Lets review the “case” the DA has on Trump. Statutes and violatons

[HereWeGoAgain]

Exhibit A: You have no idea what they have on Trump.

Yeah we do.
The same shit that they couldnt prosecute him for last time you idiots tried.

 

[BackAgain]

A first year law student could put Trump away for the rest of his life with the mountain of evidence against him.

You don’t know diddly shit about that claim.

The only reason he's been walking on his crimes is because he was a fake potus for four fucking miserable years.

No no , you ignorant twerp. The current infestation in the WH is the fake president. Potato can’t even think. Trump is free not just because he’s never even been charged but because there is no meaningful evidence against him.

The same justice system that that mother rants against is the one that has kept his stupid ass out of prison all these years.

The system he complains about is the one corrupted by your filthy liberal scum.

That's how much of a miserable fucking retard he is.

Well, you certainly articulate no case. Of course, you’re a moron cockroach, so it wouldn’t be expected from you.

 

[BothWings]

Exhibit A: You have no idea what they have on Trump.

I'm sure neither do they.

 

[Catsnmeters]

Cohen is already a convicted felon. You’re free to accept his word if you’re so inclined. I wouldn’t trust him with a piece of rotting lettuce.

It's not up to me.

Convicted felons have the right to make sworn testimony.

Trump was allowed to pay invoices for service rendered by a lawyer. And even if it was actually for a repayment of an amount Cohen spent to pay for Stormy’s non disclosure agreement, so what? Trump was allowed to repay the scumbag, Cohen.

Irrelevant. I don’t care what the former prosecutor said. And who says Trump had to have a retainer agreement with the now disbarred lawyer. Nowadays in NY for cases involving retainers, those retainer agreements have to be reported. I’m not sure they were back then. (Plus, that’s on the lawyer anyway. Clients don’t file retainer agreements with their lawyers).

No not was done to pay for a Non disclosure agreement. So what? That’s legal.

By stretching the law like a piece of silly putty, maybe. But in the real world, it doesn’t qualify because it is still recorded and reports an expenditure.

Then Trump has nothing to worry about. Certainly you don't think the state of NY will charge Trump with a misdemeanor crime without evidence?

That these experienced prosecutor's will file charges and then a few days later say, oops, our bad. Retainers didn't have to be reported then, like they just graduated law school or something.

Now I will be a lawyer. I assure you that Trump will not be charged for simply having an NDA.

I mean no offense but I will take the word of an exoerienced lawyer, who worked on the case and is familiar with New York law...over you repeating what you heard on right wing TV or desperate Google searches.

Certainly if you can provide an expert who rebukes what my link said, I would love to check it out.

I’m not sure that Congress has any valid claim to a local prosecutor’s internal legal records. But I assume Jordan wants to obtain evidence that this move by Bragg was a a political matter and not a valid legal matter.

What move by Bragg? That he is investigating Trump? So what? He has been for months.

Jordan doesn't know if Trump is due to be charged. He doesn't know all the evidence or testimony.

This may sound crazy but it's almost like Jordan is basing his statements solely on Trump's tweet that he was due to be arrested.

Does that seem right to you?

 

[Seymour Flops]

Yes, the lawyer paid her to keep her quiet. He thought he was doing Trump a favor. But we now know he was an anti-Trumper and it was to set him up.

Since then she has denied the affair, he won his court case against her, she owes him $360k, and her scumbag lawyer is in jail, as well as Cohen himself.

That would be more than enough for any reasonable person to realize there is no case against Trump.

They not only would have to prove that a false entry "was made," they have to prove that Trump made it. If someone recorded a blackmail payment as a "legal fee," the only person who would have had any motivation to do that would be the lawyer acting as bagman.

Which we have no evidence whatsoever even happened except the word of Michael Cohen, convicted scumbag lawyer who turned on a client after charging him thousands in legal fees.

People get paid for keeping their mouths shut all the time. Lawsuit defendants frequently offer settlements of lawsuits that include a non-disclosure agreement.

 

[Seymour Flops]

Ah, we're probably wrong . . .

This time they've really got him!

 

[BackAgain]

It's not up to me.

Convicted felons have the right to make sworn testimony.

It isn’t up to you. I didn’t say it was.

Of course convicted felons have the ability to testify. That’s hardly the point. It certainly isn’t something I ever said they couldn’t do. What I am saying is that the prosecutor who calls such a scumbag is likely to be in for a tough time getting any reasonable jury to buy his testimony.

Then Trump has nothing to worry about. Certainly you don't think the state of NY will charge Trump with a misdemeanor crime without evidence?

I absolutely believe Bragg is seeking to indict President Trump and I absolutely don’t believe they have any valid evidence for the crime nor charges we anticipate he will being.

That these experienced prosecutor's will file charges and then a few days later say, oops, our bad.

No. I anticipate they will either get their asses handed to them by a fair judge OR they will take the “case” to trial. Justice however is not on their agenda.

