Trump's Troubles

He has two former federal prosecutors in Todd Blanche and Emil Bove as attorneys. Even if you don't fully understand the charges against Trump, don't you think they already would have made these arguments before the judge?

 

So nothing in todays testimony about activity well after the campaign is relevant. Thank you. Why waste everyone’s time today? And campaign financing issues are federal law so anyone trying to say this is simply NY law can be ignored. Now, what is the campaign finance law crime being charged? Help me out. Hush money, bookkeeping, catch and kill are not specifically the campaign financing crimes being charged. In fact I do t recall the prosecution stating this was their charge. And why then did prosecution spend the first two weeks on that? You are trying but still not able to answer.

 

The judge is a joke. That is one of the problems.

 

Wrong again. Activity after the campaign is relevant if it helps establish a pattern. It's why, in addition to Stormy Daniels, Karen McDougal and Trump's former doorman, who both also received payments in a catch and kill scheme, are part of the trial. Even though there are no charges stemming from these activities.

And NY law states the law to elevate falsifying business records doesn't have to be a state law in order to elevate charges to felony level. It makes the Prosecution's case a little more difficult, but not impossible.

 

You are getting closer. So this is 100% about campaign finance laws being broken. This is a federal crime, not state. Do you have a clue about which law he is being accused of violating? That sure would help.
ps. Good to see the rest of you with no clue dropping out. Or do you have a different view of which federal law is allegedly violated?

 

Poor Trump! Claims he hires only the best people, but he should have hired @ga8orman1 as his lawyer! Such airtight arguments, had ga8orman1 been the lawyer, the case would've been dismissed months ago!

As for the umpteenth time. FALSIFYING BUSINESS RECORDS. Trump is being charged with FALSIFYING BUSINESS RECORDS!!!
This is a state crime, not a Federal one. And one that the state of NY has charged several people with in recent years. The federal crimes only comes in to elevate the charges to a felony.

 

This case is NOT being brought to charge Trump with misdemeanors. How silly of you. So you’ve given up on identifying the campaign finance law allegedly violated? Or are you now changing your answer about what is elevating this to a felony. It is very telling that nobody can go to any trial transcripts and be able to answer my simple question. I think many of you are finally learning something about this trial and how your media sources are misleading you.
Let’s ask this in another very simple way. If the jury were to be asked to decide today, what would they be deciding on?

 

Try reading this. And again, too bad Trump didn't hire you as his lawyer!

Prosecutors have suggested three possible crimes since filing the charges against Mr. Trump last year: a federal campaign finance violation, tax fraud and a state election-law crime. But since the start of the trial, they have largely focused on the state election-law crime: conspiracy to promote or prevent election.

Prosecutors have framed the falsified documents as concealing a broader conspiracy to protect Mr. Trump’s campaign. They allege that Mr. Trump and Mr. Cohen coordinated with the former publisher of The National Enquirer, David Pecker, to bury stories that could damage Mr. Trump’s campaign and promote others that would harm his political rivals.
​

The campaign finance law comes in from the fact Trump reimbursed Cohen using a campaign retainer. And, as per the article, Bragg doesn't have to convince the jury Trump is guilty of any of the crimes that elevate the falsifying records charge to a felony. Bragg only has to convince the jury of the intent to do so.

If the jury were deliberating today, they would be deciding whether or Trump was first, guilty of falsifying business records, and two, he did so deliberately to further a separate crime.

 

Here's what the prosecution is laying out:

• Stormy Daniels was shopping her story around during the election
• National Enquirer notified Trump and agreed work with them to help acquire the story and not print it
• National Enquirer bowed out but passed the negotiations over to Trump's attorney, Michael Cohen
• Michael Cohen tried to drag out negotiations until after the election, at which point the story wouldn't matter anymore. This was confirmed by Hope Hicks who testified Trump said the same thing about the timing of the story/payment/election (demonstrates the motivation behind the payment was campaign related)
• After the Access Hollywood tape became public, Cohen urgently created a shell company and took out a home equity loan to get the $130k to pay Stormy Daniels to get the rights to the story (demonstrates this was not a legal expense, but an expense incurred on behalf of Trump)
• Various witnesses and evidence have been presented to show that Trump was aware that all of this was happening on his behalf
• Michael Cohen then sought reimbursement from Trump who (surprise!) didn't want to pay him back
• Trump eventually agreed to reimburse him later in 2017/2018 (hence the witnesses/evidence today)
• These payments were disguised as a retainer or for legal services (falsification of business records)
• The evidence in the trial today showing that the amount owed to Michael Cohen had to be grossed up for taxes is an acknowledgement that this was a reimbursement and not for legal services (i.e., Michael Cohen had to be paid to be paid approximately double the $130k because he would have to pay taxes on whatever Trump paid him as income)
• Given that the purpose of the $130k was campaign-related (prevent a damaging story from coming out before the election) and not disclosed as campaign-related expense, there's the underlying campaign finance violation
• Classifying the reimbursement as legal fees when that was not their true purpose is the falsification of business records which is in furtherance of the campaign finance violation and raised the charges to a felony.

