'He wrote all of it down?': Prosecutors claim to have handwritten notes of Trump hush money scheme

[Rawley]

Unless they are steath jurors, the two attorneys on the jury will see through that in a New York minute, no pun intended.

The proof in the pudding will be the jury instructions the judge give to the jury - what they have to find to find a crime occurred.

 

[Skylar]

Nope

Nope

Ok you can't or won't answer the question. I won't bother you with facts or evidence again. You have the narrative that your cult wants to push and you can't deviate from it.

I've already answered. They'd be listed as an purchase of story rights. Not 'retainer'.

And with you avoiding my question three times, its obvious you've NEVER run a business where you listed the purchase of story rights as 'retainer' or 'legal expenses'.

There's no legitimate reason to do so. It would only be listed as such if you were trying to hide the actual purpose, the purchase of rights to a story.

There's a reason the AMI head had to get an immunity agreement before testifying. AMI lied too on their books as to what the expenses were. And in their immunity agreement, admitted to the following:

"In or about September 2018, AMI entered into a non-prosecution agreement with
the United States Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of New York in connection with
AMI’s payoff of Woman 1, admitting that “[a]t no time during the negotiation or acquisition of
[Woman 1’s] story did AMI intend to publish the story or disseminate information about it
publicly.” Rather, AMI admitted that it made the payment to ensure that Woman 1 “did not
publicize damaging allegations” about the Defendant “before the 2016 presidential election and
thereby influence that election.”

None of which has the slightest thing to do with Michael Cohen being a 'retainer'. Every citation of 'legal expenses' and 'retainer' on the Trump ledger as part of the 'catch and kill' conspiracy was false and fraudulent.

ANd of course, with Trump being part of that conspiracy (esblished both by Cohen AND the AMI head of Trump being at the meeting at Trump tower where the plot was hatched), it clearly meets the standards of NY Election law, SECTION 17-152.

§ 17-152. Conspiracy to promote or prevent election. Any two or more
persons who conspire to promote or prevent the election of any person to
a public office by unlawful means and which conspiracy is acted upon by
one or more of the parties thereto, shall be guilty of a misdemeanor.


Meaning that every single misdemeanor charge for falsifying business records is bumped to a felony. All 34 of them.

 

[Missouri_Mike]

He bonked Stormy and in an effort to keep it from hurting his election chances, he had Cohen pay her off. Then he falsified records to conceal the pay off. Cohen went to jail for his dirty deeds in behalf of trump. Now it is the fat sleepy assholes turn on the hot seat.

He paid a whore for sex.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Yes there is. You cannot have "intent to defraud" without knowledge that the act is illegal. That is a requirement for the falsification of records charge at a minimum.

N.Y. Penal Law § 175.05 – Falsifying business records in the second degree

A person is guilty of falsifying business records in the second degree when, with intent to defraud, he, 1. Makes or causes…

newyork.public.law

You even admit as much:

"The jury will to be convinced that the purpose of the payments was to influence the election , that two or more people were involved, that the ledger entries were false and unlawful, and that the purpose of the falsified records was to cover up the attempt to influence the election."

Since the falsification of records was to cover up the "conspiracy", you can't convict Trump under 175.10 if he was not aware that the records were illegal. That is the "intent to defraud" part of the base charge.

The intent seems easy to demonstrate. He was not paying for legal services or retainers. And they have all the receipts. He knew the money was not for that, per recorded conversations and testimony.

Where I see the case as weak is establishing the election interference angle. While it's obviously true, the standard of evidence in a court for deciding it as true are strict.

But the conversation between him and Cohen -- "Let's wait until after the election, then maybe we don't have to pay" -- is pretty damning.

 

[para bellum]

Unless they are steath jurors, the two attorneys on the jury will see through that in a New York minute, no pun intended.

I think so too- but this is New York, and this judge is very hostile to Trump's attorneys.

The idea that you can elevate a misdemeanor to a felony by alleging another misdemeanor connected to the first one is pretty sketchy in itself...

 

[Skylar]

Yes there is. You cannot have "intent to defraud" without knowledge that the act is illegal. That is a requirement for the falsification of records charge at a minimum.

N.Y. Penal Law § 175.05 – Falsifying business records in the second degree

A person is guilty of falsifying business records in the second degree when, with intent to defraud, he, 1. Makes or causes…

newyork.public.law

You even admit as much:

"The jury will to be convinced that the purpose of the payments was to influence the election , that two or more people were involved, that the ledger entries were false and unlawful, and that the purpose of the falsified records was to cover up the attempt to influence the election."

Since the falsification of records was to cover up the "conspiracy", you can't convict Trump under 175.10 if he was not aware that the records were illegal. That is the "intent to defraud" part of the base charge.

