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

[konradv]

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

If you don’t know, you haven’t been paying attention!

 

[whitehall]

Everyone says it's weak to nonextant except Karen Friedman Agnifilio. Who the hell is she?

 

[konradv]

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.

Use of the word ‘Demonrat’ is a dead give away that it’s a trash cite.

 

[konradv]

Everyone says it's weak to nonextant except Karen Friedman Agnifilio. Who the hell is she?

How do we know Everyone is correct? Don’t know that judge.

 

[Mr. Friscus]

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.

The case:

Bragg: “OMG Trump stole the 2016 election because I’m assuming, with no evidence, how he allocated his money!!”

That’s it. If this is the new norm, let’s haul Biden into court for his 2008 campaign finance violations. Right?

 

[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.

Prosecutorial discretion. Apparently they concluded there isn't sufficient evidence that they are confident would assure a conviction. NO prosecutor will indicted a high value target unless they are darn sure they have an extremely strong case.

We have yet to see Hunter or Joe Biden brought to Justice.

I have yet to see one stitch of evidence that would even warrant Joe Biden'brought to justice'. IF you have it, provide it. Note that US Attorney David Weiss, assigned as Special Counsel by Bill Barr to investigate Hunter Biden, left to finish the job by Joe Biden (noting that it is his own son) has been investigating Hunter for almost 4 years. The case isn't anywhere near as complex as that which the Mueller Report reported on, so apparently, there isn't sufficient evidence.

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.

Unless there is solid evidence of predation against the names (testimonies from the girls), then bringing them to light would be defamatory. That is probably why.

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?

Your opinion has the strong tinge of partisanship, and so, a solid example of projectionism.

Cheers,
Rumpole

 

[bripat9643]

What precisely, is your issue, with the NYT?

Cheers,
Rumpole.

It's a liberal propaganda rag. No credible.

 

[whitehall]

How do we know Everyone is correct? Don’t know that judge.

You want to argue about the relevancy of the overwhelming majority opinion while accepting the opinions of a guy and a babe nobody ever heard of hired by the NY Times? I rest my case.

 

[Rust_Cohle]

Even CNN trashes this witch hunt

 

[Meister]

Cohen served jail time for a felony conviction....IDIOT

Tax evasion, he pled guilty

 

[konradv]

You want to argue about the relevancy of the overwhelming majority opinion while accepting the opinions of a guy and a babe nobody ever heard of hired by the NY Times? I rest my case.

I don’t believe what you’re saying is true.

 

[konradv]

The case:

Bragg: “OMG Trump stole the 2016 election because I’m assuming, with no evidence, how he allocated his money!!”

That’s it. If this is the new norm, let’s haul Biden into court for his 2008 campaign finance violations. Right?

Of corse that’s right, but the difference is that Biden would cooperate, while Trump throws up roadblocks, like in the documents case.

 

[Mr. Friscus]

Of corse that’s right, but the difference is that Biden would cooperate, while Trump throws up roadblocks, like in the documents case.

Roadblocks?

 

[Batcat]

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.

An opinion piece from The New York Times?

How the New York Times has published lies to serve a biased narrative

A new book reveals how The New York Times has published lies to serve a biased narrative — from Hitler to Trump.

nypost.com

April was the month the narratives died.

On April 15, the Biden administration acknowledged there was no evidence that Russia ever offered bounties on American troops in Afghanistan, walking back a report that wounded former President Donald Trump in the run-up to the 2020 election.

Four days later, the Washington, DC, medical examiner revealed that Capitol Police Officer Brian Sicknick had not been murdered by rampaging Trump supporters during the Jan. 6 Capitol Hill riot, as reports had claimed, but had died of natural causes.

Both stories were based on anonymous, unidentifiable sources, but had become deeply enmeshed in the public consciousness. Both confirmed the assumptions of the nation’s left-leaning media and academic elite, while damaging their political enemies.

And both were driven by The New York Times, where malicious misreporting has been the practice for a century, argues journalist and media commentator Ashley Rindsberg.

“My research churned up not mere errors or inaccuracies but whole-cloth falsehoods,” Rindsberg writes in “The Gray Lady Winked” (Midnight Oil), out now, which examines how the nation’s premier media outlet manipulates what we think is the news.

The “fabrications and distortions” he found in the Times’ coverage of major stories from Hitler’s Germany and Stalin’s Russia to Vietnam and the Iraq War “were never the product of simple error,” Rindsberg contends.

 

[RhodyPatriot]

The only thing "strong" here is the rank BO emanating from that stinker of an OP.

