At least two Republican DAs want to prosecute Bidens: Rep. James Comer

[busybee01]

Well, since the DOJ has been transformed to Biden’s Consilgliare, the local DAs now have an obligation to pursue the Biden Crime Family

The DOJ is doing no such thing. Local DAs do not have jurisdiction unless a state law is broken and the person is domiciled in the state. Trump is on the hook in NY because he falsified documents that were filed with the state of NY.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

The Constitution was meant to foster a complex form of majority rule, not enable minority rule.

United States has both state level election laws for the elections in that state, and on top of that, election laws at the federal level.

Blah blah blah. So no mention of the word democracy . But I can show you the word Republic.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

The DOJ is doing no such thing. Local DAs do not have jurisdiction unless a state law is broken and the person is domiciled in the state. Trump is on the hook in NY because he falsified documents that were filed with the state of NY.

It's a federal crime dumbass Bragg is going after Trump .

 

[bigrebnc1775]

You are the one who needs to keep up. Falsifying business records in a state filing is a state crime.

All surrounding a supposed federal election violation do keep up

 

[CrusaderFrank]

The DOJ is doing no such thing. Local DAs do not have jurisdiction unless a state law is broken and the person is domiciled in the state. Trump is on the hook in NY because he falsified documents that were filed with the state of NY.

Where are the charges against Hunter for lying on a gun permit?

 

[Rumpole]

A non-disclosure agreement is perfectly legal, so there was no illegal "hush money."

And there never is--hush money, per se, is not illegal. But, given the fact that it was made for the purpose of concealing an act which would impact negatively on Trump's campaign, a couple of crimes were committed, as listed on the Cohen indictment:

Campaign finance violation
Title 52, United States Code, Section 30101

Causing an unlawful corporate campaign contribution
(Title 52, United States Code, Sections 30118(a) and
30109(d) (1) (A), and Title 18, United States Code, Section 2(b}


Excessive campaign contribution:
Title 52, United States Code, Sections 30116(a) (1) (A),
30116(a) (7), and 30109(d) (1) (A), and Title 18, United States
Code, Section 2(b)

The crimes will probably be the enhancing crimes employed in increasing the 34 counts of state crimes in the Bragg indictment to felonies.

Any tax deception was on the part of convicted tax evader Michael cohen.

Irrelevant

So, now you just make up stuff.

https://www.cnn.com/2022/03/06/politics/trump-manhattan-district-attorney-investigation/index.html

Two top prosecutors leading the criminal investigation into former President Donald Trump and his business resigned after the Manhattan district attorney said he was not prepared to authorize an indictment against the former President, a person familiar with the investigation said.

2 Prosecutors Leading N.Y. Trump Inquiry Resign, Clouding Case’s Future (Published 2022)

The resignations came after the Manhattan district attorney, Alvin Bragg, was said to have expressed doubts about the case.

www.nytimes.com

Prosecutors in charge of Trump criminal probe have resigned

The resignations throw the future of the probe in doubt.

www.politico.com

The New York Times, citing sources, reported that the grand jury investigation had stalled, with no sessions in the last month, and that Dunne and Pomerantz quit after Bragg raised doubts about pursuing a case against Trump himself.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/2022/02/23/prosecutors-resign-trump-criminal-investigation/

Your links prove my point, this is from the first link:


Carey Dunne and Mark Pomerantz, two senior prosecutors on the team, resigned last month – one day after Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg informed them that he wasn’t prepared to move forward with criminal charges. The resignations followed weeks of internal debate and discussion over the strength of the evidence against Trump and whether it could pass the hurdle of proving a crime.

Prosecutors [Dunne & Pomerantz] have been investigating Trump and the Trump Organization and whether they misled lenders, insurers, and others by providing them false or misleading financial statements about the value of properties.

Capiche? This is NOT the criminal path Bragg followed for his indictment, it was the crimes committed in the COHEN indictment, NOT the Trump org indictment. So, you are confused or you do not understand what I wrote.

