Analysis of the Bragg prosecution.

[BackAgain]

Alvin Bragg's case against Trump presents a tangle of interacting laws and intent puzzles

To convert a hush payment into 34 felonies, the case against Trump relies on a chain of assumptions with several weak links.

reason.com

A pretty detailed analysis of the various aspects of the “case” against Trump. It explores what the Bragg prosecution needs (minimally) to achieve a legally sufficient level of proof on the various interacting elements.

Personally, I don’t buy it.

I think a clearer more simplified analysis suffices.

1. The DA has to have proved (always beyond a reasonable doubt) that the misdemeanor of falsifying a business record took place in the first instance.

1b. Their position is that they “did so” by showing that Trump paid Cohen his retainer fee which he “knew” constituted a reimbursement for paying for an NDA.

1c. There is no realistic basis (in the evidence) to prove that Trump “knew” any such thing since that would require a jury to believe the lying, perjurer and thief, Cohen, the sole witness on that point.

1d. Assuming that the jury is conflicted enough (by hatred for Trump) to do something that irrational, then a conviction is possible. But otherwise, they are morally obligated to acquit.

And that’s the outcome of just the first element. The misdemeanor.

But there is at least one other complicating element. That’s the prosecution’s obligation to PROVE that the allegedly “false entry” was done with the “intent” to commit an alleged crime or conceal its alleged commission.

2. The “other” crime may be the NY State Election Law. It’s not like the prosecution ever clearly identified it as the “other” crime. But for the sake of convenience,

2b. How would “reimbursing” Cohen for the previously paid-for NDA (both the existence of which and payment for which was legal) be a plan to “commit” the crime? (The election was already over by the time Trump supposedly ”reimbursed” Cohen, after all.)

2c. It also couldn’t be a plan to “conceal” a crime since neither the NDA nor the payment for it was a crime in the first place. So there was no crime to conceal.
And that’s true regardless of the claim that Trump wished to hide the “purpose” of the NDA.

Again, therefore, on the assumption that the jury is logical and objective and fair, there doesn’t seem to be ANY way they could possibly render a verdict of “guilty” (especially beyond that good old reasonable doubt).

Let’s see what the anti-Trump pro-conviction crowd has to say about this analysis.

(I may check for needed edits before the timer runs out.)

 

[mudwhistle]

Alvin Bragg's case against Trump presents a tangle of interacting laws and intent puzzles

To convert a hush payment into 34 felonies, the case against Trump relies on a chain of assumptions with several weak links.

reason.com

A pretty detailed analysis of the various aspects of “case” against. It explores what the Bragg prosecution needs (minimally) to achieve a legally sufficient level of proof on the various interacting elements.

Personally, I don’t buy it.

I think a clearer more simplified analysis suffices.

1. The DA has to have proved (always beyond a reasonable doubt) that the misdemeanor of falsifying a business record took place in the first instance.

1b. Their position is that they “did so” by showing that Trump paid Cohen his retainer fee which he “knew” constituted a reimbursement for paying for an NDA.

1c. There is no realistic basis (in the evidence) to prove that Trump “knew” any such thing since that would require a jury to believe the lying, perjurer and thief, Cohen, the sole witness on that point.

1d. Assuming that the jury is conflicted enough (by hatred for Trump) to do something that irrational, then a conviction is possible. But otherwise, they are morally obligated to acquit.

And that’s the outcome of just the first element. The misdemeanor.

But there is at least one other complicating element. That’s the prosecution’s obligation to PROVE that the allegedly “false entry” was done with the “intent” to commit an alleged crime or conceal its alleged commission.

2. The “other” crime may be the NY State Election Law. It’s not like the prosecution ever clearly identified it as the “other” crime. But for the sake of convenience,

2b. How would “reimbursing” Cohen for the previously paid-for NDA (both the existence of which and payment for which was legal) be a plan to “commit” the crime? (The election was already over by the time Trump supposedly ”reimbursed” Cohen, after all.)

2c. It also couldn’t be a plan to “conceal” a crime since neither the NDA nor the payment for it was a crime in the first place. So there was no crime to conceal.
And that’s true regardless of the claim that Trump wished to hide the “purpose” of the NDA.

Again, therefore, on the assumption that the jury is logical and objective and fair, there doesn’t seem to be ANY way they could possibly render a verdict of “guilty” (especially beyond that good old reasonable doubt).

Let’s see what the anti-Trump pro-conviction crowd has to say about this analysis.

(I may check for needed edits before the timer runs out.)

Good luck. They still believe he colluded with the Russians and that he is an insurrectionist.

Both are hoaxes that can be easily proved in just about any court of law. Except in Judge Merchant's court,.

