Can anyone give a Lucid Explanation of Bragg's alleged "another crime?"

[Seymour Flops]

The context is the meaning of the whole. I guess you're unclear on what "context" means.

Out of context: If words are used out of context, only a small separate part of what was originally said or written is reported, with the result that their meaning is not clear or is not understood.




You relied with this: "The dots are supposed to be connected by facts, not by a prosecutor’s overactive imagination."

It was his opening sentence. He could’ve started out with the facts are clear, he could’ve started out with here is what we know. He chose to say it was imaginary not me. Next time pick a source that understands the English language if you don’t want to run into this problem.

 

[Dante]

Can't you read or are you just willfully ignoring my facts. The grand jury can only decide within the facts and evidence the prosecutor chooses to present to them.

Yes. And they get to decide, not the prosecutor. Fact: Grand Juries often decide NOT to indict.

 

[AZrailwhale]

Yes. And they get to decide, not the prosecutor. Fact: Grand Juries often decide NOT to indict.

I’ve sat on one. We almost never rejected true bills. We didn’t have any information to reject them. Our instructions were “only considering the testimony and evidence presented here, is it likely that a crime was committed?” The prosecutor spoon fed us the information that HE wanted us to see and nothing else. No information about the possibility of innocence or any other extenuating information was presented. The defense wasn’t even allowed to it or the proceedings.

 

[forkup]

As most of you know, that "another crime" is what Bragg used to turn a misdemeanor past its statute of limitations into a felony with more time to prosecute.



Here are a couple of stories from the "Newpaper of Record" and I don't see this "another crime." Do you?

‘Criminal Conspiracy’ Alleged as Jury Starts Hearing Trump Trial (Published 2024)

Court adjourned for the day after opening statements from both sides and the start of testimony from the longtime publisher of The National Enquirer. A lawyer for Donald Trump told jurors the former president did nothing illegal.

www.nytimes.com

A prosecutor, Matthew Colangelo, began by telling jurors that Mr. Trump had conspired with his former fixer, Michael D. Cohen, and the publisher of The National Enquirer, David Pecker, to conceal damaging stories during his 2016 campaign.



“This case is about a criminal conspiracy and a cover-up,” Mr. Colangelo said, telling a story about a hush-money payment to a porn star and insisting that the former president was ultimately responsible.

In the end, Mr. Colangelo said, there would be “only one conclusion: Donald Trump is guilty of 34 counts of falsifying business records in the first degree.”


I don't see the "another crime" there.


Mr. Blanche also sought to minimize the charges, saying the records at the heart of the case were just “34 pieces of paper” that the former president had nothing to do with.

Mr. Trump is accused of falsifying business records — which is a felony if prosecutors can show the records were altered with an intent to commit or conceal a second crime.

A year ago, when the former president was formally charged with 34 felonies, the district attorney, Alvin L. Bragg, told reporters that he did not have to specify what the second crime was, and listed three options. During opening statements, Mr. Colangelo made it clear he believed that the strongest case relied on one of those options: convincing jurors that Mr. Trump concealed the violation of a state law that forbids “conspiracy to promote or prevent an election.”

"Conspiracy to promote or prevent an election?" Could there really be a law that says that?

"I get conspring to prevent an election" being against the law, but there's no way that Trump wanted to prevent the election, he wanted to win it. It couldn't win it if it didn't happen, and Obama would have continued past his 2nd term.

I don't get why conspiring to promote an election would be against the law. Haven't our founders and their descendants in government, along with groups like League of Women Voters, and anyone else interested in elections taking place always promoted elections? It makes no sense to me, can anyone explain it with statutory law, case law, or other valid references?

It seems that the prosecution is presenting a smoke screen to make it seems like there must be something to this, even if the jurors cannot make head nor tail out of it, in hopes they will feel dumb and will vote guilty, instead of telling the other jurors they don't get it. I'm sure some of the stealth anti-Trump jurors have been coached to make them feel dumb. Hopefully, the stealt pro-Trump jurors will not fall for it.

I don't get it, but I am pretty sure at this point, there is nothing to get. That's what the Trumpers on the jury should tell the Bidenistas. Because, this I know: The real arguments will come in the jury room, if they ever get the case.

Sure I can. The only problem is that you will just keep on repeating no one has been able to explain it to you. I've played this game with you before. But here goes.

It's a crime to hide personal campaign contributions by using a third party and reimbursing that party for those contributions.

