Who Did Trump Intend to Defraud when he Allegedly Falsified Business Records?

[Foxfyre]

The Broad Scope of “Intent to Defraud” in the New York Crime of Falsifying Business Records

"While there are other legal hurdles for the Manhattan DA to cross in the indictment of the former president, this element of the relevant offenses poses no obstacle..."

www.justsecurity.org

And in rebuttal since the law you cited was re Bragg's case which has nothing to do with defrauding anybody but election interference which is absurd because the election was long over before the payment was made and the statutes of limitation had long run out regardless of any 'crime' of which there was none.

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

 

[Care4all]

The campaign finance "crime" that the DOJ declined to prosecute, set up the falsifying records "crime" that Alvin Bragg declined to prosecute? Is that what you're saying?

New York has election law as well, that was unlawful.
-----------------
The DOJ declined to prosecute because AG Barr ordered SDNY to shut down all criminal cases pursuing President Trump.

 

[Care4all]

Hey I asked you over 24 hours ago to list the ways Trump had been a terrible president other than he hurt your feelings. You've had plenty of time to answer and yet nothing. Just admit he hurt your feelings, huh?

I haven't got to your posts yet, I have a gazillion million posts to answer in my alerts and am trying to work through them all, and I didn't know you asked it.

 

[SweetSue92]

I haven't got to your posts yet, I have a gazillion million posts to answer in my alerts and am trying to work through them all, and I didn't know you asked it.

It should be easy. I could answer the same about Biden like this:

--Afghanistan
--gas prices
--inflation
--housing
--the economy
--his betrayal of Israel
--the fact that he craps his pants and
--doesn't know what day it is and
--doesn't know if he's a Senator or President

So easy, so quick. But you haven't "gotten around to it" because in the end, it's about how you feeeeeelll about Donald Trump

 

[Care4all]

And in rebuttal since the law you cited was re Bragg's case which has nothing to do with defrauding anybody but election interference which is absurd because the election was long over before the payment was made and the statutes of limitation had long run out regardless of any 'crime' of which there was none.

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

The election was not long over? The first reimbursement payment to Cohen was in Jan/Feb 2017, Trump was in office less than a month. Cohen's payment to Stormy was just 2 1/2 months earlier when Trump began to reimburse him and pay Cohen back $420,000 for the $130,000 Cohen borrowed, to pay her.

 

[Care4all]

It should be easy. I could answer the same about Biden like this:

--Afghanistan
--gas prices
--inflation
--housing
--the economy
--his betrayal of Israel
--the fact that he craps his pants and
--doesn't know what day it is and
--doesn't know if he's a Senator or President

So easy, so quick. But you haven't "gotten around to it" because in the end, it's about how you feeeeeelll about Donald Trump

No, its about me answering the posts involving debate issues in the order I choose to...in the order of importance or how I stumble upon them.

 

[Foxfyre]

The election was not long over? The first reimbursement payment to Cohen was in Jan/Feb 2017, Trump was in office less than a month. Cohen's payment to Stormy was just 2 1/2 months earlier if I'm when Trump began to reimburse him and pay Cohen back $420,000 for the $130,000 Cohen borrowed, to pay her.

You do know there is nothing illegal re hush money? You do know that 2017 was after the election? You do know that even if there had been a crime, the statutes of limitation had run out to file charges? Do you know that no legal mind that isn't being paid by the DOJ or some other anti-Trump entity can find any crime committed?

The whole thing is political prosecution/mal practice and all decent people should be calling for an end to it.

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

https://www.politico.com/news/2023/04/05/alvin-bragg-case-against-trump-00090602#:~:text=The%20post-arraignment%20hangover%20was%20fueled%20by%20burning%20questions,Trump%E2%80%99s%20critics%20in%20the%20legal%20community%20and%20Congress.