 

[Rogue AI]

How can Trump be found guilty of the misdemeanor if the statute of limitations has expired? That is a requirement for a felony charge. It is clearly written in 175-10. This whole sham is simply disgraceful.

 

[BackAgain]

How can Trump be found guilty of the misdemeanor if the statute of limitations has expired? That is a requirement for a felony charge. It is clearly written in 175-10. This whole sham is simply disgraceful.

That was the point of Bragg seeking to make the misdemeanor a felony (which comes with a longer statute of limitations). The make-believe “false entry” combined with another crime or effort to conceal that crime (even if the “other” crime were also just a misdemeanor) would elevate it to the felony.

The NY DA’s office therefore played all creative and shit: they cobbled together a completely absurd theory to evade the consequences of the misdemeanor being time-barred.

 

[OKTexas]

Alvin Bragg's case against Trump presents a tangle of interacting laws and intent puzzles

To convert a hush payment into 34 felonies, the case against Trump relies on a chain of assumptions with several weak links.

reason.com

A pretty detailed analysis of the various aspects of the “case” against Trump. It explores what the Bragg prosecution needs (minimally) to achieve a legally sufficient level of proof on the various interacting elements.

Personally, I don’t buy it.

I think a clearer more simplified analysis suffices.

1. The DA has to have proved (always beyond a reasonable doubt) that the misdemeanor of falsifying a business record took place in the first instance.

1b. Their position is that they “did so” by showing that Trump paid Cohen his retainer fee which he “knew” constituted a reimbursement for paying for an NDA.

1c. There is no realistic basis (in the evidence) to prove that Trump “knew” any such thing since that would require a jury to believe the lying, perjurer and thief, Cohen, the sole witness on that point.

1d. Assuming that the jury is conflicted enough (by hatred for Trump) to do something that irrational, then a conviction is possible. But otherwise, they are morally obligated to acquit.

And that’s the outcome of just the first element. The misdemeanor.

But there is at least one other complicating element. That’s the prosecution’s obligation to PROVE that the allegedly “false entry” was done with the “intent” to commit an alleged crime or conceal its alleged commission.

2. The “other” crime may be the NY State Election Law. It’s not like the prosecution ever clearly identified it as the “other” crime. But for the sake of convenience,

2b. How would “reimbursing” Cohen for the previously paid-for NDA (both the existence of which and payment for which was legal) be a plan to “commit” the crime? (The election was already over by the time Trump supposedly ”reimbursed” Cohen, after all.)

2c. It also couldn’t be a plan to “conceal” a crime since neither the NDA nor the payment for it was a crime in the first place. So there was no crime to conceal.
And that’s true regardless of the claim that Trump wished to hide the “purpose” of the NDA.

Again, therefore, on the assumption that the jury is logical and objective and fair, there doesn’t seem to be ANY way they could possibly render a verdict of “guilty” (especially beyond that good old reasonable doubt).

Let’s see what the anti-Trump pro-conviction crowd has to say about this analysis.

(I may check for needed edits before the timer runs out.)

It's all a house of cards that won't hold up. I say it's a 50/50 chance at a hung jury. If by chance there is a conviction, it will never withstand an appeal. The judge made a ton of reversible errors.

.

 

[mudwhistle]

How can Trump be found guilty of the misdemeanor if the statute of limitations has expired? That is a requirement for a felony charge. It is clearly written in 175-10. This whole sham is simply disgraceful.

They're trying to trick the jury into giving them a conviction.

 

[Doc7505]