Cheers,
Rumpole

 

[Rumpole]

Where are the charges against Hunter for lying on a gun permit?

There are no charges, but word is he concealed his drug problem.
However, it is not likely DOJ will prosecute merely for that.

Cheers,
Rumpole

 

[CrusaderFrank]

There are no charges, but word is he concealed his drug problem.
However, it is not likely DOJ will prosecute merely for that.

Cheers,
Rumpole

Same if it were one of Trump's kids, right?

Merely?

 

[CrusaderFrank]

If the President's kid merely lied on a gun application, so can everybody!

 

[Seymour Flops]

And there never is--hush money, per se, is not illegal. But, given the fact that it was made for the purpose of concealing an act which would impact negatively on Trump's campaign, a couple of crimes were committed, as listed on the Cohen indictment:

Campaign finance violation
Title 52, United States Code, Section 30101

Causing an unlawful corporate campaign contribution
(Title 52, United States Code, Sections 30118(a) and
30109(d) (1) (A), and Title 18, United States Code, Section 2(b}


Excessive campaign contribution:
Title 52, United States Code, Sections 30116(a) (1) (A),
30116(a) (7), and 30109(d) (1) (A), and Title 18, United States
Code, Section 2(b)

The crimes will probably be the enhancing crimes employed in increasing the 34 counts of state crimes in the Bragg indictment to felonies.

Irrelevant


Your links prove my point, this is from the first link:


Carey Dunne and Mark Pomerantz, two senior prosecutors on the team, resigned last month – one day after Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg informed them that he wasn’t prepared to move forward with criminal charges. The resignations followed weeks of internal debate and discussion over the strength of the evidence against Trump and whether it could pass the hurdle of proving a crime.

Prosecutors [Dunne & Pomerantz] have been investigating Trump and the Trump Organization and whether they misled lenders, insurers, and others by providing them false or misleading financial statements about the value of properties.

Capiche? This is NOT the criminal path Bragg followed for his indictment, it was the crimes committed in the COHEN indictment, NOT the Trump org indictment. So, you are confused or you do not understand what I wrote.

Cheers,
Rumpole

Word salad to avoid admitting you were wrong.

The legal fees in question were paid well after the election, so there is no way they were to influence the election. Not unless you think Trump or Cohen had a Time machine.

If the entry said legal fees, what is the evidence that they were anything but legal fees? Please don't tell me you're only evidence is the word of the convict Michael Cohen?

By that I mean, tell me what is your evidence besides the word of the convict?

I don't believe you ever stated what the underlying crime is that Bragg is using to elevate the alleged misdemeanor to a felony?

Do you honestly not see the absurdity of trying to imprison a former president for calling a payment to his attorney "legal fees?" Especially when Common Sense tells us that Donald Trump does not make such entries with his own hand.

 

[Rumpole]

Word salad

to avoid admitting you were wrong.

I'll file that in the wishful thinking file.

The legal fees in question were paid well after the election, so there is no way they were to influence the election. Not unless you think Trump or Cohen had a Time machine.

No, Daniels paid by Cohen before the election, the reimbursement after the election doesn't alter the time of the actual crime.

If the entry said legal fees, what is the evidence that they were anything but legal fees? Please don't tell me you're only evidence is the word of the convict Michael Cohen?

1. Cohen paid Daniels, $130k. No crooked lawyer pays his client, whom he doesn't know, out of pocket money on the scale without reimbursement arrangement in advance, and even then, it would have to be a long time client, which Trump was, at the time.
2. Trump is the clear beneficiary of that payment, not Cohen.
3. The 34 reimbursement checks total the payment, and above that to compensate for taxes on the income
4. Testimony from Stormy Daniels (if her testimony is needed)
5. Taped conversation proving that Trump was in cahoots Cohen and Pecker / Nat Enquirer catch and kill scheme is consistent with this scheme which clearly proves a mens rea consistent with the hush money scheme.
6. David Pecker's testimony to the grand jury.
With the preponderance of the evidence, all the prosecutor has to do is persuade the Jury that the evidence supports the allegation, beyond a reasonable doubt.

