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

[Rust_Cohle]

Congratulations, you've just committed a double logical fallacy, the one of the false equivalence and an irrelevant 'whataboutism'.

Besides, in your false comparison/irrelevant 'whataboutism', you imply debatable facts and outright falsehoods, a triple whammy in the logical fallacy department.

Cheers,
Rumpole

And you serve more word salads than Kamala Harris..do you deny social media covered for Biden censoring the laptop story?

Twitter and Facebook's action over Joe Biden article reignites bias claims

Twitter's chief says the way it communicated its decision to restrict an article was "unacceptable".

www.bbc.com

Ex-Twitter safety chief admits Hunter Biden laptop censorship was a 'mistake'

Yoel Roth, Twitter's former head of trust and safety, admitted that censorship of the Hunter Biden laptop story from the New York Post was a "mistake."

www.foxnews.com

 

[marvin martian]

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.

What's the "original" crime referenced in the indictment?

 

[OldFlame]

1. Donald Trump has an affair with a Playboy playmate and another affair with a pornographic actress while his wife is at home with their newborn son. Apparently, the affair with the playmate lasted for an extended period. The porn star slept with him once but made several attempts to get him to put her on his game show. Trump spurned her requests.

2. In October 2016, an audio recording of Trump bragging about hitting on married women and grabbing the pussies of beautiful women the moment he sees them is released into the wild. Everyone but his most devoted handlers believe this is the end for his presidential aspirations.

3. At the same time the Hollywood Access tape is hitting the public consciousness, Trump's personal friend David Pecker, who is the CEO of AMI, the parent company of the National Enquirer, pays the Playboy playmate for the rights to her story of her sexual affair with Trump and buries it so it does not influence the election. Pecker has been capturing and killing stories embarrassing to Trump for some time. He also publishes stories meant to damage Hillary for Trump, like this one:

4. Donald Trump and his longtime fixer Michael Cohen collude to pay off the porn star for her silence in order to keep her story from influencing the election. Trump has very good reason to believe the Playboy playmate and the porn star can completely destroy his chances of being elected, what with the Hollywood Access already being a campaign dumpster fire.

5. Trump attempts to convince Cohen to put off paying the porn star until after the election, at which time he will be president and can tell her to fuck off. But Stormy Daniels isn't stupid. She knows she will have no leverage after the election.

6. Cohen keeps begging Trump to authorize the payoff as the election grows nearer and nearer. He also begs Trump to provide the money as he does not personally have $130,000 to throw at her. Trump blows him off, and Cohen ends up having to mortgage his house to come up with the money. Trump is notorious for his attempts to cheating everyone who works for him out of their money.

7. Cohen draws up an NDA for Stormy Daniels to sign upon receipt of her payoff. Stormy Daniels uses the pseudonym "Peggy Peterson" on the NDA, while Trump was to use the name "David Dennison" on the NDA. Trump never actually signs the NDA, which from the porn star's point of view makes it null and void.

8. This payment by Cohen to Daniels is the basis of his conviction for violating campaign finance laws. The payoff is an in-kind contribution to Trump's campaign as the intention of the payoff was to influence the election.

9. After he wins the election, Trump begins funneling a reimbursement to Cohen through the Trump Organization. Since the reimbursement is going to be falsified as a non-existent retainer, it will be taxed as income. So Trump reimburses Cohen the original $130,00, plus another $360,000 to cover fees and taxes, and an additional $60,000 for being such a good little lapdog.

10. The reimbursement is divided up into monthly $35,000 chunks to make them look like legitimate retainer payments, and this is where Trump falsified his business documents, and for which he is being indicted on 34 counts.

11. In January 2018, a year after Trump is sworn in, Stormy goes loud and wide about the affair with Trump. This is the first domino which leads to Cohen's conviction and Trump's current indictment.

I hope this catches everyone up.

A cool story you have there bro! It's full of so many holes it could be Swiss cheese! Has Trump ever had an NDA with any others in the years prior to him running for president? If so, that makes point 8 totally incorrect, and a total assumption, especially regarding the fact that he never signed the NDA and claimed he never had sex with her to begin with, which she agreed with. Not sure how Cohen was prosecuted for it to begin with, apparently another sham show trial, and doesn't explain why the feds didn't prosecute Trump as well. Number 9 is hilarious... lol And number 10, doesn't add up since they are calling into account 11 or 12 different payments, which at 35k each doesn't add up to your sum and your fictitious reasoning for it.

