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

[Procrustes Stretched]

No. Don't give up your day.

see post #120 above

 

[MarathonMike]

That's what I have asked every lib here and still haven't got an answer... all they say is read the indictment... as if they have....

We know all the charges are "Trumped Up" (see what I did there?) There is no legitimate basis for a fraud lawsuit when you can't present WHO was defrauded.

 

[para bellum]

There is no "someone"

The prosecution is not claiming Mr. Trump defrauded somebody. You obviously have trouble understanding the indictment and prosecution's case so far.

there is your straw man.

keeper thread - keeper post

"Intent to defraud" means that some person or entity is intended to be deceived. Simply making an incorrect entry does not constitute intent to defraud.

The most broad interpretation in your link is Kase, in which the court said "an intent to “frustrate the State’s power to fulfill its obligation to carry out the law violates the statute.”

The State "carries out the law" by creating and assigning agencies to enforce the law. The record that is falsified has to be done with the intent to frustrate that agency (whoever it happens to be).

The question is: "name that agency". Bonus points if you can tell us what law they were frustrated to enforce...

 

[Mashmont]

The New York law Trump is on trial for violating:

View attachment 943987

https://nycourts.gov/judges/cji/2-PenalLaw/175/175.10.pdf

View attachment 943988

https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/21/21-1158/236829/20220902124059970_3835_001.pdf

Well? Who did Trump specifically intend to deceive and deprive when he allegedly called money he paid his lawyer "legal fees?" Who was the "another?"

Exactly right. All the loans were paid in full.

 

[Faun]

Well, the prosecution is saying the payments were split up like that to conceal their purpose...

i.e. intent to conceal.

The OP is asking the question- who did that defraud?

Which NY State gov't entity was that intended to deceive or confound?

His intent appears to be to defraud the voters of NY by illegally hiding damaging news to his campaign.

 

[Faun]

Except the prosecution is not making that argument.

He is not claiming "catch and kill" is a scheme to violate campaign finance laws.

Paying Pecker from Trump's personal funds would not have been illegal. Pecker, in effect, violated the campaign finance laws when he made the decision to not take the reimbursement.

YOU said...

The only suggested crimes associated with the NDA's are AMI and Cohen's FECA violations, which Trump had no part in, and were not the purpose of the "catch and kill" plan.​

But that's not true. Again, there's evidence Trump was involved.

That makes him complicit in illegal campaign contributions. And as we saw with Cohen, getting reimbursed after the fact by Trump, or not, is irrelevant. Both Pecker and Cohen made illegal campaign contributions with their own money. Cohen went to jail for it along with other crimes; and Pecker avoided charges by agreeing to testify.

 

[Care4all]

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

MSN

Look at the visitor logs and READ THEM.....Foxy

The 3 visits for Letitia are for events held....

First on on the south lawn with 400 plus other people, the other was an event the VP had, with 230 people etc....

She DID NOT meet with the DOJ.....IT IS CLEAR AS DAY, on the logs....

 

[Foxfyre]

Look at the visitor logs and READ THEM.....Foxy

The 3 visits for Letitia are for events held....

First on on the south lawn with 400 plus other people, the other was an event the VP had, with 230 people etc....

She DID NOT meet with the DOJ.....IT IS CLEAR AS DAY, on the logs....

The woman is a George Soros funded prosecutor. She campaigned on taking down Donald Trump. You will never convince me that she wasn't working with the DOJ. And visiting the White House is not the same thing.

 

[Faun]

The woman is a George Soros funded prosecutor. She campaigned on taking down Donald Trump. You will never convince me that she wasn't working with the DOJ. And visiting the White House is not the same thing.

NOOOOoooo.... not George Soros???

 

[Care4all]

Except the prosecution is not making that argument.

He is not claiming "catch and kill" is a scheme to violate campaign finance laws.

Paying Pecker from Trump's personal funds would not have been illegal. Pecker, in effect, violated the campaign finance laws when he made the decision to not take the reimbursement.

Even if trump repaid pecker, it was illegal, because it would have been a straw man donation of sorts.....

Trump can self finance his campaign....he can't have someone else, a corporation, front it for him, then pay them back, that's illegal.

 

[Faun]

Even if trump repaid pecker, it was illegal, because it would have been a straw man donation of sorts.....

Trump can self finance his campaign....he can't have someone else, a corporation, front it for him, then pay them back, that's illegal.

That's correct. It's also obvious since Cohen pled guilty to that charge.

 

[John Edgar Slow Horses]

Look at the visitor logs and READ THEM.....Foxy

The 3 visits for Letitia are for events held....

First on on the south lawn with 400 plus other people, the other was an event the VP had, with 230 people etc....

She DID NOT meet with the DOJ.....IT IS CLEAR AS DAY, on the logs....

Foxy in her elderly years is not being as careful as she once was.

 

[para bellum]

Even if trump repaid pecker, it was illegal, because it would have been a straw man donation of sorts.....

Trump can self finance his campaign....he can't have someone else, a corporation, front it for him, then pay them back, that's illegal.

Campaigns return illegal contributions all the time and don't get in trouble for them. They also donate the money to charities if returning the money is not practical.