Alvin Bragg's Case Against Trump Should Have Been Dismissed

A state court system that truly enforced the rule of law would stop its prosecutors from abusing their discretion as Bragg did.

www.newsweek.com

Why Alvin Bragg’s case against Trump is falling apart

Bragg continues to stare at the map to find his Kailasa. He just needs to convince a grand jury that they see it, too.

nypost.com

 

[Seymour Flops]

New York has election law as well, that was unlawful.
-----------------
The DOJ declined to prosecute because AG Barr ordered SDNY to shut down all criminal cases pursuing President Trump.

Then why did Bragg not prosecute Trump for that?

 

[Care4all]

You do know there is nothing illegal re hush money? You do know that 2017 was after the election? You do know that even if there had been a crime, the statutes of limitation had run out to file charges? Do you know that no legal mind that isn't being paid by the DOJ or some other anti-Trump entity can find any crime committed?

The whole thing is political prosecution/mal practice and all decent people should be calling for an end to it.

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

https://www.politico.com/news/2023/04/05/alvin-bragg-case-against-trump-00090602#:~:text=The%20post-arraignment%20hangover%20was%20fueled%20by%20burning%20questions,Trump%E2%80%99s%20critics%20in%20the%20legal%20community%20and%20Congress.

Alvin Bragg's Case Against Trump Should Have Been Dismissed

A state court system that truly enforced the rule of law would stop its prosecutors from abusing their discretion as Bragg did.

www.newsweek.com

Why Alvin Bragg’s case against Trump is falling apart

Bragg continues to stare at the map to find his Kailasa. He just needs to convince a grand jury that they see it, too.

nypost.com

You said the election was LONG OVER before Trump reimbursed Cohen.

Maybe you have your own definition of long that is different? To me, 2 1/2 months after election day, and only 10days or under, from his inauguration is no where NEAR long after the election.

And we know a bit more now on this trial and the law being used.

Turns out, the law broken was NEVER a misdemeanor in this case, because there was always an underlying crime being covered up, that the falsifying records did.

So the statute of limitations for a misdemeanor NEVER applied in the first place to Trump's situation.... We were all wrong in thinking Bragg stretched the statute of limitation in some sort of shenanigans....

NOTE! Under NY law falsifying business records is illegal, and NY government agencies under law, can review them.... They are not meant to be private and simply for the company's own use. I'm not certain if this is the case in all other States, but NY is a State that can use them, and review them.

COHEN was charged and found guilty of the campaign finance laws he broke, that he and Trump discussed and the Trump org covered up by falsifying them, 34 false entries is intentional and not a simple one off mistake is the prosecution's position.

The prosecution spent the early days of the trial proving that Trump was a macro and micro manager, touched everything, and no decision made without him.

And proving that the catch and kills and NDAs were for the purpose or primary purpose of his Campaign....using his friends like Pecker, Hope Hicks, and later on his fixer, Michael Cohen etc.

Then proving that what Stormy claimed was likely to be true, that "He did have sex with that woman" which "He did NOT have sex with that woman" was claimed by his lawyers in their opening statement... Which was a lie. And what she had to say would most certainly hurt the trump campaign if released on the heels of the CAT 5 Access Hollywood tape, the campaign was dealing with.

This was all to show that Trump was aware of Cohen's doings at the time he did them... And that paying Cohen in the convoluted and fraud like way that they did ...was to cover up Cohen paying her off....

What all of these witnesses were for, and the signed checks, and notes of Allen Weisselberg on how they were going to pay Cohen back, and hide reporting it on their business records....

was to be back up support for the lead, first hand witness, Cohen, who would be on shaky ground, due to all of his previous lying and perjury he did, for Donald Trump.

That's it so far.... There is a little more that has to be proven before closing statements though, for the jury to reach beyond a reasonable doubt imho.

 

[Care4all]

Then why did Bragg not prosecute Trump for that?

AG Bragg was not in the position to do so, at the time...and Trump was still president and it would have been one lawsuit after the next on whether a president can be prosecuted while president, by any states....the answer would likely be yes, due to us being a republic, but it would simply be a delay, delay, delay tactic that trump often uses.

 

[Orangecat]

You got nothing on Dark Brandon.