How can Trump be found guilty of the misdemeanor if the statute of limitations has expired? That is a requirement for a felony charge. It is clearly written in 175-10. This whole sham is simply disgraceful.

~~~~~~
Even the FEC refused to charge him on the smae "charges" Bragg has "indicted" him for.

 

[BackAgain]

It's all a house of cards that won't hold up. I say it's a 50/50 chance at a hung jury. If by chance there is a conviction, it will never withstand an appeal. The judge made a ton of reversible errors.

.

I do see a reversal as a certainty. I’m not at all convinced the persecutors (or their buddies in the DOJ or the White House and the DNC) care about the legal validity of the case. They aren’t worried all that much about prison for Trump. Their immediate goal remains election interference.

Should he get a an incarceratory sentence before Election Day, Florida follows the law of the state of conviction. Thus, in NY, he theoretically could be denied the right to vote in his own Presidential election.

Merchan is a complete hack. So, I wouldn’t rule it out. But I’m not sure the Secret Service would accept it. Litigation might ensue keeping him out (and thus eligible to vote) until past Election Day.

 

[mudwhistle]

The real damage Biden is doing to this country is thru the people he's nominating for the courts.

He's trying to fill our courts with federal judges who don't know their job and plan on attacking Americans because of their political affiliations,

 

[OKTexas]

I do see a reversal as a certainty. I’m not at all convinced the persecutors (or their buddies in the DOJ or the White House and the DNC) care about the legal validity of the case. They aren’t worried all that much about prison for Trump. Their immediate goal remains election interference.

Should he get a an incarceratory sentence before Election Day, Florida follows the law of the state of conviction. Thus, in NY, he theoretically could be denied the right to vote in his own Presidential election.

Merchan is a complete hack. So, wouldn’t rule it out. But I’m not sure the Secret Sercice would accept it. Litigation might ensue keeping him out (and thus eligible to vote) until last Election Day.

The whole point of this sham is to keep Trump in NY and off the campaign trail. You're right, it's pure election interference. And most Americans see it as such.

.

 

[Rogue AI]

That was the point of Bragg seeking to make the misdemeanor a felony (which comes with a longer statute of limitations). The make-believe “false entry” combined with another crime or effort to conceal that crime (even if the “other” crime were also just a misdemeanor) would elevate it to the felony.

The NY DA’s office therefore played all creative and shit: they cobbled together a completely absurd theory to evade the consequences of the misdemeanor being time-barred.

You still need a misdemeanor conviction. The felony charge does not extend the statute of limitations on the misdemeanor. It's simple black letter law.

 

[BackAgain]

You still need a misdemeanor conviction. The felony charge does not extend the statute of limitations on the misdemeanor. It's simple black letter law.

Nope. You sadly only need to charge the felony to get that statute of limitations. That you’d have to be guilty of the elements of the underlying misdemeanor doesn’t get you its statute of limitations benefits.

The persecution only has to then prove the elements of what would be the misdemeanor plus that “other” crime.

It was creative lawyering by the slimy persecution. But it’s cheap-ass shit. And if convicted, sadly, Trump wouldn’t benefit from the statute of limitations argument.

 

[BluesLegend]

Dems don't care if they lose or it gets tossed on appeal, winning was never the intention. ELECTION INTERFERENCE and jailing Trump in a courtroom so he can't get out there and campaign was the goal. Dems took a giant shit on the Constitution, the law, democracy, elections and Dems don't care. People it's time you realize Democrats are SCUM!

 

[IM2]

The real damage Biden is doing to this country is thru the people he's nominating for the courts.

He's trying to fill our courts with federal judges who don't know their job and plan on attacking Americans because of their political affiliations,

No, that's what trump has done.

 

[Doc7505]

The whole point of this sham is to keep Trump in NY and off the campaign trail. You're right, it's pure election interference. And most Americans see it as such.

.

~~~~~~
Let's see what happens this weekend when DJT holds a rally in the Bronx's Crotona Park.
Mayor Adams is praying for a hurricane to offset the Tornado that the Trump rally will cause.

 

[g5000]

Alvin Bragg's case against Trump presents a tangle of interacting laws and intent puzzles

To convert a hush payment into 34 felonies, the case against Trump relies on a chain of assumptions with several weak links.

reason.com

A pretty detailed analysis of the various aspects of the “case” against Trump. It explores what the Bragg prosecution needs (minimally) to achieve a legally sufficient level of proof on the various interacting elements.

Personally, I don’t buy it.

I think a clearer more simplified analysis suffices.

1. The DA has to have proved (always beyond a reasonable doubt) that the misdemeanor of falsifying a business record took place in the first instance.

1b. Their position is that they “did so” by showing that Trump paid Cohen his retainer fee which he “knew” constituted a reimbursement for paying for an NDA.

1c. There is no realistic basis (in the evidence) to prove that Trump “knew” any such thing since that would require a jury to believe the lying, perjurer and thief, Cohen, the sole witness on that point.

1d. Assuming that the jury is conflicted enough (by hatred for Trump) to do something that irrational, then a conviction is possible. But otherwise, they are morally obligated to acquit.

And that’s the outcome of just the first element. The misdemeanor.

But there is at least one other complicating element. That’s the prosecution’s obligation to PROVE that the allegedly “false entry” was done with the “intent” to commit an alleged crime or conceal its alleged commission.

2. The “other” crime may be the NY State Election Law. It’s not like the prosecution ever clearly identified it as the “other” crime. But for the sake of convenience,

2b. How would “reimbursing” Cohen for the previously paid-for NDA (both the existence of which and payment for which was legal) be a plan to “commit” the crime? (The election was already over by the time Trump supposedly ”reimbursed” Cohen, after all.)