You may not like it or agree with it, but that's what it is. You can complain that the judge is crooked, but his attorneys are not making the argument that these are not actually crimes or that the statute of limitations has passed. They've tried everything in the book to delay this until after the election and yet they haven't tried the most basic thing to get the charges dismissed? If that was a possibility, they would be raising hell and appealing to the highest level possible.

 

Per NYT

Prosecutors do not need to prove such crimes were committed — only that there was “the intent to commit or conceal” an additional crime.

The $130,000 payment was made by Mr. Trump’s fixer, Michael D. Cohen, in the final days of the 2016 campaign. Mr. Cohen said he had done so at Mr. Trump’s direction.

While “hush money” payments are not necessarily illegal, Mr. Trump reimbursed Mr. Cohen during his presidency. In internal records, Mr. Trump’s company classified the repayment to Mr. Cohen as legal expenses, citing a retainer agreement. Prosecutors say there were no such expenses or retainer agreement.

Prosecutors have suggested three possible crimes since filing the charges against Mr. Trump last year: a federal campaign finance violation, tax fraud and a state election-law crime. But since the start of the trial, they have largely focused on the state election-law crime: conspiracy to promote or prevent election.

SECTION 17-152
Conspiracy to promote or prevent election
Election (ELN) CHAPTER 17, ARTICLE 17, TITLE 1

§ 17-152. Conspiracy to promote or prevent election. Any two or more
persons who conspire to promote or prevent the election of any person to
a public office by unlawful means and which conspiracy is acted upon by
one or more of the parties thereto, shall be guilty of a misdemeanor.

Why Does Trump Face Felony Charges? Prosecutors Say He Was Hiding Other Crimes.

 

It may be semantics, but the prosecution has actually elicited evidence on each so far that at least appears from a distance to be highly persuasive

 

Yes, agreed. That's just my take based on following the trial. They haven't even called Michael Cohen yet, who the defense will paint as an unreliable liar, but all the evidence and witnesses they've presented so far will serve to corroborate his testimony which is going to severely undercut the "you can't believe anything this guy says" argument from the defense.

 

Also worth pointing out that Trump filed the paperwork for reelection literally the day he was inaugurated in 2017, so he could continue to fleece the rubes for the next 4 years. There is really no such thing as "after the campaign" for Trump.

 

Today was not a good day for Trump.

Grossing up the payments to account for taxes for Michael Cohen kills their legal expense argument. If Michael Cohen was truly submitting an invoice for legal fees, they would simply pay the amount requested - they wouldn't take into account his personal taxes. Nor would Michael Cohen submit an invoice for legal fees with the amount he expects to net and rely on the Trump Org to increase the payment for his taxes.

But maybe Trump didn't know the purpose of the check he was signing or he always just rubber stamps the checks presented for him to sign? Well the last witness, a Trump Org employee for 24 years, testified that every check is stapled to an invoice for him to review the purpose and he does regularly refuse to sign checks he doesn't agree with.

 

Can't help but notice the lack of outrage at Trump conspiring with the National Enquirer to bury negative stories, publish false stories about his rivals, and hiding the payment to Stormy Daniel's all in order to influence the election from the same folks who scream bloody murder about alleged cooperation between MSM and Biden, the Trump dossier (which wasn't actually made public before the election) and Hunter Biden laptop story (which was made public but didn't get as much coverage as they wanted).

 

I find it funny when all the MAGA lawyers with a Google law degree try to poke holes in the prosecution with things that Trump's team would have already argued if it was relevant

 

They pick it up from somewhere. Fox News? Talk radio? Twitter?

I had to quit interacting with them, cause you'd show them facts and then a few days later they'd repeat the same disproven argument.

 

I think when ever he asks that again, we all just link to this response. It is dead on.

 

My favorite argument in this thread: “He JUST committed dozens of misdemeanors, not actually a felony here”.

So, I guess habitual criming is ok if it’s just a bunch of misdemeanors? Can you imagine anyone making these arguments 10 years ago?