Retainers didn't have to be reported then, like they just graduated law school or something.

What? There is a new rule in NY for filing retainer agreements for cases involving a certain dollar amount or more. I don’t recall how recently it was in effect but I think it’s like within just the past six years not so.

Now I will be a lawyer. I assure you that Trump will not be charged for simply having an NDA.

I am a lawyer and I didn’t say he would be charged for simply having an NDA.

I mean no offense but I will take the word of an exoerienced lawyer, who worked on the case and is familiar with New York law...over you repeating what you heard on right wing TV or desperate Google searches.

I am indifferent to who you choose to believe. But I’m not talking melt on the basis of what I have heard on any news. And the ones you rely on can be mistaken. That’s why we have trials. One side may get vindicated but then other side often comes up empty handed.

Certainly if you can provide an expert who rebukes what my link said, I would love to check it out.

I doubt that. But again, I’m not concerned with whether you have the slightest bit of an open mind or not.

What move by Bragg? That he is investigating Trump? So what? He has been for months.

The move by Bragg is to seek a GJ indictment against a former President over some nonsense like this. It appears to be a legal theory that is patently absurd. We shall see.

Jordan doesn't know if Trump is due to be charged. He doesn't know all the evidence or testimony.

So? I didn’t say anything about what Jordan does or doesn’t know.

This may sound crazy but it's almost like Jordan is basing his statements solely on Trump's tweet that he was due to be arrested.

No. It sounds like Jordan grasps what is going on. And he doesn’t like it. An arrest Tuesday or next month doesn’t change a thing. There shouldn’t even be a case.

Does that seem right to you?

Your speculation seems way off base to me.

 

[multivita-man]

Trump banged Stormy Daniels.

In 2016, Trump paid SD $130k to not speak about the affair.

Trump paid $130k to his attorney, Michael Cohen, who in turn gave the money to SD.

The transaction was recorded in the books as “legal expenses”.

The Manhattan DA‘s case is based on New York penal law 175.05. That is a statute makes it a crime to enter a false entry in the business records of an enterprise…a 2nd degree misdemeanor.

It basically means do not keep false books. This HAS A 2YEAR STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS.

DA cannot charge Trump with this, as the incident occured in 2016.

So, there is New York penal law 175.10…….a felony….if the intent to defraud by the false entry was in the commission of a crime.

The DA is trying to say it is a campaign finance law violation to pay hush money to someone.

Mueller already looked at this and decided it was NOT.

This case is bullshit.

It's called criminal fraud (bookkeeping/records fraud), which is a felony at the state level. He mischaracterized the payment as a legal retainer fee, which it was not.

Do I think he'll get convicted? The evidence is there, especially if Cohen testifies. However, I think this is a case where at least one or more jurors decides the premise is b.s., using a state fraud law to prosecute what basically amounts to a federal campaign finance violation.

 

[ColonelAngus]

We are living in the throes of tyranny.

Wake the fuck up!

 

[ColonelAngus]

They are not going after Trump, they are going after you.

You guys need to get this.

Those of you jerking off over this, your day is not far behind.

 

[Catsnmeters]

It isn’t up to you. I didn’t say it was.

Of course convicted felons have the ability to testify. That’s hardly the point. It certainly isn’t something I ever said they couldn’t do. What I am saying is that the prosecutor who calls such a scumbag is likely to be in for a tough time getting any reasonable jury to buy his testimony.

I expect Cohen's testimony is supported/collaborated by other evidence. Very unlikely Cohen is testifying in a vacuum for just the reason you stated.

I absolutely believe Bragg is seeking to indict President Trump and I absolutely don’t believe they have any valid evidence for the crime nor charges we anticipate he will being.

No. I anticipate they will either get their asses handed to them by a fair judge OR they will take the “case” to trial. Justice however is not on their agenda.

What? There is a new rule in NY for filing retainer agreements for cases involving a certain dollar amount or more. I don’t recall how recently it was in effect but I think it’s like within just the past six years not so.

I am a lawyer and I didn’t say he would be charged for simply having an NDA.

If you're a lawyer then you must know you don't have the whole story. You don't have access to all the evidence or the testimony.

So everything you are saying is speculation...which is fine for forum discussions but you sure seem like you aren't going to believe the charges, should they occur, no matter what.

I am indifferent to who you choose to believe. But I’m not talking melt on the basis of what I have heard on any news. And the ones you rely on can be mistaken. That’s why we have trials. One side may get vindicated but then other side often comes up empty handed.

I doubt that. But again, I’m not concerned with whether you have the slightest bit of an open mind or not.

Well people like me, that aren't lawyers, are forced to read from the experts.

I expect as a lawyer, that many other laywers agree with you and was just curious if you could link one as I would like to at least semi confirm the legal basis for your stance.

The move by Bragg is to seek a GJ indictment against a former President over some nonsense like this. It appears to be a legal theory that is patently absurd. We shall see.