In this particular case, Cohen took out a home equity loan and used the funds to make a payment to Stormy for her silence, and Trump reimbursed that payment in the form of a retainer to Cohen.

 

[Seymour Flops]

Sure I can. The only problem is that you will just keep on repeating no one has been able to explain it to you. I've played this game with you before. But here goes.

It's a crime to hide personal campaign contributions by using a third party and reimbursing that party for those contributions.

But Trump did not commit that crime, so the feds declined to prosecute him.

In this particular case, Cohen took out a home equity loan and used the funds to make a payment to Stormy for her silence, and Trump reimbursed that payment in the form of a retainer to Cohen.

Which is in no way a "campaign contribution."

 

[forkup]

But Trump did not commit that crime, so the feds declined to prosecute him.

The feds didn't prosecute him because he was president at the time. Neither is the Justice department required before a certain date before the statute of limitations expires. This was adjudicated in the many motions to dismiss that the defense filed. Trump can, and will probably appeal that decision if he's found guilty. But categorically stating that he didn't commit that crime flies in the face of what the judge has ruled so far.

Which is in no way a "campaign contribution."

The guilty plea that another judge accepted by Cohen disagrees.

It would be the height of weirdness that something is accepted as a campaign contribution by the third party. But not for the guy who was the candidate and who reimbursed that payment.

 

[Seymour Flops]

The feds didn't prosecute him because he was president at the time.

Horrible argument. He hasn't been president since January of 2021, so if they had a crime, they could have prosecuted him long since. They could have had the indictment waiting for him on the afternoon of Biden's inauguration.

Neither is the Justice department required before a certain date before the statute of limitations expires. This was adjudicated in the many motions to dismiss that the defense filed. Trump can, and will probably appeal that decision if he's found guilty. But categorically stating that he didn't commit that crime flies in the face of what the judge has ruled so far.

What? Which judge ruled that he did commit that crime?

The guilty plea that another judge accepted by Cohen disagrees.

It was part of a plea bargain in which Cohen pleaded guilty to what the prosecutors told him to plead to, on pain of more harsh prosecution. It was not a sudden transformation by Cohen into an honest man.

It would be the height of weirdness that something is accepted as a campaign contribution by the third party. But not for the guy who was the candidate and who reimbursed that payment.

Trump could not be expected to think that it was a campaign contribution, and not expected to be the expert on campaign finance laws. He had a lawyer to advise him on that transaction, whose name was Michael Cohen.

There is no way you could ever prove, or even provide evidence for, the idea that Trump's motivation in supposedly making the false entries was to cover for that "crime." To think that he told someone "record this campaign contribution I got from Michael Cohen as a 'legal expense,' so Cohen doesn't get caught" is pretty silly.

If that didn't happen, what will the evidence be that Trump acted to cover up a crime?

If anyone ordered a bookkeeper to call it a "legal expense," my money would be on Michael Cohen, not Donald Trump getting involved in a detail like that. In the incredibly unlikely case that the expense was a reimbursement for an illegal campaign contribution, it would be Cohen covering up his own crime.

 

[forkup]

Horrible argument. He hasn't been president since January of 2021, so if they had a crime, they could have prosecuted him long since. They could have had the indictment waiting for him on the afternoon of Biden's inauguration.

Sure, but they didn't. Saying that somehow invalidates the indictment is something that's not supported by any law I've ever heard of.

What? Which judge ruled that he did commit that crime?

The judge that ruled that Cohen did. Pleading guilty requires a defendant to recite what he did in front of a judge. If what he's describing doesn't fit the parameters of the charges the judge won't accept the plea. He or she isn't there to act as a rubber stamp.

It was part of a plea bargain in which Cohen pleaded guilty to what the prosecutors told him to plead to, on pain of more harsh prosecution.

Which is true for EVERYBODY who pleads guilty. Unlike most people Cohen had the means to defend himself.

Why do you think Cohen's plea is not valid as an admission of guilt?

Trump could not be expected to think that it was a campaign contribution, and not expected to be the expert on campaign finance laws. He had a lawyer to advise him on that transaction, whose name was Michael Cohen.

Ignorance of the law isn't a legal argument.

There is no way you could ever prove, or even provide evidence for, the idea that Trump's motivation in supposedly making the false entries was to cover for that "crime."

Sure you can. You have Cohen stating what Trump's motivation was. You have the checks made out to Cohen. You have David Pecker who stated he had an agreement to catch and kill damaging stories and a claim that Trump promised reimbursements for them. And them putting out damaging stories against his opponents.