That's 175.05. Trump is charged under 175.10. Though the intent to commit another crime is part of the 175.10, so I'll concede the point. The intent to engage in a conspiracy is no part of NY Election Law's requirements, but it is a requirement of 175.10's class E felony enhancement.

The problem that Trump is going to run into is the 'retainer' designation. That's an express payment for future legal services. There was no retainer agreement in place with Cohen. The 'retainer' payments started after Cohen attempted to purchase the story rights from AMI and continued until the full $130,000 that Cohen paid for those rights was paid back.

And with the payment for the story rights in the past, payments for future legal services would be explicitly fraudulent. It would be an easy to prove attempt to hide past payments under the guise of 'future' work. Especially when the 'retainer payments' came out of no where, were part of no retainer agreement, and matched the payment made to AMI for the story rights exactly.

Once Trump's credibility breaks on this one point, his claim of 'legal expenses' is going to fall as well. As its obvious he's seeking to falsify the expenses in order to hide their purpose: to influence the election. With the falsification being evidence of criminal intent.

A purpose established explicitly by AMI as attempting to influence the election. Which would satisfy both the NY Election law cited as establishing the enhancement. And the criminal intent.

The content of the handwritten notes and other witness testimony can potentially enhance this. Though those cards haven't been played yet, and Trump's big mouth allow Bragg to keep the witness list close to his vest.

Both Cohen AND the AMI head in either plea deals or non-prosecution agreements conceded the criminal conspiracy to influence the election. The idea that 2 of the 3 conspirators are in on it, bu the third isn't......is going to be a tough sell to the jury for the defense.

Especially when the third conspirator is Trump, who lies regularly. And makes a terrible witness.

 

[Seymour Flops]

Is it Allen Weisselberg who provided these notes and will testify about them?

Has Allen Weisselberg ever falsified a document, or lied under oath?

Anyone?

Anyone?

If he has, he wouldn't have much credibility.

I looked it up myself.

Wow!

Weisselberg was charged with 15 felony counts for evading $344,745 in taxes over 15 years. He initially pleaded not guilty,[34] but on August 18, 2022, he pleaded guilty to all 15 counts of grand larceny, criminal tax fraud and falsifying business records.[

On March 4, 2024, Weisselberg pleaded guilty to two counts of perjury in the first degree, related to the testimony he gave on July 17, 2020, related to the New York civil investigation of Donald Trump and his company.

Allen Weisselberg - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Y'all already knew this about "Big Al?" Just hoped it wouldn't come out? I think Trump's lawyers will mention it on cross examination, don't you?

 

[BackAgain]

Mountain of evidence

Sad part is no matter how much there is , it will never be enough for his supporters to abandon him

it like stuck between being on the Titanic or the Hindenburg

doesn't matter as it still won't end well

How to survive a sinking ship

https://r.search.yahoo.com/_ylt=AwrhR5IIXylm_GAEYEpXNyoA;_ylu=Y29sbwNiZjEEcG9zAzIEdnRpZAMEc2VjA3Nj/RV=2/RE=1715196937/RO=10/RU=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7-x48ZppRl4/RK=2/RS=O.EsmmV758ROMn68N6zubrW62TY-

No evidence. No crime.

 

[para bellum]

The intent seems easy to demonstrate. He was not paying for legal services or retainers. And they have all the receipts. He knew the money was not for that, per recorded conversations and testimony.

There is no requirement for a written retainer between an attorney and a client, and it's not unusual to not have one when there is a long-term attorney-client relationship.

The records are internal documents of a private organization. They are not something that has to be disclosed for business purposes, so who is there to defraud? Recording the expenses as per a retainer agreement is not evidence of fraud, it's just a bookkeeping notation.

The payment from Cohen to Daniels was negotiated between Cohen and her attorney, Cohen was acting on behalf of his client. Paying Cohen and recording the payments as legal expenses is not fraudulent just because part of the money was used to reimburse Cohen for the NDA.

Attorneys get reimbursed for expenses all the time without the client itemizing the payment. My attorney paid all the filing fees on my last case, and I never got a separate invoice for them. When I got my money, he held out part of the settlement to cover some of his expenses, and sent me the remainder. There wasn't anything fraudulent about any of it...

 

[g5000]

Where is the crime??

Where is the crime?

 

[Skylar]

There is no requirement for a written retainer between an attorney and a client, and it's not unusual to not have one when there is a long-term attorney-client relationship.

The records are internal documents of a private organization. They are not something that has to be disclosed for business purposes, so who is there to defraud? Recording the expenses as per a retainer agreement is not evidence of fraud, it's just a bookkeeping notation.

The payment from Cohen to Daniels was negotiated between Cohen and her attorney, Cohen was acting on behalf of his client. Paying Cohen and recording the payments as legal expenses is not fraudulent just because part of the money was used to reimburse Cohen for the NDA.