No need to use that brain-adjective. It’s already obvious to perceptive adults.

 

[Foxfyre]

You said the election was LONG OVER before Trump reimbursed Cohen.

Maybe you have your own definition of long that is different? To me, 2 1/2 months after election day, and only 10days or under, from his inauguration is no where NEAR long after the election.

And we know a bit more now on this trial and the law being used.

Turns out, the law broken was NEVER a misdemeanor in this case, because there was always an underlying crime being covered up, that the falsifying records did.

So the statute of limitations for a misdemeanor NEVER applied in the first place to Trump's situation.... We were all wrong in thinking Bragg stretched the statute of limitation in some sort of shenanigans....

NOTE! Under NY law falsifying business records is illegal, and NY government agencies under law, can review them.... They are not meant to be private and simply for the company's own use. I'm not certain if this is the case in all other States, but NY is a State that can use them, and review them.

COHEN was charged and found guilty of the campaign finance laws he broke, that he and Trump discussed and the Trump org covered up by falsifying them, 34 false entries is intentional and not a simple one off mistake is the prosecution's position.

The prosecution spent the early days of the trial proving that Trump was a macro and micro manager, touched everything, and no decision made without him.

And proving that the catch and kills and NDAs were for the purpose or primary purpose of his Campaign....using his friends like Pecker, Hope Hicks, and later on his fixer, Michael Cohen etc.

Then proving that what Stormy claimed was likely to be true, that "He did have sex with that woman" which "He did NOT have sex with that woman" was claimed by his lawyers in their opening statement... Which was a lie. And what she had to say would most certainly hurt the trump campaign if released on the heels of the CAT 5 Access Hollywood tape, the campaign was dealing with.

This was all to show that Trump was aware of Cohen's doings at the time he did them... And that paying Cohen in the convoluted and fraud like way that they did ...was to cover up Cohen paying her off....

What all of these witnesses were for, and the signed checks, and notes of Allen Weisselberg on how they were going to pay Cohen back, and hide reporting it on their business records....

was to be back up support for the lead, first hand witness, Cohen, who would be on shaky ground, due to all of his previous lying and perjury he did, for Donald Trump.

That's it so far.... There is a little more that has to be proven before closing statements though, for the jury to reach beyond a reasonable doubt imho.

Depends on definition of 'long' doesn't it? I consider anything happening months after the election to be 'long after' the election. And so far no neutral legal minds I've read or listened to think any witness the prosecution has called yet has been credible or that any crime has been identified in this case. And even if there was a crime the statutes had long run out on prosecuting it.

Do you support the administration promoting and probably funding malicious prosecution of a political opponent? Please tell me that you do not. I'm not asking you to love Trump. I'm only asking for fair to be fair.

Here is a summary of the holes in Bragg's case:

MSN

And isn't it interesting all the prosecutors against Trump so far have had multiple meetings with the DOJ?

MSN

 

[Care4all]

Do you support the administration promoting and probably funding malicious prosecution of a political opponent? Please tell me that you do not. I'm not asking you to love Trump. I'm only asking for fair to be fair.

No, I do not support that or anything like that for this or any administration.

I know that is not happening now, though.

The Biden Doj is not in charge or responsible for any of these other civil and criminal state indictments or charges, only the two Doj appointed special prosecutor has brought, The Jan 6th election subversion case, and the Classified documents case.

Those are the only two cases I cared about being tried before the election that was important for the American people to know before they voted, guilty or not guilty..... They involved the position being sought.

The "Biden is doing all of this to Trump" crap, that Trump created and is promoting seems to be pure hogwash to me.... to fool the masses of his followers and give them a talking point to spread in their circles...

Trump has caused his own criminal problems, when it comes to his federal problems...

And his problems in New York as well....the trump org was found liable for Trump University fraud and with his Charity Foundation as well, and both were shuttered by the State, the Trump org was found guilty on tax evasion and fraud....Alan Weisselberg served time in prison for it a couple of years back, Weisselberg is also in prison again right now for committing perjury for Trump in the Letitia James civil lawsuit he was found liable for....an appeal is still pending on that one....