Witness testimony IS evidence. It's the juries job to judge that evidence as thrust worthy. Mind you I don't know what else the defense got, but I'm pretty sure they have more.


As always, the problem seems to be not that their isn't evidence. The problem is that you don't accept that evidence. Something that's fine since you aren't in that courtroom nor are a juror.

Here's the thing. I don't know what the verdict will be. I don't think it's as much of a slam dunk as most people on the left seems to assume. On the other hand, neither do I believe it's as meritless as you all seem to think. As such I'm personally fine accepting whatever verdict a jury comes up with. Since I'm neither perfect nor in a position to examine the whole of the evidence.

I will note that's a position much more prominent on the left as it is on the right.

 

[Seymour Flops]

Sure, but they didn't. Saying that somehow invalidates the indictment is something that's not supported by any law I've ever heard of.

It’s not the law, it’s common sense.

I may think the federal prosecutions of Trump are political hit jobs, while you may think they are apolitical efforts at crime fighting. The truth may be somewhere in between.

But whatever the motivation, it is clear that the DOJ wants Trump on trial for as many different crimes as possible. With Cohen already pleading guilty and willing to testify, charging him with Campaign Finance violations would be low hanging fruit. Except that Trump has shown no interest in pleading out so they would have to prove Trump violated the law.

The judge that ruled that Cohen did. Pleading guilty requires a defendant to recite what he did in front of a judge. If what he's describing doesn't fit the parameters of the charges the judge won't accept the plea. He or she isn't there to act as a rubber stamp.

Before we go on, you do understand that Cohen is a professional liar and convicted perjurer?

Which is true for EVERYBODY who pleads guilty. Unlike most people Cohen had the means to defend himself.

Why do you think Cohen's plea is not valid as an admission of guilt?

Because he is a professional liar and convicted perjurer. Do you believe he is contrite, reformed, and honest?

Ignorance of the law isn't a legal argument.

It is if you’re making a case based on allegedly covering up a crime. If he didn’t know it was a crime, he wasn’t trying to conceal a crime.

Sure you can. You have Cohen stating what Trump's motivation was. You have the checks made out to Cohen. You have David Pecker who stated he had an agreement to catch and kill damaging stories and a claim that Trump promised reimbursements for them. And them putting out damaging stories against his opponents.

None of that is making false entries to cover up a crime, which is the only thing Trump is charged with in this trial.

Witness testimony IS evidence. It's the juries job to judge that evidence as thrust worthy. Mind you I don't know what else the defense got, but I'm pretty sure they have more.


As always, the problem seems to be not that their isn't evidence. The problem is that you don't accept that evidence. Something that's fine since you aren't in that courtroom nor are a juror.

I’m asking about evidence for the specific charges, not just complaining about Trump.

Here's the thing. I don't know what the verdict will be. I don't think it's as much of a slam dunk as most people on the left seems to assume. On the other hand, neither do I believe it's as meritless as you all seem to think. As such I'm personally fine accepting whatever verdict a jury comes up with. Since I'm neither perfect nor in a position to examine the whole of the evidence.

Uh huh . . .

I will note that's a position much more prominent on the left as it is on the right.

Oh, I’ve noticed that, LoL.

After all the hype, it seems to be finally sinking in to lefties on here how weak this case is. This has led to much hedging.

Y’all are fortunate to be exposed to other viewpoints on this forum. Most Democrats are insulated from differing opinions. They will be shocked when the Orange Monster cannot be convicted.

Keep in mind that the prosecution’s task is not to show a crime and prove Trump was the one who committed it, as they would for a robbery or murder. The idea is to show actions by Trump and prove that the actions were crimes whose SoL has not passed.

 

[forkup]

Because he is a professional liar and convicted perjurer. Do you believe he is contrite, reformed, and honest?

I don't need to believe any of that. In fact, he comes across as a caricature of a New York mob lawyer in a bad gangster movie. Fitting as he acted as Trump's personal lawyer for decades. Before that it was Roy Cohn. Widely considered one of the most unethical lawyers to ever practice. Yet the employment of these types doesn't seem to hamper your belief that Trump never committed any crime. This despite 90 plus indictments. Liability for rape. Found guilty of falsifying business records to the tune of 350 million dollar. A settlement to disband his charitable foundation and paying a fine for fraud. Trump U, etc., etc. That's a verryyyyyyyy, long list of supposed miscarriages of justice and none of them seem to shake your confidence in Trump's credibility.

