They are busting Trump rght now in court

[Faun]

I understand, but, the campaign finance violation is not a part of braggs case, it’s simply how Bragg was able to revive the statute of limitations.

Utterly false. Why do you reveal to everyone how ignorant you are?

The fact that Trump may or may not have violated campaign finance laws are a federal issue and have no bearing on braggs case. He is not authorized to prosecute federal crimes. All he has is the falsification of business records in the second degree, with intent to defraud.

Fortunately, Bragg is not prosecuting Trump on any federal charges.

That’s all this case is about. There can be no conviction for campaign finance violations in this case.

Of course there can't be. For two reasons. One, it's a NY state charge; and two, Bragg didn't charge Trump with any campaign finance violations.

 

[Faun]

The truth is that he would probably would have paid that money for the NDA even if he wasn't running for President. That pay off to Stormy Daniels was a married man protecting his marriage. So what ELSE does Bragg have because even this totally biased jury can't be buying the bullshit they've seen so far!

Doubtful given there's evidence Trump tried stalling the payment to Stormy until after the election so that he wouldn't have to pay her anything.

 

[Faun]

Paying hush money isn't a crime.

So?

 

[0311]

They are busting trump rght now in court. Trump org employees are testifying about the signed checks.

Live Updates: Former Employee Says Trump Used Personal Account to Repay Hush Money

A longtime Trump Organization employee testified in Donald J. Trump’s criminal trial that Mr. Trump had used his personal bank account to reimburse his longtime fixer for the money that bought a porn star’s silence.

Former Employee Says Trump Used Personal Account to Repay Hush Money

A longtime Trump Organization employee testified in Donald J. Trump’s criminal trial that Mr. Trump had used his personal bank account to reimburse his longtime fixer for the money that bought a porn star’s silence.

www.nytimes.com

They are showing the copies of the signed checks in court right now.

No big surprise. P01135809 is lying sack of liquid shit.

 

[Faun]

I don't. I thought Bragg did, as he has several recordings from Cohen and mentioned the above in the statement of facts. But no, maybe it's not a recording, now that I think about it. Maybe it is.

There may or may not be such a recording. We'll find out when Cohen takes the stand. Stormy's attorney at the time testified in this case that Trump was stalling the payment until he demanded getting paid or she goes public with her story.

 

[Faun]

For that to work, the jury has to find that the NDA's were illegal.

Why?

 

[Faun]

Okay, you accept that the act itself is not illegal.

This is the statute of the underlying crime, NY Election law 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.
--------------------------------------------------------------

If the "means" i.e. the purchasing of negative stories to suppress their publication is not illegal, there is no underlying crime.

Now, even if the recording of the payments as "legal expenses" meets the definition of falsification of records, it is just a misdemeanor, and the case falls apart.

The NDA was not illegal. How it was paid, was. That's the "unlawful means."

 

[Man With A Plan]

Have you noticed how every single Prosecution witness that Bragg has called either helps Trump with their testimony as much as they help the prosecution...or they're a pants on fire liar like Cohen and Daniels? This case is a joke and this judge is going to get ***** slapped on appeal for allowing it to go on.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

But the only way Bragg even has a case is because his indictment is based on a law that requires the furtherance of another crime

Already covered twice.

Prosecutors do not have to charge every criminal behavior they argue.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Have you noticed how every single Prosecution witness that Bragg has called either helps Trump with their testimony as much as they help the prosecution...or

No, because that is fantasy.

 

[Man With A Plan]

No, because that is fantasy.

If you believe that you obviously didn't watch the Hope Hick's testimony, Fort! She by herself pretty much shot holes in Alvin's case that you could drive a Mack truck through!

 

[para bellum]

You’re not looking at the right thing…

The crime was falsifying business records and the underlying crime that they accuse Trump of is intending to commit campaign finance fraud by hiding the payments and burying the story. Those payments are legally required to be disclosed.