2c. It also couldn’t be a plan to “conceal” a crime since neither the NDA nor the payment for it was a crime in the first place. So there was no crime to conceal.
And that’s true regardless of the claim that Trump wished to hide the “purpose” of the NDA.

Again, therefore, on the assumption that the jury is logical and objective and fair, there doesn’t seem to be ANY way they could possibly render a verdict of “guilty” (especially beyond that good old reasonable doubt).

Let’s see what the anti-Trump pro-conviction crowd has to say about this analysis.

(I may check for needed edits before the timer runs out.)

From your link:

Trump personally signed nine of those 11 checks, which the stubs described as "retainer" payments.

So simple, even a MAGA tard could understand it!

"LA-LA-LA-I-CAN'T-HEAR-YOU!"

 

[g5000]

From the audio recording of Cohen and Trump discussing the payoff to Trupm's playboy model mistress.

"I need to open up a company for the transfer of all of that info regarding our friend, David."

David is David Pecker. Trump's capture and kill buddy at the National Enquirer rag.

The company in question was a shell company to be used for the payoff.

Every single time you hear Trump accusing other people of something, like crooked shell companies for example, you can be nearly 100 percent certain it is something he does himself.


COHEN: I need to open up a company for the transfer of all of that info regarding our friend David, you know?

TRUMP: Yes.

COHEN: So that -- I'm going to do that right away. I've actually come up, I've spoken--

TRUMP: Give it to me and--

COHEN: And I've spoken to Allen Weisselberg about how to set the whole thing up with--

TRUMP: So, what are we going to pay for this? 150?

COHEN: --funding. Yes. And it's all the stuff.

TRUMP: Yes, I was thinking about that.

COHEN: All the stuff. Because -- here, you never know where that company -- you never know what he's going to be.

TRUMP: Maybe he gets hit by a truck.

COHEN: Correct. So, I'm all over that. And I spoke to Allen about it, when it comes time for the financing which will be--

TRUMP: Listen. What financing?

COHEN: We'll have to pay.

TRUMP: So I'll pay with cash.

COHEN: No, no, no, no, no. I got -- no, no, no.

 

[Rogue AI]

From your link:

Trump personally signed nine of those 11 checks, which the stubs described as "retainer" payments.

So simple, even a MAGA tard could understand it!

"LA-LA-LA-I-CAN'T-HEAR-YOU!"

Even so, that does not imply intent. Trump is not a lawyer, terms like 'retainer' or 'legal expenses' are perfectly reasonable when paying a lawyer. In your insane rush to 'get Trump' you've thrown all common sense and reason out the window. If you ever had any to begin with.

 

[g5000]

Michael Cohen was indicted and convicted for campaign finance violations. He took out a Home Equity Line of Credit (HELOC) to pay off Stormy Daniels.

Trump is infamous for fucking over people who he owes money to, which is why Cohen had to use his own money to pay off Daniels.

The great irony here is that if Trump had provided the money to Cohen in the first place instead of forcing Cohen to initially come up with the cash, neither one of them would have been indicted for the Daniels affair.
'
So Donald fucked himself by being a dick.

But...since Cohen paid Daniels off with $130,000, that became an in-kind donation to Trump's campaign. And it violated the laws on maximum contributions allowed by individuals. And that is what Cohen was convicted of, in addition to tax fraud unrelated to the Daniels case.

Cohen funneled the money to Daniels through a shell company. The very kind of crooked shit Trump would later project onto the Bidens.

Anyway, that's the baseline misdemeanor.


After the election, Cohen demanded to be paid back. Daniels wasn't his whore. She was Trump's. Like a good soldier, Cohen had protected the boss and expected to be rewarded for his loyalty.

And he was. He was reimbursed not just the $130,000, but also extra money to cover the taxes on that "income".

You see, repayment of a loan is not income. If I lend you $100,000 and you pay me back, I don't get taxed for that since it's my money in the first place.

But if you are falsifying your business records to hide the true nature of the money flowing back to your fixer, and say it is a retainer, well...retainers are taxable income.

Then Trump added a bonus on top of all that for Cohen having his back.

So the falsifying of the business records were crimes in the pursuit of covering up the baseline crime.

And according to New York law, that's a felony.

 

[g5000]

Even so, that does not imply intent. Trump is not a lawyer, terms like 'retainer' or 'legal expenses' are perfectly reasonable when paying a lawyer. In your insane rush to 'get Trump' you've thrown all common sense and reason out the window. If you ever had any to begin with.

Of course the stubs reveal intent.

The checks were not retainers, and Trump knew that. He was paying back his loyal fixer for the money Cohen spent on Daniels.

It's not hard to understand. If you want to.