As to Cohen. Even a professional liar and convicted perjurer can tell the truth. The way you find out if he is or not, is looking if he can back up what he's saying. In this case the scheme was corroborated by Pecker. Nobody is disputing the funds did change hands, from Cohen to Stormy and from Trump to Cohen. I think there's internal e-mails and who knows what else.

If he didn’t know it was a crime, he wasn’t trying to conceal a crime.

Good luck trying to convince a jury that Trump reimbursed his personal lawyer for a payment that lawyer made to a porn star Trump fucked without him knowing it was done to conceal the payment. He could have made the payment himself. Or put money into an escrow account from which Cohen could pay. He didn't do either. If you want to hang your hat there, go right ahead.

I’m asking about evidence for the specific charges, not just complaining about Trump.

Those are the specific charges. Hiding campaign contributions by means of disguising them as legal fees to a lawyer, after that lawyer buried a damaging story at the end of an election campaign.

Oh, I’ve noticed that, LoL.

You should notice that. There's only one side that feels they need to make the ad hoc rationalization that Trump is either innocent or the system is rigged. You don't see me saying Trump is either guilty or the jury is rigged.

It's funny though that you see that as an admission of uncertainty. Common sense indeed.

 

[forkup]

But whatever the motivation, it is clear that the DOJ wants Trump on trial for as many different crimes as possible.

Sure. So what? They got Al Capone for tax evasion. Does the fact that he committed other crimes mean he was innocent of that?

A prosecutor prosecutes criminals. That's their job description. Even if I accept, he wouldn't have been in this mess if he would never have run for president. That doesn't invalidate any of the things he's charged with. A smart criminal doesn't put himself out there and screams at the DOJ "come and get me", if you do you deserve zero sympathy.

In fact, it's a logic I encounter by Trump supporters that always baffles me. Why is it that Trump can thumb his nose at the legal system. Like for instance in his repeated violations of a CLEAR gag order, and yet somehow not be responsible when he's held to account? Nobody forces him to do it, but when he does and gets hosed other people are responsible. Or when he defames Carroll again the day after a jury decided his previous statements were defamatory.

 

[BackAgain]

‘Hush money’ is not a crime, and Bragg has no case against Trump

Absolutely, but every defendant has the right to legal representation. But no obligation to listen to them. If Trump tells the judge he wants to testify, his lawyers can't stop him. Right, yes. But it would be dumb as fuuuuuuuuck for him to ever try. He comes off as whiny and entitled on...

www.usmessageboard.com

Short answer. The Bragg theory of the case is a bootstrapped nonsensical mishmash.

 

[Seymour Flops]

I don't need to believe any of that. In fact, he comes across as a caricature of a New York mob lawyer in a bad gangster movie.

Exactly. If he were doing anything else but testilieing against Donald Trump, you would never cite him as a source of the truth.

Fitting as he acted as Trump's personal lawyer for decades. Before that it was Roy Cohn. Widely considered one of the most unethical lawyers to ever practice. Yet the employment of these types doesn't seem to hamper your belief that Trump never committed any crime. This despite 90 plus indictments. Liability for rape. Found guilty of falsifying business records to the tune of 350 million dollar. A settlement to disband his charitable foundation and paying a fine for fraud. Trump U, etc., etc. That's a verryyyyyyyy, long list of supposed miscarriages of justice and none of them seem to shake your confidence in Trump's credibility.

Eh . . . You’re drifting off topic, sir. There are plenty of threads on which to obsess about Trump in general. This is about the Manhattan case.

As to Cohen. Even a professional liar and convicted perjurer can tell the truth. The way you find out if he is or not, is looking if he can back up what he's saying. In this case the scheme was corroborated by Pecker.

Pecker publishes lies for a living. He is testifying under threat of prosecution. Did you believe him also when he said that Late Justice Scalia had been murdered by a $2,000 a night hooker? That Hillary Clinton deleted emails from lesbian lovers?

If the case is so strong, why not lead off with witnesses who are not tainted, especially not tainted due to lying to the whole country?

Nobody is disputing the funds did change hands, from Cohen to Stormy and from Trump to Cohen. I think there's internal e-mails and who knows what else.

Then what do you need Cohen for? Just show the emails and the bank records. I wouldn’t want Cohen within a mile of my case if I thought I could win it.

Good luck trying to convince a jury that Trump reimbursed his personal lawyer for a payment that lawyer made to a porn star Trump fucked without him knowing it was done to conceal the payment.

The prosecution, not Trump, has the burden of proof. So far the only evidence you have suggested is that two professional liars say so, and the rhetorical question of what else could it be?