So? I didn’t say anything about what Jordan does or doesn’t know.

You don't have to say anything. He doesn't know. Literally he has no access to anything that you or I don't.

His entire claim is based on a social media post. Do you think the person under investigation making a social media post justifies an investigation by Congress?

Do you not think it would be prudent to at least wait till the process is complete so he can base his investigation on Facts instead of random social media posts?

No. It sounds like Jordan grasps what is going on. And he doesn’t like it. An arrest Tuesday or next month doesn’t change a thing. There shouldn’t even be a case.

Your speculation seems way off base to me.

Jordan has no idea what is going on because he is not privy to the evidence or testimony.

You act like this is a partison endeavor by Democrats, again with no details on testifying or evidence, yet you seem applaud Jordans blatantly partison attempt to inject himself in a state investigation.

This makes me doubt the the sincerity or accuracy of your opinion...and yes, I know you don't care.

 

[BackAgain]

I expect Cohen's testimony is supported/collaborated by other evidence.

Like the fact that Trump paid him back? That kind of Earth shattering corroboration? Ok

Very unlikely Cohen is testifying in a vacuum for just the reason you stated.

I didn’t say he was testifying for any one reason. And I didn’t say he’s testifying in any vacuum.

If you're a lawyer then you must know you don't have the whole story.

I never said or suggested I did.

You don't have access to all the evidence or the testimony.

Already noted. You tend to be overly verbose. Pointless, for the most part, but it takes way too long for you to get nowhere.

Well people like me, that aren't lawyers, are forced to read from the experts.

But you lack discernment. For example, I’ve read some crap from alleged “experts” which suggest that this NY State case is somehow governed by Federal laws and so forth. Absolute stupidity.

I expect as a lawyer, that many other laywers agree with you and was just curious if you could link one as I would like to at least semi confirm the legal basis for your stance.

I’m gonna cut this short. Check out the views of Andrew McCarthy and Alan Dershowitz.

Your post was way too long. So, in the interest of brevity, I’ll end my reply right here.

 

[JusticeHammer]

Trump banged Stormy Daniels.

In 2016, Trump paid SD $130k to not speak about the affair.

Trump paid $130k to his attorney, Michael Cohen, who in turn gave the money to SD.

The transaction was recorded in the books as “legal expenses”.

The Manhattan DA‘s case is based on New York penal law 175.05. That is a statute makes it a crime to enter a false entry in the business records of an enterprise…a 2nd degree misdemeanor.

It basically means do not keep false books. This HAS A 2YEAR STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS.

DA cannot charge Trump with this, as the incident occured in 2016.

So, there is New York penal law 175.10…….a felony….if the intent to defraud by the false entry was in the commission of a crime.

The DA is trying to say it is a campaign finance law violation to pay hush money to someone.

Mueller already looked at this and decided it was NOT.

This case is bullshit.

Bullshit case. Go Trump.

 

[pknopp]

Yeah we do.
The same shit that they couldnt prosecute him for last time you idiots tried.

I'll try better next time.

 

[Nostra]

A first year law student could put Trump away for the rest of his life with the mountain of evidence against him. The only reason he's been walking on his crimes is because he was a fake potus for four fucking miserable years.

The same justice system that that mother rants against is the one that has kept his stupid ass out of prison all these years. That's how much of a miserable fucking retard he is.

Link us up to the crime that would lock Trump up “for the rest if his life”, Simp.

Im sure i will be disappointed with whatever this Simp thinks he has.

 

[HereWeGoAgain]

I'll try better next time.

You?
You have delusions of grandeur.

 

[Seymour Flops]

Like the fact that Trump paid him back? That kind of Earth shattering corroboration? Ok

We don't even know that Trump paid him back. We've seen no evidence of any of this. All we have at this point is leaks claimed by the anti-Trump media.

According to the leaked "information," the prosecutors evidence is that Trump gave $130,000 to his attorney and that an entry "was made" (by who?) that called it "legal fees." That careful use of passive voice is the hallmark of the dishonest.

$130K from a billionaire to one of his lawyers already sounds exactly like legal fees to me, so if an entry said that is what it was, where is the evidence that it was anything else?

Not arguing with you, I know you know all that. Debating with Democrats, we often have to say, "even if A is true, that doesn't support B."

Both Trump and Daniels have denied that they even had an affair, so the only evidence is coming from a couple of convicted and disbarred lawyers.

 

[Frankenstein]

Derp. Sheep! Hang! Justice! Derp!

You sure your brown shirt isn't on to tight.

Deflect away sheep with your little brown shirt reference.

 

[Nostra]

Link us up to the crime that would lock Trump up “for the rest if his life”, Simp.

Im sure i will be disappointed with whatever this Simp thinks he has.

Once again Clipper has his lies exposed.

 

[The5thHorseman]

Did you get this from the DAs office because I wasn't aware all the evidence and testimony was public yet.

There are the facts, and the preemptive narrative...