Zone1 NY State's politically selectively prosecution of Trump?

[elektra]

Fraudulent not meaning the checks bounded, but fraudulent meaning the checks where to cover illegal activity.

WW

Oh, of that crime you claimed Trump committed, that was not committed, and then the crime you claim that Cohen committed that Trump is charged with?

The checks were legal, the non-disclosure agreement was legal, being Trump running against Democrats, illegal.

 

[Supposn]

Oh, of that crime you claimed Trump committed, that was not committed, and then the crime you claim that Cohen committed that Trump is charged with?

The checks were legal, the non-disclosure agreement was legal, being Trump running against Democrats, illegal.

Elektra, refer to How Michael Cohen broke campaign finance law | PBS News .

Among the counts of the NY States indictment of Donald trump, were for the fraudulent entry of payments ostensibly for compensating Cohen for his legal services, which were repayment of money spent by Cohen to commit an crime on behalf of Donald Trump. Previous to the indictment of Trump, Cohen was found guilty of that crime.

I've previously posted a link to the NY State judge's instructions on the basis of which they found Trump to be guilty. The instruction's sections have topic headings. I posted some of the indictment's topics of interest and page numbers.
If you sincerely were interested, you could try read and understand the instructions. The Jury found Trump guilty on the basis of those instructions.

You apparently have no interest in reading any part of those instructions and/or they're beyond your ability to comprehend them. Respectfully, Supposn

 

[WorldWatcher]

Oh, of that crime you claimed Trump committed, that was not committed, and then the crime you claim that Cohen committed that Trump is charged with?

Again you try to make it about me. Which it isn't, it's about what crimes was Trump charged with, tried for, and convicted of by a jury.

You seem to not understand basic legal aspects of the case:

#1 The crimes that Trump was charged with and convicted of which were felonious falsification of business records done with the intent to conspire with and/or aid in the commission of another crime or to conceal another crime.

#2 The "other crime" need not be committed by Trump the conspiracy could be the commission of the crime by one or more others with Trumps involvment being the motivation or element in the other crime.

So you saying "Trump committed, that was not committed, ..." is just mumbo-jumbo with no legal weight. In a court of law there is the charged crime and the elements of the crime that the prosecution must prove. In this case that Trump conspired with others to falsify business records to conceal another crime. Which was Cohen's.

The checks were legal, the non-disclosure agreement was legal, being Trump running against Democrats, illegal.

The checks were valid, true. Trump wasn't charged with writing bad checks without the funds to cover them.

The NDA was legal, true. Trump wasn't charged with an illegal NDA.

Trump running against a democrat isn't illegal, true.

Trumps charges stem from an illegal conspiracy to falsify business records in the Trump Organization to launder money for the illegal payments that Cohen made as part of Cohen's campaign finance fraud case.

The NDA wasn't illegal, paying for NDA wasn't illegal. Paying for the NDA without reporting it for the furtherance of the campaign * * WAS * * illegal and that what Cohen was convicted of. Trumps laundering the payments through his business to hide Cohen's illegal activity * * WAS * * illegal. Which is why Trump is now a convicted felon.

WW

 

[elektra]

#2 The "other crime" need not be committed by Trump the conspiracy could be the commission of the crime by one or more others with Trumps involvment being the motivation or element in the other crime.

Yet, for 25 posts, 25 comments you made, you claimed Trump committed a crime. Now that it is firmly established that Trump did not commit said crime, you claim it was cohen's crime Trump is charged with trying to cover up. You are claiming that Trump tried to cover up a crime by writing traceable checks? Not only writing the checks but recording them?

WW, argued with me for over 25 posts, adamant that you knew exactly what you were talking about yet now we all see you change what happened?

A conspiracy? A conspiracy neither party was charged with?
Trump you claim is charged with concealing Cohen's crime, yet it does not say that anywhere in the indictment.
Trump you now claim, tried to conceal the crime but the only evidence is checks which does the opposite of concealing a crime, checks would expose a crime had one occurred.