He appears to be a perpetual law breaker, or cheater on all he touches...and apparently believes laws don't pertain to him, and it appears New Yorkers have said enough is enough.... no more passes, they've been used up.... And that is what appears to be a piling on by them, actually prosecuting and bringing suit for what he has unlawfully done for decades, for a change... I think that's probably how most New Yorkers see it.

 

[dudmuck]

Depends on definition of 'long' doesn't it? I consider anything happening months after the election to be 'long after' the election. And so far no neutral legal minds I've read or listened to think any witness the prosecution has called yet has been credible or that any crime has been identified in this case. And even if there was a crime the statutes had long run out on prosecuting it.

Do you support the administration promoting and probably funding malicious prosecution of a political opponent? Please tell me that you do not. I'm not asking you to love Trump. I'm only asking for fair to be fair.

Here is a summary of the holes in Bragg's case:

MSN

And isn't it interesting all the prosecutors against Trump so far have had multiple meetings with the DOJ?

MSN

Falsification of business statute of limitations has run out. But when done in conjunction with another crime, it has not run out.

Don't forget that the president cannot influence prosecutions in our justice system, especially at the state level. But Trump has pro en it can be impeeded

 

[WorldWatcher]

New York has election law as well, that was unlawful.
-----------------
The DOJ declined to prosecute because AG Barr ordered SDNY to shut down all criminal cases pursuing President Trump.

Then why did Bragg not prosecute Trump for that?

AG Bragg was not in the position to do so, at the time...and Trump was still president and it would have been one lawsuit after the next on whether a president can be prosecuted while president, by any states....the answer would likely be yes, due to us being a republic, but it would simply be a delay, delay, delay tactic that trump often uses.

Sorry Care4all you were being sealioned.

Bragg isn't an AG (Attorney Genera, federal or state) he is a DA (District Attorney for the County of Manhattan).

DA Bragg had/has no option to charged federal crimes, that is in the purview of the USA (United States Attorney's with the Department of Justice). He can charge New York State laws, not federal.

It was a trick question.

WW

 

[para bellum]

His intent to defraud cannot include an intent to conceal a crime unless the intent to defraud exists in the first place, without a person intended to be defrauded intent to defraud does not exist.

^^^ This is the correct reading.

Your question remains unanswered- "who did he intend to defraud?"

From their link, McKinney's Penal Law 175:

"It should be emphasized that for the first-degree crime there must be two separate intents in that the “intent to defraud” must include “an intent to commit another crime or to aid or conceal the commission thereof.” The first degree, for example, is not committed when there is an “intent to ... conceal the commission” of a crime but no “intend to defraud,” See People v. Reyes, 69 A.D.3d 537, 538, 894 N.Y.S.2d 43 (1st Dept 2010) (defendant’s false logbook entry done to provide himself with an alibi and thereby conceal his commission of a sexual assault did not constitute, in the absence of an “intent to defraud,” “falsifying business records”)"

 

[Care4all]

^^^ This is the correct reading.

Your question remains unanswered- "who did he intend to defraud?"

From their link, McKinney's Penal Law 175:

"It should be emphasized that for the first-degree crime there must be two separate intents in that the “intent to defraud” must include “an intent to commit another crime or to aid or conceal the commission thereof.” The first degree, for example, is not committed when there is an “intent to ... conceal the commission” of a crime but no “intend to defraud,” See People v. Reyes, 69 A.D.3d 537, 538, 894 N.Y.S.2d 43 (1st Dept 2010) (defendant’s false logbook entry done to provide himself with an alibi and thereby conceal his commission of a sexual assault did not constitute, in the absence of an “intent to defraud,” “falsifying business records”)"

But isn't the intent to defraud, hiding Cohen's crimes by falsifying their business records on what he was reimbursed for....?

Did they not intend to hide Cohen's crimes?

