Analysis of the Bragg prosecution.

[dudmuck]

That’s just the misdemeanor - a civil violation that is rectified by a fine, if proven. And even that hasn’t been proven, unless you choose to believe the convicted perjurer.

the evidence of the business records falsification is the business records themselves. Then, in addition, when this falsification of records is used to conceal a crime, then it can become a felony.

 

[postman]

the evidence of the business records falsification is the business records themselves. Then, in addition, when this falsification of records is used to conceal a crime, then it can become a felony.

It may be useless to argue with someone, who thinks that a misdemeanor isn't a crime.

 

[j-mac]

They've got him with what? How?
This time?

These dems already achieved their goals preventing Trump from campaigning…only problem is he’s campaigning in NY and now that might be up for grabs…

 

[jc456]

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,.

they still believe the falsified dossier that was proven fake. Honestly, the hate of trump is unprecedented by any imagination. worse than ever was directed at hitler. EVER. I don't get it in the least. or the most.

 

[jc456]

These dems already achieved their goals preventing Trump from campaigning…only problem is he’s campaigning in NY and now that might be up for grabs…

AOC confirmed this piece.

 

[marvin martian]

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!"

That's the felony?

 

[jc456]

the evidence of the business records falsification is the business records themselves. Then, in addition, when this falsification of records is used to conceal a crime, then it can become a felony.

the records are falsified how? show trump's fingerprints.

 

[Lisa558]

the evidence of the business records falsification is the business records themselves. Then, in addition, when this falsification of records is used to conceal a crime, then it can become a felony.

1) What crime did it conceal?

2) We had testimony that Trump knew nothing about it.

 

[Lisa558]

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!"

Paying a “retainer“ is a felony?

 

[jc456]

1) What crime did it conceal?

2) We had testimony that Trump knew nothing about it.

even by Cohen, he brought in audio of the conceal

 

[dudmuck]

the records are falsified how? show trump's fingerprints.

here is the relevant explanation...

the prosecutors have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Trump was involved in the scheme to falsify these records.

They don't have to show that he personally created or maintained or falsified the particulars in these records. His signature does appear on some of the checks, but his signature doesn't appear on all of them, and it doesn't have to be there.

What they have to show is that he caused others to maintain these false records or assisted others in maintaining them or requested others to maintain or create and maintain false records, so that he's part of the scheme, even if it wasn't that they were falsified by his own hand, and, further, that he participated in this scheme, causing others or requesting others to falsify the records or maintain false records with the intent to conceal another crime.

Its from this article, which also describes the evidence that Trump directed this falsification of records. or caused or whatever the word is.

 

[postman]

1) What crime did it conceal?

2) We had testimony that Trump knew nothing about it.

Actually the ONLY one who can testify that Trump knew nothing is Trump.

If I was asked if I ever saw Jeffrey Epstein with underage girls, I would have to say "No!"

 

[postman]

Paying a “retainer“ is a felony?

It is when you use it to evade income tax.

 

[BackAgain]

Good analysis, but a couple of points:

1) The misdemeanor is a civil offense, and thus the standard is preponderance of the evidence - NOT beyond a reasonable doubt.

No. It’s a misdemeanor which is a “criminal” offense. And the standard remains prof beyond a reasonable doubt.

2) But he can’t be found guilty of a misdemeanor because the statute of limitations expired years ago.

He cannot be convicted of the misdemeanor UNLESS he asks for it as a lesser and waives the statute of limitations. But the jury can still find those elements as having been “proved” and then proceed to convict him of the felony, although not at all a valid determination.

3) Bragg twisted into a pretzel to get the misdemeanor into criminal court by claiming it was done to cover up an “underlying crime“ - as you note, never clearly identified - and THIS is where the standard of reasonable doubt comes in.

The standard of beyond a reasonable doubt applies to every element.

4) There is certainly reasonable doubt. The prosecutor had only a prostitute and a convicted perjurer - and now, an admitted embezzler - to claim the money was paid and that Trump reimbursed Cohen. But Cohen was caught in a lie, and the defense witness - a credible attorney - testified that Cohen said Trump knew nothing about the payoffs.

You properly identify actual problems with the evidence. A biased jury wouldn’t necessarily give a damn.

I would argue that the preponderance of the evidence is on Trump’s side, let alone the more demanding “beyond a reasonable doubt” standard.

I maintain that — in a real world with a fair and properly instructed jury — there is zero way the persecutor satisfied the proof beyond a reasonable doubt requirement.

If this were not a jury of leftist, brainwashed anti-Trumpers, I would be confident this would be a full acquittal. The case shoukd never have gone to court in the first place, But because it IS a jury of Manhattan leftists, I think a hung jury is more likely.

I (most often, but not always and not blindly) am of the belief that juries try hard to do their jobs and comply with their oaths. I do harbor reservations in this matter because of the deep blue nature of the jury pool in Manhattan.

 

[Independent thinker]

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.)

I have felt all along that that this jury will not be able to come to a unanimous verdict.

 

[BackAgain]

Analysis?...They got him. Now, it's just a question of how bad he's going to pay for it.

Spectacularly excellent example of your inability to post anything based on logic, facts, reason or fairness. Your complete lack of objectivity is noted.

 

[BackAgain]

Next time pay attention to the trial.
They have the paperwork from Weisselberg, and the testimony of Hope Hicks to show that Cohen didn't pay off the NDA out of the goodness of his heart. And he was paid back in adjusted for his tax bracket, "legal fees".

Next time, try to understand what you are reading and seeing. This time, you failed completely.

 

[BackAgain]

I have felt all along that that this jury will not be able to come to a unanimous verdict.

If there is at least one juror who assesses the “evidence” fairly and who then sticks to his or her guns, a hung jury is a far better outcome than the rush to libtard judgment which is what the persecution seeks and hopes for.

 

[Billo_Really]

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.)

Trump is a serial micro-manager. It is hard to believe Trump would not know of any payments going out. "Cooking" the books to hide a crime is a felony. The prosecution has an air tight case.

Was Stormy Daniels paid? Yes.
Did Michael Cohen pay her on Trump's behalf? Yes.
Did Trump's CFO "cook" the books to make it seem these were payments for a retainer? Yes.
Is that a felony? Yes.
Is Trump guilty? Yes.
Should he go to prison? Yes.

 

[BackAgain]

Trump is a serial micro-managerl

Link?

It is hard to believe Trump would not know of any payments going out.

Hard for you to imagine.

"Cooking" the books to hide a crime is a felony. The prosecution has an air tight case.

No evidence of any cooking any books.

The persecution has no case at all.

Was Stormy Daniels paid? Yes.

I think that’s clear.

Did Michael Cohen pay her on Trump's behalf? Yes.

He paid her. I doubt he paid her for himself. So, let’s say “ok.”

Did Trump's CFO "cook" the books to make it seem these were payments for a retainer? Yes.

False. The entry was made to reflect payment of a lawyer’s “statement” for payment. That’s it.

Is that a felony? Yes.

No. It is perfectly legal to pay one’s lawyer.

Is Trump guilty? Yes.

No. Not at all. In fact, since there is no valid criminal charge, it’s an absurdity.

Should he go to prison? Yes.

No. We don’t put anybody in prison who is clearly not guilty. Or, at least we seek to avoid such stupid shit.