WW, are you sure you are right now. You are not going to change who committed what crime or what that crime was?
WW, how about posting the indictment, the Cohen indictment. I bet that if we get to read the indictment, we will find out that this has nothing to do with Trump.

 

[WorldWatcher]

Yet, for 25 posts, 25 comments you made, you claimed Trump committed a crime. Now that it is firmly established that Trump did not commit said crime, you claim it was cohen's crime Trump is charged with trying to cover up. You are claiming that Trump tried to cover up a crime by writing traceable checks? Not only writing the checks but recording them?

WW, argued with me for over 25 posts, adamant that you knew exactly what you were talking about yet now we all see you change what happened?

A conspiracy? A conspiracy neither party was charged with?
Trump you claim is charged with concealing Cohen's crime, yet it does not say that anywhere in the indictment.
Trump you now claim, tried to conceal the crime but the only evidence is checks which does the opposite of concealing a crime, checks would expose a crime had one occurred.

WW, are you sure you are right now. You are not going to change who committed what crime or what that crime was?
WW, how about posting the indictment, the Cohen indictment. I bet that if we get to read the indictment, we will find out that this has nothing to do with Trump.

Trump did commit a crime. 34 of them. He’s been convicted.

WW

 

[elektra]

Elektra, refer to How Michael Cohen broke campaign finance law | PBS News .

You apparently have no interest in reading any part of those instructions and/or they're beyond your ability to comprehend them. Respectfully, Supposn

ah, more condescending replies from supposn. Why would you project and speculate what I have an interest in? Beyond my ability to comprehend? What makes you so much smarter than me.

Is this what you suppose, is a clean debate, attacking me?

 

[elektra]

Trump did commit a crime. 34 of them. He’s been convicted.

WW

Why were you wrong for over 25 posts? What made you realize the supposn mistake you had made? Where is Cohen's indictment proving that Trump was involved with Cohen's crime. Where does it state anywhere that Cohen's crimes is the crime in question.

You can not answer, will not answer, because you do not have any facts.

Never in history was anyone charged each time they wrote a check and recorded it, to their lawyer. Never.

 

[Supposn]

Why were you wrong for over 25 posts? What made you realize the supposn mistake you had made? Where is Cohen's indictment proving that Trump was involved with Cohen's crime. Where does it state anywhere that Cohen's crimes is the crime in question.

You can not answer, will not answer, because you do not have any facts.

Never in history was anyone charged each time they wrote a check and recorded it, to their lawyer. Never.

Elektra, Michael Cohen was found guilty of a crime he committed direct or indirectly urged ,by Trump and/or his associates. Trump and/or his organization compensated Cohen and additionally repaid him for the expenses necessary for the commission of the crime.

Excerpted from the link:
How Michael Cohen broke campaign finance law | PBS News
“… The case has some parallels to the federal campaign finance prosecution of former North Carolina Sen. John Edwards, a two-time Democratic presidential candidate. Edwards was indicted in 2011 on charges that he was part of a scheme during his 2008 campaign to have two of his supporters spend almost $1 million to conceal an affair.
Prosecutors argued that the payments were tantamount to illegal campaign contributions, but the Justice Department eventually dropped its case against Edwards after trial jurors deadlocked on five of the criminal counts against him and acquitted him on the sixth …” .

You apparently have no interest in reading any part of those instructions and/or they're beyond your ability to comprehend them. Respectfully, Supposn

 

[elektra]

Elektra, Michael Cohen was found guilty of a crime he committed direct or indirectly urged ,by Trump and/or his associates. Trump and/or his organization compensated Cohen and additionally repaid him for the expenses necessary for the commission of the crime.

Except of course, non of this was proven. Non of this was proven to have direct ties or indirect ties to Trump. If this is now the standard of guilt our Justice system is no longer functioning.