Attorneys get reimbursed for expenses all the time without the client itemizing the payment. My attorney paid all the filing fees on my last case, and I never got a separate invoice for them. When I got my money, he held out part of the settlement to cover some of his expenses, and sent me the remainder. There wasn't anything fraudulent about any of it...

Its not a requirement, but it is a very common practice.

These 'retainer payments' came out of nowhere after Cohen attempted to purchase the story rights from AMI for $130,000 and continued until the amount Cohen had paid AMI was returned to Cohen. Exactly $130,000.

That's a big fucking coincidence. Especially when both Cohen AND the AMI head confirm the payments and their purpose: to influence the election. That's 2 of the 3 people at the meeting at Trump tower where the conspiracy was hatched....both admitting to crimes related to those payments. The former as part of a plea deal, the latter as part of a non-prosecute agreement. The third, being Trump.

Remember AMI falsified its records on those payments too.

Retainer payments are also implicitly for 'future work'. Not the reimbursement for work that had already been done. Those are billable hours. This was an obvious attempt to falsify the nature of the payments by fraudulently trying to portray them as payment for work that hadn't been done yet. Establishing criminal intent. As there's no reason to lie and falsify expenses for legal activity.

 

[para bellum]

That's 175.05. Trump is charged under 175.10. Though the intent to commit another crime is part of the 175.10, so I'll concede the point.

175.05 is the starting place for 175.10.

175.10 adds the "other crime" as the requirement for the felony enhancement of 175.05.

Therefore intent is already an element of 175.10, because it is required by 175.05.

I am not going to bother looking up the specifics of the NY election law conspiracy charge, but you would be hard pressed to make any conspiracy charge stick if the person was not aware that there was something illegal about it...

 

[Skylar]

175.05 is the starting place for 175.10.

175.10 adds the "other crime" as the requirement for the felony enhancement of 175.05.

Therefore intent is already an element of 175.10, because it is required by 175.05.

I am not going to bother looking up the specifics of the NY election law conspiracy charge, but you would be hard pressed to make any conspiracy charge stick if the person was not aware that there was something illegal about it...

The requirement is part of 175.10. The charge that Trump is actually facing 34 times.

"A person is guilty of falsifying business records in the first degree when he commits the crime of falsifying business records in the second degree, and when his intent to defraud includes an intent to commit another crime or to aid or conceal the commission thereof. Falsifying business records in the first degree is a class E felony."

So I concede the point on 175.10 and the criminal intent as it apples to NY Election law. As its the only portion relevant to the intent conspiracy claims you made. The NY Election law has no such requirement in its conspiracy. But 175.10 does.

I'm arguing that it will be relatively easy to establish that criminal intent, given the reasons above. Including 2 of the 3 people at the meeting at Trump tower where the 'catch and kill' conspiracy was hatched already admitting to crimes related to the influencing election, using those payments.

AMI falsified its records related to the payments too. And 'retainer' payments with no agreement in the exact amount of the AMI payments? Yeah, that's bullshit. And 'retainer' payments, for work that had already been done? That's bullshit too.

Its going to be a tough sell for defense to convince the jury that 2 of the 3 were part of the conspiracy, but not the third....when they all hatched the plan together. Especially when that third is Donald Trump.

 

[para bellum]

Its not a requirement, but it is a very common practice.

These 'retainer payments' came out of nowhere after Cohen attempted to purchase the story rights from AMI for $130,000 and continued until the amount Cohen had paid AMI was returned to Cohen. Exactly $130,000.

That's a big fucking coincidence. Especially when both Cohen AND the AMI head confirm the payments and their purpose: to influence the election. That's 2 of the 3 people at the meeting at Trump tower where the conspiracy was hatched....both admitting to crimes related to those payments. The former as part of a plea deal, the latter as part of a non-prosecute agreement. The third, being Trump.

Remember AMI falsified its records on those payments too.

Retainer payments are also implicitly for 'future work'. Not the reimbursement for work that had already been done. Those are billable hours. This was an obvious attempt to falsify the nature of the payments by fraudulently trying to portray them as payment for work that hadn't been done yet. Establishing criminal intent. As there's no reason to lie and falsify expenses for legal activity.

This is all inference on your part. You do not know that other payments were recorded in the same manner.

Trump had no way of knowing how AMI recorded their expenses, and no influence over that anyway.

Retainers can be for whatever the parties agree on. The deal to reimburse Cohen for the NDA to Daniels was agreed on prior to the payments being made, and the payments covered other expenses besides the NDA.

It can be viewed as a verbal retainer agreement, there is nothing illegal about it- and as I said, it was a bookkeeping notation, not a legal document.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Couldn't have anything to to do with relieving a crushing burden of debt on our younger generation, could it?

Is it possible to have more than one motive for doing something?

 

[Skylar]

This is all inference on your part. You do not know that other payments were recorded in the same manner.

Trump had no way of knowing how AMI recorded their expenses, and no influence over that anyway.