 

[OldFlame]

the intention of the payoff was to influence the election.

Anything that is intended to "influence" the election is illegal?

yeah, the fbi colluding with twitter to bury the biden laptop story and labeling it as false and russian disinformation was perfectly legal and not a 'campaign donation', imagine that.

 

[OldFlame]

The Dossier was intended to influence the election.

Yep, and much more incendiary since it smeared the opposition with complete lies.

 

[miketx]

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.

Lol, another deranged idiot that can't stop yapping about Trump and posts fake news. You idiots are tiresome.

 

[miketx]

A mistrial would pretty much end Trump.

That's what you are counting on?

Can't you lying bastards talk about anything but Trump?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Fox is far more guilty of that but no court has ruled that such is a campaign contribution...yet

But it's influencing the election!!!

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

I see you've raised an interesting point here about the NDA. However, let's make sure we keep our focus on the bigger picture. While an NDA itself may not be inherently deceptive, the problem arises when it's used as part of a larger scheme to conceal information that could potentially impact an election, as alleged in the case against Trump.

In the context of the original article, the NDA is just one piece of the puzzle. The more pressing issue is the alleged falsification of business records to cover up the hush-money payments made to Stormy Daniels and Karen McDougal. The primary concern is whether these actions were an attempt to illegally influence the 2016 election by preventing potentially damaging information from coming to light.

So, while the NDA itself may not be deceptive, the manner in which it was allegedly used as part of a broader cover-up is where the deception lies. It's crucial that we examine the entire context to understand the gravity of the situation and not get sidetracked by isolated details.

While an NDA itself may not be inherently deceptive, the problem arises when it's used as part of a larger scheme to conceal information that could potentially impact an election, as alleged in the case against Trump.

It's not campaign spending.

The more pressing issue is the alleged falsification of business records to cover up the hush-money payments made to Stormy Daniels and Karen McDougal.

Hush money is illegal, unless it's announced?

The primary concern is whether these actions were an attempt to illegally influence the 2016 election by preventing potentially damaging information from coming to light.

Preventing potentially damaging information from coming to light isn't illegal.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

You mean the charges against Trump. Why do you ask?

Influencing elections, per se, isn't criminal.

 

[Dadoalex]

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.

and
AND...
The IRS hasn't had their bite at that apple.

By falsely recording this as a 'valid' business expense Trump has committed tax fraud as well.

 

[leftwinger]

Ah, "Old Yeller," I am truly saddened you haven't been laid in 20 years, and this is why you feel it necessary to sling mud to compensate for your erectile dysfunction. But, as an old sage once said, 'he who slings mud loses ground'. Well, before you disappear into a mud infested abyss, why don't you dazzle us with your brilliance? I'm sure we're all curious about your profound wisdom about the Trump case, which, once you step down from that lofty perch you occupy (or white horse, whichever the case may be), you might want to bestow upon us mere mortals the pearls you have, no doubt, been hoarding and are now willing to share with us?

Cheers,
Rumpole

(By the way, this is to inform you why I chose the name "Rumpole", it was because it would enable me to know, with 100% certainty, who the morons are on this forum, given that morons can never resist twisting an easily twistable name into a disparaging word. In this way, I will know who the feeble minded mediocrities are. Thank you taking the bait, it is most appreciated. I now know in which category to place you.

Here you go Fattie, read it and weep. I posted on it elsewhere. It is a nothing-burger. Rigged NY Courts may stall it out or even declare guilty. That means nothing.

The state of play: The election commission, split between three Republicans and three Democratic-aligned commissioners, dropped the proceeding in a closed-door meeting in February, per the New York Times.

He explained the reasons the case was dropped in a letter he and FEC Commissioner Sean Cooksey wrote in 2021.

The first reason was that Michael Cohen had already taken a plea deal.

The next reasons were that the paperwork violation took place after 2016 which means it could not have been done to help with the 2016 election and that it isn’t obvious the payments were meant to influence the election.