Cohen pleads guilty to Federal Election Law crimes. Cohen does not go to court, evidence is not discussed, examined, in any way shape or form. Cohen pleads guilty claiming he is guilty of a crime he committed with Trump?

Trump was not part of the trial. Trump was unable to defend himself. Trump was not part of the process in which Cohen pleaded guilty.

Now, it is said that there was a crime committed simply because Cohen said he was guilty? That crime is now the basis of convicting Trump?

I could plead guilty to robbing a store with you, supposn. You are now guilty of that crime.

Better minds than mine have brought these points up. This trial is far from over. Very far from over.

This case is the most unique, most important presidential case in history. It is actually the only case where a president has been tried for any crime. The only thing that will stop lawyers, judges, the supreme court from hearing this case is intimidation and the real threat of violence.

We already see the supreme court be harassed, intimidated, and threatened.

 

[Dante]

I decided not to waste my time for the reasons I stated. You would deny them, attack the sources, etc. You are exactly what Trump looks for in a cult member. You are not well in the head.

thank you

 

[Dante]

Elektra, Michael Cohen was found guilty of a crime he committed direct or indirectly urged ,by Trump and/or his associates. Trump and/or his organization compensated Cohen and additionally repaid him for the expenses necessary for the commission of the crime.

Excerpted from the link:
How Michael Cohen broke campaign finance law | PBS News
“… The case has some parallels to the federal campaign finance prosecution of former North Carolina Sen. John Edwards, a two-time Democratic presidential candidate. Edwards was indicted in 2011 on charges that he was part of a scheme during his 2008 campaign to have two of his supporters spend almost $1 million to conceal an affair.
Prosecutors argued that the payments were tantamount to illegal campaign contributions, but the Justice Department eventually dropped its case against Edwards after trial jurors deadlocked on five of the criminal counts against him and acquitted him on the sixth …” .

You apparently have no interest in reading any part of those instructions and/or they're beyond your ability to comprehend them. Respectfully, Supposn

Read the jury instructions

 

[Supposn]

Except of course, non of this was proven. Non of this was proven to have direct ties or indirect ties to Trump. If this is now the standard of guilt our Justice system is no longer functioning. ...
... The only thing that will stop lawyers, judges, the supreme court from hearing this case is intimidation and the real threat of violence.

We already see the supreme court be harassed, intimidated, and threatened.

Elektra, you post your fantasies of what you wish were the facts.

Juries verdicts of guilty in criminal trials indicate they considered the evidence and testimony presented to them and unanimously determined the defendant's guilt “beyond reasonable doubt”.

If a single juror has doubts regarding any individual count of the indictment against a defendant, the defendant cannot be found guilty of that specific count of the indictment.

Cohen was tried and found guilty. Trump was tried and found guilty.
Trump's attorneys are expected to appeal this case as futile ”Hail-Mary” efforts; this case is expected to be sustained.

The only credible or treats to the courts and their members were explicit or implied threats made by Trump and/or his supporters. Additionally, there's Trump's threats against his opponents if he should be again elected president. Respectfully, Supposn

 

[elektra]

Elektra, you post your fantasies of what you wish were the facts.

Cohen was tried and found guilty.

I Suppose it is you with fantasies and without facts.

The most important fact in this case is Cohen.
Cohen was not tried.
Cohen plead guilty.

Supposn, you presented fantasy.

 

[Supposn]

I Suppose it is you with fantasies and without facts.

The most important fact in this case is Cohen.
Cohen was not tried.
Cohen plead guilty.

Supposn, you presented fantasy.

Elektra, I sit corrected before my keyboard.
As you posted, Michael Cohen did choose to plead out rather than attempting to plead innocent before a Jury.

Among the charges he pleaded guilty of, was his receiving payment from Donald Trump's organization for his services and expenses to acquire nondisclosure agreements on behalf of Donald Trump. The purpose of obtaining those agreement was to influence the 2016 general elections. The cost of obtaining those agreements exceeded the legal maximum value of a contribution for a candidate campaign for a federal elected office,

If that accusation wasn't true or provable, Cohen had the option of pleading guilty on all other of the indictment's charges and facing a jury on the charges related to the nondisclosure agreement.