If not, then why did they reimburse Cohen in the manner they did, for $420,000 for the $130 k that Cohen paid stormy for the NDA?

Stormy cost Trump $420,000 and not just the $130,000.... Why?

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Again, you have no substantive rebuttal, so you spew more garbage.

Your own link said why they don't pursue FECA:

"The key questions are whether “unlawful means” were used and whether this statute is preempted by federal law."

Because FECA is a federal law, it would trigger the preemption argument. So you need some other act to satisfy the "unlawful means" in 17-152.

Eisen knows this is a problem, so he tries to erase it by pretending "unlawful" doesn't really mean "illegal", it just means "not authorized":

"Under New York law, “unlawful means” appears to be construed broadly—and is not limited to crimes (which would therefore require yet another predicate crime)."

See what he does?

Eisen cites the 100 year-old case that supposedly says "unlawful" means "not authorized".

“unlawful means” as written in another statute does not necessitate “the commission of a crime.” Instead, the court held that “unlawful means” simply refers to conduct “unauthorized by law.”

Dumb argument, for the reasons I stated. And out of context.

The case Eisen was citing was against someone advocating violent overthrow of the government.

The statute said:
-------------------------------------
"§ 161. Advocacy of criminal anarchy.
Any person who:
1. By word of mouth or writing advocates, advises or teaches the duty, necessity or propriety of overthrowing or overturning organized government by force or violence, or by assassination of the executive head or of any of the executive officials of government, or by any unlawful means; or,
2. Prints, publishes, edits, issues or knowingly circulates, sells, distributes or publicly displays any book, paper, document, or written or printed matter in any form, containing or advocating, advising or teaching the doctrine that organized government should be overthrown by force, violence or any unlawful means; or,
3. Openly, wilfully and deliberately justifies by word of mouth or writing the assassination or unlawful killing or assaulting of any executive or other officer of the United States or of any State or of any civilized nation having an organized government because of his official character, or any other crime, with intent to teach, spread or advocate the propriety of the doctrines of criminal anarchy; or,
4. Organizes or helps to organize or becomes a member of or voluntarily assembles with any society, group or assembly of persons formed to teach or advocate such doctrine,

Is guilty of a felony and punishable by imprisonment for not more than ten years, or by a fine of not more than five thousand dollars, or both."
------------------------------------------------
The statute uses the language "or any unlawful means" because it cannot specify every possible way to overthrow a government. The crime is the advocacy to overthrow the government.

The judge said in his decision:

"The words "unlawful means" as used in the statute need not be construed as limiting the provisions thereof to the advocacy of the overthrow of government by the commission of a crime, and may be held to have been used in the sense of unauthorized by law, in which sense those words are sometimes used in criminal statutes."
<...>
"In so far, therefore, as it is competent for the Legislature to enact laws to prevent the overthrow of government by unauthorized means, I am of opinion that the initial and every other act knowingly committed for the accomplishment of that purpose may be forbidden and declared to be a crime.
People v. Gitlow, 195 A.D. 773, 791 (N.Y. App. Div. 1921)"

Applying that logic to the words "unlawful means" in 17-152 is renders the words meaningless. Some actual illegal behavior has to be planned before you can claim a criminal conspiracy has happened.

If you take out "unlawful means", the statute makes all electioneering activity illegal. It's absurd.

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.

I try not to take straw men too seriously, and I am amused by mot supposed legal opinions from folks who are speaking from political agendas.

The case has made it into court -- which is more tan can be said for most MAGA arguments. On an anonymous message board you are parsing words and attempting some sort of legal defense of an accused criminal, acting as if your arguments are before the court. They are not.

Any parts of your personal opinions/arguments taken from the legal arguments made in court could simply be linked to and referenced, rather than have them posted and passed off as your own thinking.

You sir, are what's commonly referred to as a poser.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Did they not intend to hide Cohen's crimes?

They did and the prosecution is on the way to proving it.

 

[Faun]

Nope. It was a plea agreement. Huge difference.

Still convicted and sent to jail.