But, the above crime is not being charged, it only has to be proved to enhance the 34 false entries to 34 felonies

By that I mean, tell me what is your evidence besides the word of the convict?

See above

I don't believe you ever stated what the underlying crime is that Bragg is using to elevate the alleged misdemeanor to a felony?

See the Statement of Facts. The crimes listed in the Cohen indictment pertaining to Daniels are apparently being considered.

Do you honestly not see the absurdity of trying to imprison a former president for calling a payment to his attorney "legal fees?" Especially when Common Sense tells us that Donald Trump does not make such entries with his own hand.

Books kept are books kept, that they have a book keeper doesn't change anything. Trump org was already indicted, Wesselman is at Rikers, that they would commit more crimes is not a stretch.

No one believes, even if convicted, Trump will be imprisoned for this indictment. Worst scenario will be a fine.
But more indictments form Fani Willis and the DOJ are expected.

 

[Seymour Flops]

View attachment 775803


I'll file that in the wishful thinking file.

No, Daniels paid by Cohen before the election, the reimbursement after the election doesn't alter the time of the actual crime.

1. Cohen paid Daniels, $130k. No crooked lawyer pays his client, whom he doesn't know, out of pocket money on the scale without reimbursement arrangement in advance, and even then, it would have to be a long time client, which Trump was, at the time.
2. Trump is the clear beneficiary of that payment, not Cohen.
3. The 34 reimbursement checks total the payment, and above that to compensate for taxes on the income
4. Testimony from Stormy Daniels (if her testimony is needed)
5. Taped conversation proving that Trump was in cahoots Cohen and Pecker / Nat Enquirer catch and kill scheme is consistent with this scheme which clearly proves a mens rea consistent with the hush money scheme.
6. David Pecker's testimony to the grand jury.
With the preponderance of the evidence, all the prosecutor has to do is persuade the Jury that the evidence supports the allegation, beyond a reasonable doubt.

But, the above crime is not being charged, it only has to be proved to enhance the 34 false entries to 34 felonies

See above

See the Statement of Facts. The crimes listed in the Cohen indictment pertaining to Daniels are apparently being considered.

Books kept are books kept, that they have a book keeper doesn't change anything. Trump org was already indicted, Wesselman is at Rikers, that they would commit more crimes is not a stretch.

No one believes, even if convicted, Trump will be imprisoned for this indictment. Worst scenario will be a fine.
But more indictments form Fani Willis and the DOJ are expected.

Cohen fronted the money for a very wealthy client that he knew was reliable to pay his legal fees. The money was part of a settlement that included a non-disclosure agreement. There is absolutely, positively, nothing illegal about that.

That the legal fees were composed of both reimbursement for the money Cohen put up, and payment for Cohen's Legal Services also is certainly not illegal.

There is no evidence other than what Cohen could provide, which we know would be unreliable, that Trump paid Cohen "extra" to make up for the taxes he would have to pay. Even if he did, so what? As long as Cohen paid the tax or As Long As Trump believed that he would pay the tax, there certainly no tax crime.

In order to convict Trump of violating any kind of election law, they would have to prove that the absolute only reason for the non-disclosure agreement was to win a specific election. I'm not sure how Bragg will connect those dots. Neither is he, which is why Bragg resisted Prosecuting for so long.

This bizarre theory that Trump made an illegal contribution to his own campaign by paying the gold digging bimbo to keep her mouth shut about him is like saying Trump contributed to his campaign every time he bought himself breakfast, because a healthy breakfast made him a better campaigner.

 

[Rumpole]

Cohen fronted the money for a very wealthy client that he knew was reliable to pay his legal fees. The money was part of a settlement that included a non-disclosure agreement. There is absolutely, positively, nothing illegal about that.