Your post is an example of what's meant by a difference of little or no distinction”. Respectfully, Supposn

 

[elektra]

Elektra, I sit corrected before my keyboard.
As you posted, Michael Cohen did choose to plead out rather than attempting to plead innocent before a Jury.

Among the charges he pleaded guilty of, was his receiving payment from Donald Trump's organization for his services and expenses to acquire nondisclosure agreements on behalf of Donald Trump. The purpose of obtaining those agreement was to influence the 2016 general elections. The cost of obtaining those agreements exceeded the legal maximum value of a contribution for a candidate campaign for a federal elected office,

If that accusation wasn't true or provable, Cohen had the option of pleading guilty on all other of the indictment's charges and facing a jury on the charges related to the nondisclosure agreement.

Your post is an example of what's meant by a difference of little or no distinction”. Respectfully, Supposn

Your opinion is of no relevance. You stated a crime was proven, it has not been proven. Any crime that you think Trump committed, must be proven. To claim that because Cohen pleaded guilty hence that proves that Trump was guilty of the alleged crime denies Trump of due process.

 

[otto105]

Your opinion is of no relevance. You stated a crime was proven, it has not been proven. Any crime that you think Trump committed, must be proven. To claim that because Cohen pleaded guilty hence that proves that Trump was guilty of the alleged crime denies Trump of due process.

34 convictions inform everyone on his guilty status.

 

[Supposn]

Your opinion is of no relevance. You stated a crime was proven, it has not been proven. Any crime that you think Trump committed, must be proven. To claim that because Cohen pleaded guilty hence that proves that Trump was guilty of the alleged crime denies Trump of due process.

Elektra, you're not pretending to be illogical? Michael Cohen admitted his guilt in court because otherwise it would be proven before a jury. The crime was an in-kind contribution for the election of Donald Trump, that exceeded the legal maximum value of such a contribution.

Donald Trump's and his organizations connection to the crime, and their urging and paying Cohen for his expenses and his efforts to acquire the nondisclosure agreements, and the 2016 presidential election was their motivation for doing so, were all proven beyond reasonable doubt to Donald Trump's criminal trial's jury. Respectfully, Supposn

 

[elektra]

Elektra, you're not pretending to be illogical? Michael Cohen admitted his guilt in court because otherwise it would be proven before a jury. The crime was an in-kind contribution for the election of Donald Trump, that exceeded the legal maximum value of such a contribution.

Supposn, you are dictating guilt without a trial.
Supposn, you are telling us why Cohen pleaded, when only Cohen knows the reason.
Supposn, the entire United States now understand that democrats are the same as Stalin Communists who jailed the innocent based on dictating they were guilty.

 

[elektra]

34 convictions inform everyone on his guilty status.

Only in Marxist regimes

 

[Supposn]

Supposn, you are dictating guilt without a trial.
Supposn, you are telling us why Cohen pleaded, when only Cohen knows the reason.
Supposn, the entire United States now understand that democrats are the same as Stalin Communists who jailed the innocent based on dictating they were guilty.

Elektra, we're entitled to our opinions regarding Trump's or Cohen's guilt or innocence; neither one of us speaks for our entire nation.

The entire nation needn't and I suppose doesn't entirely share our opinions regarding almost anything or everything. The entire United States population, or its voters do not share your opinion of the Democratic Party or of those who more or less politically support Democrats. You just got carried away with yourself and posted a very silly response to my post.

Actually, in NY State courts, Cohen pleaded his guilt and Trump was found guilty beyond reasonable doubt.
Those cases have not yet been appealed to any higher courts or judges; they haven't been overturned in any courts; , and I'm contending they will not essentially be finally overturned. Respectfully, Supposn