Even if it was reimbursement for the NDA, that’s not illegal, and calling payments to one’s lawyer to reimburse a legal expense he paid “legal fees” is a crime only in an overactive imagination.

Trump was under no obligation to enter into a ledger or check stub “paying back my lawyer for paying the NDA fee to keep the lying porn performer from publishing lies about me.”

He could have made the payment himself. Or put money into an escrow account from which Cohen could pay. He didn't do either. If you want to hang your hat there, go right ahead.

Or he could have let the lawyer advance the money and then reimburse him, which is perfectly legal.

Those are the specific charges. Hiding campaign contributions by means of disguising them as legal fees to a lawyer, after that lawyer buried a damaging story at the end of an election campaign.

The “campaign contribution” idea is luducrious convoluted logic. That’s why Bragg hid it for so long. When I made this thread it was still not announced. That’s why y’all were stumped,

You should notice that. There's only one side that feels they need to make the ad hoc rationalization that Trump is either innocent or the system is rigged. You don't see me saying Trump is either guilty or the jury is rigged.

Oh yeah! I remember how well your side took Roe being rescinded. Yep, that was the decision and you never went after the justices for it!

I never said this case was rigged. I said and say, this a fake case brought mainly to confine Trump during the campaign season and force him to listen to paid liars smear him.

In fact, I think it is the opposite of rigged. They don’t expect a conviction.

It's funny though that you see that as an admission of uncertainty. Common sense indeed.

Let me ask this: why do you doubt Trumps guilt in this case?

 

[Seymour Flops]

Sure. So what? They got Al Capone for tax evasion. Does the fact that he committed other crimes mean he was innocent of that?

Pretty silly comparison.

A prosecutor prosecutes criminals. That's their job description. Even if I accept, he wouldn't have been in this mess if he would never have run for president. That doesn't invalidate any of the things he's charged with. A smart criminal doesn't put himself out there and screams at the DOJ "come and get me", if you do you deserve zero sympathy.

There is such a thing as prosecutorial discretion. It’s plain that it is unevenly applied depending on a person’s politics.

In fact, it's a logic I encounter by Trump supporters that always baffles me. Why is it that Trump can thumb his nose at the legal system. Like for instance in his repeated violations of a CLEAR gag order, and yet somehow not be responsible when he's held to account?

How has he been held to account for violating the gag order? I posted a thread asking when the effete fop who issued it was gonna do something.

Why do you think the judge isn’t enforcing it?

Nobody forces him to do it, but when he does and gets hosed other people are responsible. Or when he defames Carroll again the day after a jury decided his previous statements were defamatory.

We have a first amendment in this country. Juries don’t get to “decide” that it doesn’t apply to a particular person they don’t like.

 

[John Edgar Slow Horses]

 

[John Edgar Slow Horses]

If you can't understand the indictment, you can't understand remedial logic.

 

[JohnDB]

All this trial is for is to keep Trump from campaigning in person....that's it. That's all there is to it.

However, it's not working.

It boils down to "get out the vote" campaigns and Biden is losing popular support by the minute.
There's literally no one working Biden's campaign machine. All have abandoned ship.

When the union members left the Democratic party....it was time to concede for Biden. But his followers are still put out...without respect for the office or the person in it.

 

[John Edgar Slow Horses]

All this trial is for is to keep Trump from campaigning in person....that's it. That's all there is to it.

However, it's not working.

It boils down to "get out the vote" campaigns and Biden is losing popular support by the minute.
There's literally no one working Biden's campaign machine. All have abandoned ship.

When the union members left the Democratic party....it was time to concede for Biden. But his followers are still put out...without respect for the office or the person in it.

You still believe in the Easter Bunny!

 

[JohnDB]

You still believe in the Easter Bunny!

What about the Easter Bunny?

Even if Biden kicks the bucket before getting elected and Michelle runs for POTUS....(not likely but it's a conspiracy theory ATM) you still have the polls favoring Trump.

It's early yet....and incumbents are never favored in the summer before the vote in the fall....

But in this case....lawfare has made Trump a martyr and not a villain. Its only helping Trump while it's summer and no one is paying attention....

"Go away in May" and come back in September for politics.

We'll see what the polls look like in November....
(I have no dog in this....I just know who is currently winning)

 

[John Edgar Slow Horses]

The polls have Biden in the lead with popular votes, and in the margin of error of six of the battle ground states and a solid lead in PA.

Time will tell.