Can anyone give a Lucid Explanation of Bragg's alleged "another crime?"

[Rawley]

No you didn't.

You have not shown one single quote from Pecker that says what you claimed he said.

Your inferences are idiotic and tiresome.

You have the patience of Job. I gave up on that one some time ago.

 

[Delldude]

Tarasoff and McConney also testified to the total control Trump had over payments, especially from his personal account, which was the account Cohen was reimbursed from.

From His own funds isn't a FEC violation.

Not true.

Oh, they have been beside themselves and are worried that Trump will walk away from this trial.......questioning the legal tactics and so on. Get some popcorn and tune in.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

From His own funds isn't a FEC violation.

Not quite sure you know what you're replying to: "Tarasoff and McConney also testified to the total control Trump had over payments, especially from his personal account, which was the account Cohen was reimbursed from."

 

[Delldude]

Not quite sure you know what you're replying to: "Tarasoff and McConney also testified to the total control Trump had over payments, especially from his personal account, which was the account Cohen was reimbursed from."

Still using His funds.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Still using His funds.

Trump lied. It was not legal fees from a retainer.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Trump lied. It was not legal fees from a retainer.

This has been explained to him many times.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Still using His funds.

Maggie Haberman Reporting from inside the courthouse

On screen is an email from Allen Weisselberg to Jeffrey McConney saying that it was okay to pay the money to Michael Cohen, “per agreement with Don and Eric.” Eric Trump is sitting in the courtroom as this takes place.

Notably, McConney testifies that he didn’t send the invoice from Cohen to the legal department for review. He acknowledges he typically would do so with invoices.

We are beginning to see the roots of what prosecutors say are false about the documents at issue in this case. Jeffrey McConney told Deborah Tarasoff, who dealt with the details of payroll at the Trump Organization, to chalk the payments to Michael Cohen up as “legal expenses” and say they were being made as part of a “retainer” agreement between Cohen and Trump. Prosecutors say that was a way to disguise the hush-money reimbursement to Cohen. To find Trump guilty, jurors will have to agree that these documents were indeed falsified.

 

[para bellum]

I think I remember you saying something to the effect that if it wasn't presented to the Grand Jury, they can't bring it up now. To my knowledge the business records charge was the only thing considered by the Grand Jury. And in fact I think Merchan held that the prosecution didn't even have to disclose the other crime being alleged to the defense.

How does this work?

The Grand Jury brings the indictment. The indictment is for the falsification of records charge, 175.10. That charge requires an "underlying crime".

The indictment did not specify the underlying crime. It is supposed to, but leaving it out can be remedied by a "Bill of Particulars" under NY law.

So that was provided to the defense, and there were 4 possible underlying crimes that were identified by the prosecutors last May.

Those 4 theories were reviewed by the judge, who said that as long as the evidence presented to grand jury supported any of the underlying crime theories, that would be good enough to save the indictment

The judge ruled that the grand jury had seen enough evidence to support 3 of the 4 possible theories advanced by the DA's office. The 3 survivors were The Federal Election Campaign Act, New York Tax law 1801(a)(3) and 1802, or New York Election law 17-152.

He precluded the 4th theory because the evidence shown to the grand jury was insufficient to allege that crime. (It was a repetition of the records charge, in some weird logic)

Anyway, the prosecution settled on the election law 17-152 as their primary theory, and that's where we are now. They are trying to prove a "conspiracy to promote or prevent an election"

§ 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.

 

[Rawley]

The Grand Jury brings the indictment. The indictment is for the falsification of records charge, 175.10. That charge requires an "underlying crime".

The indictment did not specify the underlying crime. It is supposed to, but leaving it out can be remedied by a "Bill of Particulars" under NY law.

So that was provided to the defense, and there were 4 possible underlying crimes that were identified by the prosecutors last May.

Those 4 theories were reviewed by the judge, who said that as long as the evidence presented to grand jury supported any of the underlying crime theories, that would be good enough to save the indictment

The judge ruled that the grand jury had seen enough evidence to support 3 of the 4 possible theories advanced by the DA's office. The 3 survivors were The Federal Election Campaign Act, New York Tax law 1801(a)(3) and 1802, or New York Election law 17-152.

He precluded the 4th theory because the evidence shown to the grand jury was insufficient to allege that crime. (It was a repetition of the records charge, in some weird logic)

Anyway, the prosecution settled on the election law 17-152 as their primary theory, and that's where we are now. They are trying to prove a "conspiracy to promote or prevent an election"

§ 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.

Thank you PB. That makes sense now. I'm bookmarking this response.

If you done the research, are there many cases where NY has tried to enforce this statute? I'm trying to see how they plan on applying to this case. Seems they need yet another crime with the "unlawful means" language. Unless they go completely circular and say the "falsification of records" is the "unlawful means"

 

[Delldude]

It's funny how the left, here, is all up in arms over this trial, yet most, if not all cable news are thoroughly confused as to why this is even in court, plus the Grey Lady wrote an article along the same line.

After listening to Monday’s opening statement by prosecutors, I still think the district attorney has made a historic mistake. Their vague allegation about “a criminal scheme to corrupt the 2016 presidential election” has me more concerned than ever about their unprecedented use of state law and their persistent avoidance of specifying an election crime or a valid theory of fraud.

To recap: Mr. Trump is accused in the case of falsifying business records. Those are misdemeanor charges. To elevate it to a criminal case, Mr. Bragg and his team have pointed to potential violations of federal election law and state tax fraud. They also cite state election law, but state statutory definitions of “public office” seem to limit those statutes to state and local races.