That is not correct, there incurred a violation of three criminal laws, for which Cohen pled guilty. As a lawyer himself, he would not have pled guilty to a bogus charge. He committed the crime "at the direction of, in coordination with, for the benefit of 'individual-1' " who, it has been established, is Donald Trump, and by that fact, Trump is an unindicted co conspirator.

What that means, Seymour Flops, Trump was party to the crime, given it was done has his direction and for his benefit. He wasn't prosecuted because he was President. When he left office, the 1/6 sucked up all the oxygen.

That crime is now the enhancement theory to enhance 34 counts of false business records to 34 felonies. Since the underlying crime is federal and passed the statute of limitations, he won't be indicted for the violatin, but it still can be used to enhance the 34 counts in the Bragg indictment.

That the legal fees were composed of both reimbursement for the money Cohen put up, and payment for Cohen's Legal Services also is certainly not illegal.

That's the claim, but the claim is false, which is the basis for the 34 counts.

There is no evidence other than what Cohen could provide, which we know would be unreliable, that Trump paid Cohen "extra" to make up for the taxes he would have to pay. Even if he did, so what? As long as Cohen paid the tax or As Long As Trump believed that he would pay the tax, there certainly no tax crime.

there's more than just Cohen's word:
1. Cohen paid Daniels, $130k. No crooked lawyer pays his client, whom he doesn't know, out of pocket money on the scale without reimbursement arrangement in advance, and even then, it would have to be a long time client, which Trump was, at the time.
2. Trump is the clear beneficiary of that payment, not Cohen.
3. The 34 reimbursement checks total the payment, and above that to compensate for taxes on the income
4. Testimony from Stormy Daniels (if her testimony is needed)
5. Taped conversation proving that Trump was in cahoots Cohen and Pecker / Nat Enquirer catch and kill scheme is consistent with this scheme which clearly proves a mens rea consistent with the hush money scheme.
6. David Pecker's testimony to the grand jury.
With the preponderance of the evidence, all the prosecutor has to do is persuade the Jury that the evidence supports the allegation, beyond a reasonable doubt.

In order to convict Trump of violating any kind of election law, they would have to prove that the absolute only reason for the non-disclosure agreement was to win a specific election. I'm not sure how Bragg will connect those dots. Neither is he, which is why Bragg resisted Prosecuting for so long.

NDA signed in the commission of a crime are null and void. The dots will be easy to connect, see above
The ony beneficiary for the payments to Daniels is Trump, given the plain and obvious fact that the payments to her were made just a few weeks before the election, the facts of which, if made public, would clearly damage his chances in the election.
Why am I even having to explain such an obvious fact to you Republicans?

This bizarre theory that Trump made an illegal contribution to his own campaign by paying the gold digging bimbo to keep her mouth shut about him is like saying Trump contributed to his campaign every time he bought himself breakfast, because a healthy breakfast made him a better campaigner.

No, it's not. That's a rediculous comparison. If you think that is a valid comparison, how in holy hell are you going to be able to grasp fundamental facts and how they relate to the Bragg case? I must be wasting my time.

 

[Dadoalex]

I'm not sure your point, Professor Rumpole.

Do you have some objection to local elected prosecutors investigating crimes by politicians and their families?

Don't you have an objection to a prosecutor seeking to create crimes where none exist?

Sounds pretty Fascist to me.

 

[Seymour Flops]

That is not correct, there incurred a violation of three criminal laws, for which Cohen pled guilty. As a lawyer himself, he would not have pled guilty to a bogus charge.

Yes Cohen is a crook, no doubt.

He committed the crime "at the direction of, in coordination with, for the benefit of 'individual-1' " who, it has been established, is Donald Trump, and by that fact, Trump is an unindicted co conspirator.

According to the crookbtrying to avoid prison time.

What that means, Seymour Flops, Trump was party to the crime, given it was done has his direction and for his benefit. He wasn't prosecuted because he was President. When he left office, the 1/6 sucked up all the oxygen.

The federal prosecutors declined to prosecute this supposed crime because Jan 6 left them gasping for air? Seriously?

