This will be Key: What are the Most Incriminating things that Michael Cohen Said in his Testimony Today?

[John Edgar Slow Horses]

Yes, I agree.

So, what is the meaningful difference between paying off student loan and paying off a person who claims to have had an affair, if either is done with an election being a factor in the decision?

The answer is this: paying off a person alleging an affair is a much more salacious story than paying office to the loan.
MThat is a true purpose of introducing the porn story in a case supposedly about book keeping. Put out embarrassing personal information about Trump, and hope that it causes the jury to want to find him guilty of something, and causes the voters not to want to vote for him.

Luckily, neither of those goals are going to be met by this trial.

apples and oranges

 

[Magnus]

View attachment 946600

Awww... are you hitting on me? Sorry, retard. You are not my type even if I was gay.

But keep looking. I am sure you will be able to find another closet retard on this site. Good luck.

 

[Magnus]

This is why we can't share a nation with these people anymore. Unless--and it's a slim hope--we really CAN beat them into the hiding spaces in November, and keep them there.

Patently un-American

Yeah, Nazi MAGAs are a problem. Hopefully, they all disappear after the November elections.

If we are lucky, the retards will invade Capitol as before and we can lock many more this time.

 

[Magnus]

So the tax evasion and bank fraud charges were just incidental? The "real" crimes were the campaign finance violations?

Okay...

I hate to break it to you, but the standard sentence for a Class E non-violent felony for an offender with no priors is:

no jail, probation 1-1/3 to 4 years.

New York State Penal Law - Felony Classes Sentences | NY Law

New York Penal Law - Felony Classes and Sentences, All Felonies range in classification from A to E with the A crimes as the most serious | NYS Laws

ypdcrime.com

Learn to read, retard. I said one of the crimes was finance violations.

 

[Magnus]

For the sake of argument in this thread only, pretend that Cohen is capable of telling the truth for the sake of telling the truth, rather than saying anything the prosecutors want him to about the president who enraged him by not giving him a top spot in the administration.

What did he say that connects the dots for an actual crime committed by Trump? Did he witness Trump entering a business record? Did he hear Trump say that he would pay for the NDA, since it was a donation to his own campaign? Did he enter the allegedly false busines records at Trump's orders? When he gave that order, did he say, "so we can cover up my crime in donating to my own campaign?"

Here's why I think it will be key: If Cohen said nothing that connected the dots to a crime, the defense can rightly ask for a directed verdict due to no evidence. Directed verdicts are a way to keep prosecutors from presenting an emotional case that - even if seen in the most favorable light - proves no crime, but rolling the dice that the jury will be so fired up they will return a guilty verdict anyway. Judges are the guardrails against that.

What the judge needs to hang his hat on is Cohen actually providing evidence of a crime. Then he can say, that it's up to the jury to judge his credibility.

Let's keep this thread clean, please. TDS, elsewhere. This is your chance to tell us about the actaul evidence of a crime by Trump presented by Cohen.

 

[para bellum]

Learn to read, retard. I said one of the crimes was finance violations.

I can read fine. You posted, and I quoted:

"Cohen was sentenced to three years for several crimes that he committed for Trump. He was also found guilty of some of his own."

A plain reading of that is that the 3-year sentence was for the campaign finance violations, which were the only "crimes committed for Trump".

The "some of his own" were 5 counts of tax evasion and one count of bank fraud, combined could have carried up to 55 years imprisonment.

The 2 campaign finance charges each carried a 5-year max.

Fact is, about 15% of the sentence could be attributed to the "crimes he committed for Trump", and the remaining 85% was for the "some of his own".

Your post was an attempt to minimize the serious offenses because they were unrelated to Trump, and inflate the consequences of the campaign finance charges.

Because that's what TDS does to people like you...

 

[John Edgar Slow Horses]

Immaterial, para bellum, to you, and it is for the jury to see if Cohen is believable.

 

[dudmuck]

For the sake of argument in this thread only, pretend that Cohen is capable of telling the truth for the sake of telling the truth, rather than saying anything the prosecutors want him to about the president who enraged him by not giving him a top spot in the administration.

What did he say that connects the dots for an actual crime committed by Trump? Did he witness Trump entering a business record? Did he hear Trump say that he would pay for the NDA, since it was a donation to his own campaign? Did he enter the allegedly false busines records at Trump's orders? When he gave that order, did he say, "so we can cover up my crime in donating to my own campaign?"

Here's why I think it will be key: If Cohen said nothing that connected the dots to a crime, the defense can rightly ask for a directed verdict due to no evidence. Directed verdicts are a way to keep prosecutors from presenting an emotional case that - even if seen in the most favorable light - proves no crime, but rolling the dice that the jury will be so fired up they will return a guilty verdict anyway. Judges are the guardrails against that.

What the judge needs to hang his hat on is Cohen actually providing evidence of a crime. Then he can say, that it's up to the jury to judge his credibility.

Let's keep this thread clean, please. TDS, elsewhere. This is your chance to tell us about the actaul evidence of a crime by Trump presented by Cohen.

 

[para bellum]

Immaterial, para bellum, to you, and it is for the jury to see if Cohen is believable.

The jury is the finder of facts. The applicability of 17-152 is a question of law, it is not a question of fact.

It will be for the appellate court to decide, assuming the jury convicts based on an underlying crime of an "unlawful election conspiracy".

 

[John Edgar Slow Horses]

The jury is the finder of facts. The applicability of 17-152 is a question of law, it is not a question of fact.

It will be for the appellate court to decide, assuming the jury convicts based on an underlying crime of an "unlawful election conspiracy".

Is Cohen believable in that he went to jail for carrying out Trump's wishes. That is for the jury to decide, certainly not you.

