Analysis of the Bragg prosecution.

[postman]

no, the prosecution had the obligation to show he did it.

Which they did when the put their first witness on the stand.

 

[jc456]

Which they did when the put their first witness on the stand.

except they didn't. post that evidence.

 

[Lisa558]

Which they did when the put their first witness on the stand.

Which witness? The slut who has no idea if Trump knew about any (legal) payments?

You people are making a big issue over a nothingburger. Shows how clean Trump must be, in that after four years looking for a real crime, this is the best they could come up with.

 

[AZrailwhale]

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.

That is an Op-Ed piece, not a sourced news article,