 

[Rumpole]

Everyone says it's weak to nonextant except Karen Friedman Agnifilio. Who the hell is she?

whitehall, if your only source of information are conservative outlets, your are only getting one side of the picture. There are many competent attorneys and legal scholars who view DA NY Bragg's indictment as a solid, well thought-out, well strategized, work, among whom is Karen Friedman Agnifilio

Who is Agnifilio? Glad you asked.

Karen Friedman Agnifilio is an attorney who has served as a prosecutor in the United States. Most notably, she held the position of Executive Assistant District Attorney and Chief of the Trial Division at the New York County District Attorney's Office under District Attorney Cyrus Vance Jr. During her tenure, she oversaw major cases and worked on various high-profile investigations.

Friedman Agnifilio has had a long and distinguished career in public service, with experience in both state and federal levels. She has also been involved in the prosecution of white-collar crimes, corruption cases, and other criminal matters. Her work in the legal field has earned her recognition and respect from her colleagues and the wider legal community.

Cheers,
Rumpole

 

[jbrownson0831]

Hey Bunghole, blow it out your ass. Bottom line, the case is a JOKE. But then, it was meant to be.

View attachment 773622

I thought Rumphole was the name of Buttgigs wife.

 

[Rust_Cohle]

The only thing "strong" here is the rank BO emanating from that stinker of an OP.

He's just attempting to make up for the first novel he wrote with all these long winded word salads in here. Found a copy of his first book, here it is

 

[Rumpole]

An opinion piece from The New York Times?

How the New York Times has published lies to serve a biased narrative

A new book reveals how The New York Times has published lies to serve a biased narrative — from Hitler to Trump.

nypost.com

April was the month the narratives died.

On April 15, the Biden administration acknowledged there was no evidence that Russia ever offered bounties on American troops in Afghanistan, walking back a report that wounded former President Donald Trump in the run-up to the 2020 election.

Four days later, the Washington, DC, medical examiner revealed that Capitol Police Officer Brian Sicknick had not been murdered by rampaging Trump supporters during the Jan. 6 Capitol Hill riot, as reports had claimed, but had died of natural causes.

Both stories were based on anonymous, unidentifiable sources, but had become deeply enmeshed in the public consciousness. Both confirmed the assumptions of the nation’s left-leaning media and academic elite, while damaging their political enemies.

And both were driven by The New York Times, where malicious misreporting has been the practice for a century, argues journalist and media commentator Ashley Rindsberg.

“My research churned up not mere errors or inaccuracies but whole-cloth falsehoods,” Rindsberg writes in “The Gray Lady Winked” (Midnight Oil), out now, which examines how the nation’s premier media outlet manipulates what we think is the news.

The “fabrications and distortions” he found in the Times’ coverage of major stories from Hitler’s Germany and Stalin’s Russia to Vietnam and the Iraq War “were never the product of simple error,” Rindsberg contends.

Let's see now, ah yes, the NYPost, a news source about half way between a legit news source and a tabloid, printed in Tabloid format, all to the horror of it's founder, Alexander Hamilton (no doubt), and, last time I checked, has managed to garner the impressive total of one Pulitzer, that I can recollect, and compare that to NYTimes' 132 Pulitzers, noting that NYTimes is one of the US Journals of record (there are only four, the WSJ, [which earned that status before Murdoch took it over], the LA Times, The NYTimes and the Washington Post.

As to the NYPost, at times they do a good job, but so often they don't. Their reportage must be scrutinized, every inch.

Rindsberg is something of a turncoat amongst the former journals he used to work for. While Rindsberg's work has been published in various notable outlets, he has also been criticized for some of his opinions and claims, particularly in his book about The New York Times. Critics argue that his work is biased against the newspaper and presents a one-sided view. As with any author or commentator, it is essential to approach their work with a critical mindset and consider multiple sources for a balanced understanding of the subject matter.

Does this mean NYTimes is the paragon of perfection? Of course not, and as Noam Chomsky, one of the premier liberal intellectuals, has often criticized the NYTimes, but he tells us how to get good information from it, as you would from any publication that reports the news. That being said, Chomsky will not even read the NYPost, or at least, in his famous book, "Manufacturing Consent', which is highly critical of the MSM, I don't recall him ever mentioning the Post.

IN short, I am taking your rebuttal with a grain of salt, as one man's opinion, and leave it to rest on that particular shelf.

 

[leftwinger]

The case:

Bragg: “OMG Trump stole the 2016 election because I’m assuming, with no evidence, how he allocated his money!!”

That’s it. If this is the new norm, let’s haul Biden into court for his 2008 campaign finance violations. Right?

He might have a case but the Money Transactions occurred AFTER the 2016 Election, according to the FEC.

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.