That crime is now the enhancement theory to enhance 34 counts of false business records to 34 felonies. Since the underlying crime is federal and passed the statute of limitations, he won't be indicted for the violatin, but it still can be used to enhance the 34 counts in the Bragg indictment.

Then why did Bragg not specify that crime? If he did, quote him.

there's more than just Cohen's word:
1. Cohen paid Daniels, $130k. No crooked lawyer pays his client, whom he doesn't know, out of pocket money on the scale without reimbursement arrangement in advance, and even then, it would have to be a long time client, which Trump was, at the time.
2. Trump is the clear beneficiary of that payment, not Cohen.
3. The 34 reimbursement checks total the payment, and above that to compensate for taxes on the income
4. Testimony from Stormy Daniels (if her testimony is needed)
5. Taped conversation proving that Trump was in cahoots Cohen and Pecker / Nat Enquirer catch and kill scheme is consistent with this scheme which clearly proves a mens rea consistent with the hush money scheme.
6. David Pecker's testimony to the grand jury.
With the preponderance of the evidence, all the prosecutor has to do is persuade the Jury that the evidence supports the allegation, beyond a reasonable doubt.

NDA signed in the commission of a crime are null and void. The dots will be easy to connect, see above
The ony beneficiary for the payments to Daniels is Trump, given the plain and obvious fact that the payments to her were made just a few weeks before the election, the facts of which, if made public, would clearly damage his chances in the election.
Why am I even having to explain such an obvious fact to you Republicans?

If the case for what you - not Bragg - claim is the underlying crime is so strong, why do the feds not prosecute it? Still oxygen deprived seventeen months after 1/6?

I suspect you had your own experience with oxygen deprivation?

 

[busybee01]

Georgia is another over reach since it's a federal election issue. Nice try though

When you pressure state officials, it is a crime. It doesn't matter what it was over,

 

[busybee01]

And it's a federal issue not a state issues FEDERAL elections violations is not a state issue.

It is a state issue. The official who was pressured was a state official.

 

[busybee01]

Show me the word democracy in the US Constitution? Federal election laws are federal authority not state.

States conduct their own elections. That is why you have state election officials dummy.

 

[Hum Dinger]

I'm not sure your point, Professor Rumpole.

Do you have some objection to local elected prosecutors investigating crimes by politicians and their families?

Local DAs can only investigate crimes committed in their districts. What part of China & Ukraine are in Kentucky?

 

[Rumpole]

Yes Cohen is a crook, no doubt.

Doesn't negate the point.

According to the crookbtrying to avoid prison time.

No, the crimes listed are provided by prosecutors, those crimes must apply facts of the case to applicable law. Given that Cohen is a lawyer, there is no way he would confess to crimes that weren't accurate in the charging document.

The federal prosecutors declined to prosecute this supposed crime because Jan 6 left them gasping for air? Seriously?

No, Flops, it was a metaphor. 1/6 preoccupied the DOJ, with the trying of over 1000 cases, etc., they decided to focus on 1/6 crimes with Trump the main target, since he is the top of that food chain, and at that juncture, the hush money probe is small potatoes, by comparison and note that long before all 1000 were prosecuted the statute of limitations expired on the Hush Money case.

Then why did Bragg not specify that crime? If he did, quote him.

He did, it's in the SOF (Statement Of Facts) which accompanies the indictment which is an outline of the theory of the case.

If the case for what you - not Bragg - claim is the underlying crime is so strong, why do the feds not prosecute it? Still oxygen deprived seventeen months after 1/6?

Answered above. Over 1000 cases, and it is still going on , being tried, indicted, prosecuted, and now the brass in the 1/6 crime chain are being handled by Special Counsel Jack Smith. The Hush Money, I mean, with 1/6, why bother with the hush money case? No matter, it's passed the statute of limitations, anyway.

I suspect you had your own experience with oxygen deprivation?

I suspect you are metaphor challenged?

Cheers,
Rumpole