They also stated that the statute of limitations for the case was running out anyway.

 

[ActionJackson]

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.

Is it as strong as the smell of B.S. emanating from New York? A New York politician accusing someone of "criminal activity" is like the pot calling the kettle black. New York is, and always has been, one of the most corrupt cesspools in the USA.

 

[LA RAM FAN]

Lies from the shill from langley as always,here is the strong case of corruption that he and the corporate controlled media dont want to talk about

Leonardo Dicaprio testifys in court over Obama and Bidens china Connections

Leo has blown open the floodgates of Obama and Bidens communist ties.The cat is out of the bag. The Demonrats are being exposed more and more.Proof that if you support Obama or Biden,you hate America. THis should be all over the front pages of every major newspaper this morning as well as on...

www.usmessageboard.com

 

[Rumpole]

Is it as strong as the smell of B.S. emanating from New York? A New York politician accusing someone of "criminal activity" is like the pot calling the kettle black. New York is, and always has been, one of the most corrupt cesspools in the USA.

"ActionJackson," while I appreciate the colorful nature of your response, it is essential to remember that justice must be pursued, regardless of the perceived reputation of a particular city or its politicians. It would be unwise to dismiss the allegations brought forth in the article simply due to the perceived notion that New York is a "corrupt cesspool." It is our duty to uphold the rule of law and examine each case on its individual merits, rather than succumbing to generalizations or preconceived notions.

So, we should not be so quick to judge the merits of an investigation based on the reputation of a locale. Instead, we must examine the facts of the case and allow due process to take its course. If the allegations against the former President are proven to be true, then it would be our duty to hold him accountable, just as we would any other individual facing similar charges.

In conclusion, let us not allow our cynicism to cloud our judgment or impede the pursuit of justice. It is essential to approach each case objectively and with an open mind, regardless of the perceived reputation of those involved or the city in which they work and/or live.

Cheers,
Rumpole

 

[bripat9643]

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.

 

[Independent thinker]

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.

Of course the NYT would say that.

 

[ActionJackson]

"ActionJackson," while I appreciate the colorful nature of your response, it is essential to remember that justice must be pursued, regardless of the perceived reputation of a particular city or its politicians. It would be unwise to dismiss the allegations brought forth in the article simply due to the perceived notion that New York is a "corrupt cesspool." It is our duty to uphold the rule of law and examine each case on its individual merits, rather than succumbing to generalizations or preconceived notions.

So, we should not be so quick to judge the merits of an investigation based on the reputation of a locale. Instead, we must examine the facts of the case and allow due process to take its course. If the allegations against the former President are proven to be true, then it would be our duty to hold him accountable, just as we would any other individual facing similar charges.

In conclusion, let us not allow our cynicism to cloud our judgment or impede the pursuit of justice. It is essential to approach each case objectively and with an open mind, regardless of the perceived reputation of those involved or the city in which they work and/or live.

Cheers,
Rumpole

I agree that Justice should be pursued, but I also believe in Justice across the board and across the aisle. We have yet to see Hillary Clinton brought to Justice. We have yet to see Hunter or Joe Biden brought to Justice. What about all those Epstein Island participants? They won't even release the list of names -- let alone bring them to justice. Clapper, Comey, and Brennen all committed crimes without consequence.

So I realize that the left is in a frenzy over Trump, but if you folks were truly interested in "Justice" then you'd be in a frenzy over the fact that so many leftists are apparently above the law and above the Justice system. Why aren't you?

 

[Rumpole]

Lies from the shill from langley as always,here is the strong case of corruption that he and the corporate controlled media dont want to talk about

Leonardo Dicaprio testifys in court over Obama and Bidens china Connections

Leo has blown open the floodgates of Obama and Bidens communist ties.The cat is out of the bag. The Demonrats are being exposed more and more.Proof that if you support Obama or Biden,you hate America. THis should be all over the front pages of every major newspaper this morning as well as on...

www.usmessageboard.com

That story is reported in the press, from a number of stories, so your contention isn't correct. Your source, in my view, is not a credible source. Moreover that thread is now blocked. One wonders why.

 

[Rumpole]

Of course the NYT would say that.

What precisely, is your issue, with the NYT?

Cheers,
Rumpole.