 

[para bellum]

Is Cohen believable in that he went to jail for carrying out Trump's wishes. That is for the jury to decide, certainly not you.

Lol. Pretty sure the jury can figure out that Cohen went to jail for tax evasion and bank fraud.

Bragg has done a pretty good job of showing that Cohen was the one who setup the payment and reimbursement schemes, and told Trump it was all under control.

And oh btw, I can decide whatever the hell I want to- it's not up to you, snowflake.

 

[Magnus]

I can read fine. You posted, and I quoted:

"Cohen was sentenced to three years for several crimes that he committed for Trump. He was also found guilty of some of his own."

A plain reading of that is that the 3-year sentence was for the campaign finance violations, which were the only "crimes committed for Trump".

The "some of his own" were 5 counts of tax evasion and one count of bank fraud, combined could have carried up to 55 years imprisonment.

The 2 campaign finance charges each carried a 5-year max.

Fact is, about 15% of the sentence could be attributed to the "crimes he committed for Trump", and the remaining 85% was for the "some of his own".

Your post was an attempt to minimize the serious offenses because they were unrelated to Trump, and inflate the consequences of the campaign finance charges.

Because that's what TDS does to people like you...

Tut...tut. In other words, you tried and failed? Look, I could help you by breaking it down but then you will remain a retard. We don't want that, do we?

So, here is what you do... go back and read it a few times and read it a couple more times when you are done. You will eventually get it. Good luck and keep us posted on your progress, ok, sweetheart?

 

[John Edgar Slow Horses]

Lol. Pretty sure the jury can figure out that Cohen went to jail for tax evasion and bank fraud.

Bragg has done a pretty good job of showing that Cohen was the one who setup the payment and reimbursement schemes, and told Trump it was all under control.

And oh btw, I can decide whatever the hell I want to- it's not up to you, snowflake.

You can lie all you want, yes, and we know it is all lies and laugh at you. You are a dolt. Now dry your tears and act manly.

 

[para bellum]

Tut...tut. In other words, you tried and failed? Look, I could help you by breaking it down but then you will remain a retard.

No need. I broke it down already and showed your lie. You can do whatever you want, I could care less. Lie again, I might correct you again. See how that works?

My work is done.

 

[para bellum]

You can lie all you want, yes, and we know it is all lies and laugh at you. You are a dolt. Now dry your tears and act manly.

Poor snowflake, quote what you call one of my "lies".

 

[John Edgar Slow Horses]

Poor snowflake, quote what you call one of my "lies".

If you are not lying deliberately, then, oh my gosh, you are truly stupid and or ignorant. You crybaby.

 

[BackAgain]

You didn't have previous accounts? LOL

That’s not what a sock account is, you moron.

I have another usernames. But none at the same time.

Gos damn, you’re a stupid one, candyass.

Your blob has a losing streak going right now in court. Or haven't you noticed?

I don’t have a blob except maybe whales like you.

The balance of your nonsense is off topic and irrelevant, you dedicated twat rash.

On topic, now:

If it were credible and the jury chooses to buy it, the “important” testimony offered by scumbag Cohen let entirely in the contention that Trump and Cohen discussed paying for the NDA for the Ho and that the purpose was supposedly to help avoid damaging news during the “campaign.”

The sole support for Cohen’s claim in that regard is — his own word.

Cohen has said he lost his moral compass. Bullshit. He never had one to begin with.

 

[para bellum]

If you are not lying deliberately, then, oh my gosh, you are truly stupid and or ignorant. You crybaby.

So you have nothing, as expected. None of you guys can refute the arguments, all you can ever do is attack the poster. You are a child.

Bragg's case is a house of cards, and even the left wing talking heads on the networks recognize that. If Cohen has said anything in his testimony that wasn't already in his DOJ information, they would have made it out like some big revelation that seals the deal. But nothing of the sort has come out of his testimony.

These threads are about the case, and everyone here is free to comment on how they see it. None of us are going to impact the jury. So put on your big boy pants and deal with it.

 

[John Edgar Slow Horses]

So you have nothing, as expected. None of you guys can refute the arguments, all you can ever do is attack the poster. You are a child.

Bragg's case is a house of cards, and even the left wing talking heads on the networks recognize that. If Cohen has said anything in his testimony that wasn't already in his DOJ information, they would have made it out like some big revelation that seals the deal. But nothing of the sort has come out of his testimony.

These threads are about the case, and everyone here is free to comment on how they see it. None of us are going to impact the jury. So put on your big boy pants and deal with it.

You have your opinion, which is worthless. It's all worked out.

 

[para bellum]

If it were credible and the jury chooses to buy it, the “important” testimony offered by scumbag Cohen let entirely in the contention that Trump and Cohen discussed paying for the NDA for the Ho and that the purpose was supposedly to help avoid damaging news during the “campaign.”

And assuming the jury believes that Cohen was "only following orders", that still does not convict Trump, because every single witness with knowledge of it has confirmed that it was Cohen who worked out the details, and the charges are all about the details.

If they had something like a memo or recording of Trump saying "Make sure to split up the payments so they don't look like a settlement", or "Hey guys, I need some help with my campaign, can you pay off these women for me?"

Well, then they might have something that points to Trump. What they have shown is Cohen setup the meeting in August where he and Pecker pitched the idea to Trump, and Trump went along with it. Cohen informed Trump when the stories were brought to the National Enquirer, and Trump okayed the NDA's. And Cohen made the payoffs, and Trump reimbursed him.

None of that breaks any laws. What runs afoul of the law is when someone else pays the bill, like Pecker did. Cohen pled to the same thing. Imo that could have been challenged in court based on the reimbursement, but he made the decision not to challenge it, so he gets the conviction.