Politicians also "loan" money to their own (and their spouse's) campaigns and repay themselves from donor funds later, and never get charged with anything.

No campaign funds were involved. In any of it.
And the FEC has exclusive jurisdiction when it comes to Federal campaign finances.

The record already shows that Pecker expected to be reimbursed, and so did Cohen. "Catch and kill" was never about sidestepping campaign finance caps. There was nothing actually illegal about it at all, as long as Trump was paying for the NDA's.

The entire thing is a sham prosecution that should have never been charged. Personal checks are not business records, there was no "falsification", and the POTUS is not a New York State "enterprise".

Even if you say the records were falsified, there was still no intent to defraud, because there is no entity that would have relied on those records to enforce any business law, and NYS does not have any jurisdiction over Federal election financing.

Neither Cohen or Pecker were ever charged by NYS under 17-152, even though the details of the scheme were known since 2018 and their immunity does not shield them from State prosecutions.

This entire sideshow is just an attempt to keep Trump off the ballot. Stalinist tactics against a political opponent...

 

[para bellum]

His intent appears to be to defraud the voters of NY by illegally hiding damaging news to his campaign.

Oh please, New York was never going to go for Trump and "the voters of New York" is not an agency empowered to enforce any State law.

All politicians try to "influence the voters". It's called campaigning.

 

[para bellum]

YOU said...

The only suggested crimes associated with the NDA's are AMI and Cohen's FECA violations, which Trump had no part in, and were not the purpose of the "catch and kill" plan.​

But that's not true. Again, there's evidence Trump was involved.

That makes him complicit in illegal campaign contributions. And as we saw with Cohen, getting reimbursed after the fact by Trump, or not, is irrelevant. Both Pecker and Cohen made illegal campaign contributions with their own money. Cohen went to jail for it along with other crimes; and Pecker avoided charges by agreeing to testify.

Trump is not liable for someone else's behavior.

NDA's are not illegal. Pecker and Cohen always expected to be reimbursed, and there was never any solicitation from Trump to receive an illegal campaign contribution.

All of which is the exclusive jurisdiction of the FEC btw, and they investigated and dismissed the complaint against Trump (as did the DOJ).

You are trying to convict Trump for a violation for which he was never charged, and cannot be charged with in State court.

 

[John Edgar Slow Horses]

This is an admission, not a defense: "Campaigns return illegal contributions all the time and don't get in trouble for them"

 

[Faun]

Campaigns return illegal contributions all the time and don't get in trouble for them. They also donate the money to charities if returning the money is not practical.

Politicians also "loan" money to their own (and their spouse's) campaigns and repay themselves from donor funds later, and never get charged with anything.

No campaign funds were involved. In any of it.
And the FEC has exclusive jurisdiction when it comes to Federal campaign finances.

The record already shows that Pecker expected to be reimbursed, and so did Cohen. "Catch and kill" was never about sidestepping campaign finance caps. There was nothing actually illegal about it at all, as long as Trump was paying for the NDA's.

The entire thing is a sham prosecution that should have never been charged. Personal checks are not business records, there was no "falsification", and the POTUS is not a New York State "enterprise".

Even if you say the records were falsified, there was still no intent to defraud, because there is no entity that would have relied on those records to enforce any business law, and NYS does not have any jurisdiction over Federal election financing.

Neither Cohen or Pecker were ever charged by NYS under 17-152, even though the details of the scheme were known since 2018 and their immunity does not shield them from State prosecutions.

This entire sideshow is just an attempt to keep Trump off the ballot. Stalinist tactics against a political opponent...

Except Trump didn't report the reimbursement as a refund of contribution. Nor did he refund it within 10 days. He reported it as "legal expenses" which conceal what it was really for.

 

[Faun]

Oh please, New York was never going to go for Trump and "the voters of New York" is not an agency empowered to enforce any State law.

All politicians try to "influence the voters". It's called campaigning.

LOL

You say that as though that matters. It doesn't. All that matters is his intent.

And influencing voters is perfectly fine; with an exception. That exception being required to switch from perfectly fine ... to ... criminal...

§ 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.​

That's what Trump and Cohen did. They conspired how to pay. Those payments were illegal. Thst's the "unlawful means" to influence the election.

 

[Faun]

Trump is not liable for someone else's behavior.

NDA's are not illegal. Pecker and Cohen always expected to be reimbursed, and there was never any solicitation from Trump to receive an illegal campaign contribution.

All of which is the exclusive jurisdiction of the FEC btw, and they investigated and dismissed the complaint against Trump (as did the DOJ).

You are trying to convict Trump for a violation for which he was never charged, and cannot be charged with in State court.

Again... the payments were illegal. Cohen went to jail and Pecker cut a deal.

And again, the underlying crime need not be adjudicated. Intent alone is sufficient.

 

[para bellum]

Except Trump didn't report the reimbursement as a refund of contribution. Nor did he refund it within 10 days. He reported it as "legal expenses" which conceal what it was really for.

Irrelevant. That is FEC jurisdiction and they chose to dismiss the complaint.