for five).

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

Anyone can look up Cohen's convictions for themselves.

None of which had to do with Trump.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

I work in finance.

You don't know what you are talking about. I promise. And you should probably just shut up about it.

Handing out quarters for change in the laundromat is NOT finance.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

None of which had to do with Trump.

His guilty plea explicitly said he committed the felonies at the direction of a federal candidate for office. That was Trump.

 

[BackAgain]

Everything I have said is based on the indictment and statement of facts and my interpretation.

Nonsensical silliness. The indictment says essentially the same gibberish 34 times and doesn’t even state what additional crime it claims it was for. The prosecutor’s public statement didn’t exactly flesh it out. You are free to disagree, but it does stand or fall on its own merits or lack thereof. And your interpretation? I mean, seriously?

I have no way of knowing if Bragg has a really strong case and no idea of what the defendants case will be like.

Ok. That’s you. But again, some folks know how to actually perceive what’s happening.

Going through statement facts, it appears Bragg has a good case

No. It doesn’t.

but he has to convince a jury that Trump intentionally falsified business records and it was not just oversight.

He has to establish that the records are false. And then he has to establish that it was for the purpose of committing or concealing some other (but yes unidentified) “crime.”

He also is going to have to give the jury a good reason why Trump did it.

Whatever “it” might be.

If Bragg fails here, the whole case will fail.

He is going to fail at every turn. And yet, it is still possible he might “win.”

It would appear that Bragg has a lot of evidence that Trump was behind the hush money payments by Cohen

Irrelevant. I can’t believe you still think that paying for an NDA is criminal.

Of course the Jury and most of the country already believes that.

Erroneously. But irrelevantly.

However, Bragg may have a problem with payments from Trump to Cohen. Trump will claim they are legal fees and Bragg will claim they are reimbursements to Cohen.

Doesn’t matter, either way. It was legal to pay for an NDA, either way. It was also legal to pay Cohen’s legal service invoice.

So Bragg will have to put Cohen on the witness stand and unless Brag has really good evidence, the case could ride on whether the jury believes Cohen,

Only a simpleton or a hack would believe a shit bag like Cohen. But let’s say they do (about the payment). Still irrelevant. See above.

not a good place for prosecution to be in.

I agree. But it hardly matters. Bragg seems indifferent to the obvious lack of honesty of his own star witness. That’s not an ideal look for a public prosecutor.

Frankly, it could go ether way. It all depends on exactly what the evidence is and how interested the jury is.

Nah. It depends on a NY County jury (unless a NY County judge has the balls to dismiss this bullshit before it gets that far).

Also, if the jury really believes that nothing is going to happen to Trump if he is convicted, they may not pay much attention to the case voting based on personal prejudices.

And if wishes were fishes ….

Spending days listening to testimony and understanding the cases may well be seen by the jury as a complete waste of time.

If it gets that far.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Oh, I see. So the cause of your error is a poor grasp of basic logic.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Campaign contributions are not just money. A contribution is anything of value given, loaned or advanced to influence a federal election. The contribution does not need to be given to the campaign. If you buy a billboard that says elect Trump that is a contribution. If you pay someone hush money to stop the spread of rumors against Trump, that is a contribution. A single contribution limit from an individual in 2016 was $2700. So Cohen's contribution of over $300,000 in hush money is a violation of the law with a maximum penalty of 5yrs. Actually it's two violations. It exceeds the limit and he did not report the contribution. Any contribution over a a certain amount must be reported.

Campaign contributions are not just money. A contribution is anything of value given, loaned or advanced to influence a federal election. The contribution does not need to be given to the campaign.

Does Trump also personally benefit from this "contribution"?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

If Trump wrote a personal check for the NDA, that would have been a campaign contribution? Yes A candidate can contributed unlimited amounts of money or things of value to his campaign to be elected. However the candidate is required to report the contribution. In the case of hush money payments, Trump would be required to report the amount as a contribution and also as a campaign expense. Obviously he did not want to publicize his hush money payments so he had Cohen do it and he paid him back after the election.

Trump would be required to report the amount as a contribution and also as a campaign expense.

Because that spending is a personal benefit to Trump, it would be disallowed if campaign money was used.

 

[OKTexas]

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?

You're not listening dumb ass, it's only a felony if it's done to conceal another crime and there was no other crime. Congress has a 15 million dollar, taxpayer funded slush fund, specifically to execute NDAs and hide derogatory information from the voting public. That's exactly the enhancement Trump is being charged with, in order to fabricate a felony.

.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

View attachment 777336

Yeah, like I said, your error is due to a lack of use of basic logic.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

So Cohens felonies are not the only crimes Trump concealed. He also was attempting to conceal tax fraud. So State crimes are in play.

 

[WEATHER53]

The great fake Pearl clutch continues
Poor little old bank was not a victim of Trump nor TDS. Simps crying otherwise are non informed, non experienced liberal witch hunting trolls.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

The great fake Pearl clutch continues
Poor little old bank was not a victim of Trump nor TDS. Simps crying otherwise are non informed, non experienced liberal witch hunting trolls.

But you know nothing about the investigation, the evidence, or how commercial lending works. So your opinion just isn't worth much.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

*yawn*

Lone fraud is actually a serious felony that the courts take very seriously. In fact , assets that were acquired via loan fraud can be confiscated, even if the loans are paid in full.

 

[Meister]

Please stay on topic going forward, thanks in advance

 

[Flopper]

It's safe to say they have:

- All the receipts and signed checks.
- Testimony of his co-conspirators. I think that's where the defense will be aiming like a laser: trying to split apart four people's stories (Daniels, Cohen, Pecker, and Trump. Maybe Giuliani, too, for five).

My concern is the jury in the trial. It has been widely publicized that Trump will not spend a day in jail and he will continue his campaign. If Trump is not going to be punished for his crime, the verdict means next to nothing. I doubt the jury is going to be concerned about there verdict.

 

[Flopper]

So Cohens felonies are not the only crimes Trump concealed. He also was attempting to conceal tax fraud. So State crimes are in play.

Bragg may modify the indictment to include other crimes.

 

[OKTexas]

His guilty plea explicitly said he committed the felonies at the direction of a federal candidate for office. That was Trump.

He also put in writing that Trump or anyone in the campaign knew about his actions in executing the NDA, so when was he lying? Did he just compose in order to get a lighter sentence. Also if the NDA was any personal benefit to Trump it couldn't legally be a campaign expense.

.

 

[WorldWatcher]

He also put in writing that Trump or anyone in the campaign knew about his actions in executing the NDA, so when was he lying? Did he just compose in order to get a lighter sentence. Also if the NDA was any personal benefit to Trump it couldn't legally be a campaign expense.

.

If Trump was charged with campaign finance under federal law. That would be true.

However Trump wasn’t charged under federal law. Trump coming up with another excuse is irrelevant since it was Cohen that was convicted for campaign finance.

Trump charged under state law for felony business records falsification to hide Cohen’s crime.

WW