Retainers can be for whatever the parties agree on. The deal to reimburse Cohen for the NDA to Daniels was agreed on prior to the payments being made, and the payments covered other expenses besides the NDA.

It can be viewed as a verbal retainer agreement, there is nothing illegal about it- and as I said, it was a bookkeeping notation, not a legal document.

Oh, no. These are explicit admissions by both Cohen and the AMI head, listed in the Statement of Fact accompanying the indictment. Where both are clear that the this was an attempt to influence the outcome of the election.

 

[para bellum]

The requirement is part of 175.10. The charge that Trump is actually facing 34 times.

"A person is guilty of falsifying business records in the first degree when he commits the crime of falsifying business records in the second degree, and when his intent to defraud includes an intent to commit another crime or to aid or conceal the commission thereof. Falsifying business records in the first degree is a class E felony."

So I concede the point on 175.10 and the criminal intent as it apples to NY Election law.

I'm arguing that it will be relatively easy to establish that criminal intent, given the reasons above. Including 2 of the 3 people at the meeting at Trump tower where the 'catch and kill' conspiracy was hatched already admitting to crimes related to the influencing election, using those payments.

AMI falsified its records related to the payments too. And 'retainer' payments with no agreement in the exact amount of the AMI payments? Yeah, that's bullshit. And 'retainer' payments, for work that had already been done? That's bullshit too.

Its going to be a tough sell for defense to convince the jury that 2 of the 3 were part of the conspiracy, but not the third....when they all hatched the plan together. Especially when that third is Donald Trump.

Well that's fine, you can argue that all you want. What I said was:

"In order to convict, the jury will have to be convinced that Trump was aware that the suppression of the stories was an illegal conspiracy, and that the recording of the payments as legal expenses was intended to hide the agreement with AMI to find and suppress negative stories about Trump."

I stand by that, you haven't successfully refuted any of it...

 

[para bellum]

Oh, no. These are explicit admissions by both Cohen and the AMI head, listed in the Statement of Fact accompanying the indictment. Where both are clear that the this was an attempt to influence the outcome of the election.

No, you made several inferences that were not in the Statement of Facts.

"These 'retainer payments' came out of nowhere after Cohen attempted to purchase the story rights from AMI for $130,000 and continued until the amount Cohen had paid AMI was returned to Cohen. Exactly $130,000."

Cohen did not pay AMI, he paid Daniel's attorney directly. (I made that same mistake earlier so I forgive you). AMI only made the introduction between Daniel's attorney and Cohen.

You do not know that Trump had never made a payment to Cohen that was recorded in the same manner. It may well be the standard bookkeeping notation in the TO for all invoices from Cohen.

"Remember AMI falsified its records on those payments too."

As I said, Trump had no influence or knowledge regarding AMI's books, and anyway this is not admissible as per the Feb ruling by Merchan.

"Retainer payments are also implicitly for 'future work'. Not the reimbursement for work that had already been done. Those are billable hours. This was an obvious attempt to falsify the nature of the payments by fraudulently trying to portray them as payment for work that hadn't been done yet. Establishing criminal intent. As there's no reason to lie and falsify expenses for legal activity."

This is inference. The retainer agreement is for whatever they agreed on- iow, a verbal agreement to repay Cohen in monthly installments. There is no requirement that payments can only be made for work done in the month that the invoice was received.

In fact, if they thought they were doing something illegal, they could have easily drawn up a retainer agreement to say whatever they wanted.

And oh btw, the payments did not stop at $130,000. They totaled $420,000- 12 payments of $35K each. The first payment was in February for 2 months, and there were 11 more after that one. The first 2 checks came from the DJT Trust, and the remaining 9 from Trump's personal checking account.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

There is no requirement for a written retainer between an attorney and a client, and it's not unusual to not have one when there is a long-term attorney-client relationship.

The records are internal documents of a private organization. They are not something that has to be disclosed for business purposes, so who is there to defraud? Recording the expenses as per a retainer agreement is not evidence of fraud, it's just a bookkeeping notation.

The payment from Cohen to Daniels was negotiated between Cohen and her attorney, Cohen was acting on behalf of his client. Paying Cohen and recording the payments as legal expenses is not fraudulent just because part of the money was used to reimburse Cohen for the NDA.

Attorneys get reimbursed for expenses all the time without the client itemizing the payment. My attorney paid all the filing fees on my last case, and I never got a separate invoice for them. When I got my money, he held out part of the settlement to cover some of his expenses, and sent me the remainder. There wasn't anything fraudulent about any of it...

It of course was fraudulent, as Trump definitely intended to mask the payoff intended to influence the election as a legal expense for his business. You cannot do that. That will be the easy part. That's just the misdemeanor.

 

[Kilroy2]

No evidence. No crime.

Much like Biden impeachment inquiry