Both the misdemeanor and felony charges require that the defendant made the false record with “intent to defraud.” A year ago, I wondered how entirely internal business records (the daily ledger, pay stubs and invoices) could be the basis of any fraud if they are not shared with anyone outside the business. I suggested that the real fraud was Mr. Trump’s filing an (allegedly) false report to the Federal Election Commission, and that only federal prosecutors had jurisdiction over that filing.

Opinion | I Thought the Bragg Case Against Trump Was a Legal Embarrassment. Now I Think It’s a Historic Mistake.

It’s not the crime; it’s the cover-up. But it’s still a highly flawed case.

www.nytimes.com

Alvin Bragg’s case against Donald Trump is running into a wall of skepticism — including from left-leaning legal experts, liberal pundits and some of Trump’s Republican detractors who have otherwise been eager to see him held accountable.

A day after the Manhattan district attorney unveiled the history-making charging documents against the former president, some of Bragg’s natural allies were left scratching their heads and Trump world appeared emboldened by the uncertainties in the case.

Bragg’s case against Trump hits a wall of skepticism — even from Trump’s critics

A day after the historic arraignment, questions nagged Bragg’s case.

www.politico.com

 

[BULLDOG]

Is it as good as Ashley Biden's diary? Not many questions there either.

Trump's affair with a porn star has been proven in court. All the accusations about Biden have not. Like rudy said, you have lots of theories, but no proof.

 

[BULLDOG]

Delay had his conviction reversed. Cohen acted on his own. Trump did not know what he did until later.

Right. Cohen took 130,000 out of his own pocket with no expectation of being reimbursed. Sure, that happens all the time. Lawyers are always sooooo generous.

 

[Delldude]

All the accusations about Biden have not.

I wouldn't want to be remembered for having little boys rubbing my hairy legs and expounding on liking little boys to sit on my lap.

 

[Robert W]

Right. Cohen took 130,000 out of his own pocket with no expectation of being reimbursed. Sure, that happens all the time. Lawyers are always sooooo generous.

Now you have a clue why Cohen was put into prison.

 

[BULLDOG]

Now you have a clue why Cohen was put into prison.

There was never any doubt why Cohen went to prison.

 

[para bellum]

Thank you PB. That makes sense now. I'm bookmarking this response.

If you done the research, are there many cases where NY has tried to enforce this statute? I'm trying to see how they plan on applying to this case. Seems they need yet another crime with the "unlawful means" language. Unless they go completely circular and say the "falsification of records" is the "unlawful means"

As far as anyone knows, no one has ever been convicted for violating the election law.

The Wapo researched it, all they found were 3 instances. Two were local officials who were charged for some kind of monkey business with absentee ballots, and one was a school board guy who was accused of blocking an entrance to a polling place in an elementary school.

None of them resulted in a conviction.

That seems to be the entire history of that law.

 

[Robert W]

There was never any doubt why Cohen went to prison.

Notice that Bragg is not faring well in his persecution of Trump.

 

[WorldWatcher]

You should follow the news media............they see that differently.

Oh, my mistake, I thought we were talking about - you know - what the actual charges are in the indictment and evidence being presented in court and upon which the jury will make their verdict.

Not what you think the media is saying.

WW

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

After listening to Monday’s opening statement by prosecutors, I still think the district attorney has made a historic mistake. Their vague allegation about “a criminal scheme to corrupt the 2016 presidential election” has me more concerned than ever about their unprecedented use of state law and their persistent avoidance of specifying an election crime or a valid theory of fraud.

To recap: Mr. Trump is accused in the case of falsifying business records. Those are misdemeanor charges. To elevate it to a criminal case, Mr. Bragg and his team have pointed to potential violations of federal election law and state tax fraud. They also cite state election law, but state statutory definitions of “public office” seem to limit those statutes to state and local races.

Both the misdemeanor and felony charges require that the defendant made the false record with “intent to defraud.” A year ago, I wondered how entirely internal business records (the daily ledger, pay stubs and invoices) could be the basis of any fraud if they are not shared with anyone outside the business. I suggested that the real fraud was Mr. Trump’s filing an (allegedly) false report to the Federal Election Commission, and that only federal prosecutors had jurisdiction over that filing.

Opinion | I Thought the Bragg Case Against Trump Was a Legal Embarrassment. Now I Think It’s a Historic Mistake.

It’s not the crime; it’s the cover-up. But it’s still a highly flawed case.

www.nytimes.com

Alvin Bragg’s case against Donald Trump is running into a wall of skepticism — including from left-leaning legal experts, liberal pundits and some of Trump’s Republican detractors who have otherwise been eager to see him held accountable.

A day after the Manhattan district attorney unveiled the history-making charging documents against the former president, some of Bragg’s natural allies were left scratching their heads and Trump world appeared emboldened by the uncertainties in the case.

Bragg’s case against Trump hits a wall of skepticism — even from Trump’s critics

A day after the historic arraignment, questions nagged Bragg’s case.

www.politico.com

Haha

Go read his other stuff. Then come back and tell me what an authority you think he is.

Enjoy.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

As far as anyone knows, no one has ever been convicted for violating the election law.

The Wapo researched it, all they found were 3 instances. Two were local officials who were charged for some kind of monkey business with absentee ballots, and one was a school board guy who was accused of blocking an entrance to a polling place in an elementary school.

None of them resulted in a conviction.

That seems to be the entire history of that law.

It's also pretty rare that people get charged with humping an elephant in the town square. Because it rarely happens.