He could have paid for the NDA and then disclosed the payment but he didn’t

Are you saying they conspired to "promote an election" by making unlawful campaign contributions?

The FEC and the DOJ investigated Trump for that. The DOJ declined to bring charges, and the FEC dismissed the complaint.

"Burying the stories" is a component of the underlying crime.
"Hiding the payments" is the "falsification of records".

For the falsification of records to be a felony, it has to be for the purpose of concealing some other crime. The judge already ruled that the other crime cannot be another "falsification of records".

Taking the Statements of Fact as true, the meeting in August at Trump Tower was the birth of the conspiracy.

The "statement of facts" and the testimony is that in that meeting, Pecker told Trump that women would be coming out of the woodwork with accusations. They should be on the lookout for these women so they could purchase the stories, and suppress them so they would not embarrass Trump and impact the campaign. Trump went along with the idea. The DA calls it "catch and kill".

Pretty straightforward.

Pecker said he expected to be reimbursed, Cohen expected (and was reimbursed). The money that Trump paid Cohen was not from his campaign funds.

A candidate is not subject to the contribution limits that apply to other parties- he can put as much of his own money into his campaign as he wants to.

The idea that "catch and kill" was a conspiracy to commit campaign finance violations is just not plausible. It was a plan to suppress negative stories so they would not impact the campaign.

Pecker in particular was sensitive to the campaign finance issue- he had already run afoul of it with the Swarzenegger business. He structured the NDA with McDougal to include having her providing content for AMI so that there was a plausible reason for the NDA.

"Conspiracy to violate FECA" is pretty dang thin. Neither Pecker or Cohen were expecting to pay money out of their own pockets for the NDA's..

They had a much stronger case in the John Edwards situation, and were still unable to get a conviction...

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

If you believe that you obviously didn't watch the Hope Hick's testimony, Fort! She by herself pretty much shot holes in Alvin's case that you could drive a Mack truck through!

Haha, what embarrassing nonsense.

 

[para bellum]

The NDA was not illegal. How it was paid, was. That's the "unlawful means."

The judge said back in February that "falsification of records" could not be used as the underlying crime.

 

[Marener]

The judge said back in February that "falsification of records" could not be used as the underlying crime.

True. There's three other possible underlying crimes for the jury to decide on, however.

 

[para bellum]

True. There's three other possible underlying crimes for the jury to decide on, however.

Yes. One of them is FECA , one is the election conspiracy, and the last is tax fraud.

The prosecution has stated that their underlying crime is the election conspiracy, which they are calling "catch and kill". They said the entire case rests on that.

They haven't tried to argue a conspiracy to commit FECA violations or tax fraud. I don't think a jury is going to infer one of those without evidence. That leaves "catch and kill" as the "unlawful means" to promote an election.

 

[ThisIsMe]

Already covered twice.

Prosecutors do not have to charge every criminal behavior they argue.

I don’t know how else to say it. Bragg needs a crime to validate his charge, he doesn’t have one.

 

[SurferH2O]

This thread was started Monday. It's Thursday and he's still not "busted". This isn't going the way the Democrats thought it would. Funny thing about abusing power like the Democrats are doing, the public will turn against you.

 

[Man With A Plan]

Yes. One of them is FECA , one is the election conspiracy, and the last is tax fraud.

The prosecution has stated that their underlying crime is the election conspiracy, which they are calling "catch and kill". They said the entire case rests on that.

They haven't tried to argue a conspiracy to commit FECA violations or tax fraud. I don't think a jury is going to infer one of those without evidence. That leaves "catch and kill" as the "unlawful means" to promote an election.

Which is something that is not only legal but done by MOST political campaigns including quite obviously...JOE BIDEN'S! What his campaign did with the Hunter lap top story is the epitome of "catch and kill"!

 

[Faun]

If you believe that you obviously didn't watch the Hope Hick's testimony, Fort! She by herself pretty much shot holes in Alvin's case that you could drive a Mack truck through!

Oh? What about Davidson? How did his testimony help the defense?