Trump Has A First Amendment Right To Say The Election Was Stolen

[Flopper]

Flopper, here are the first two counts:

FIRST COUNT:

The defendant, in the County of New York and elsewhere, on or about February 14, 2017,
with intent to defraud and intent to commit another crime and aid and conceal the commission
thereof, made and caused a false entry in the business records of an enterprise, to wit, an invoice
from Michael Cohen dated February 14, 2017, marked as a record of the Donald J. Trump
Revocable Trust, and kept and maintained by the Trump Organization.

SECOND COUNT:

AND THE GRAND JURY AFORESAID, by this indictment, further accuses the
defendant of the crime of FALSIFYING BUSINESS RECORDS IN THE FIRST DEGREE,
in violation of Penal Law §175.10, committed as follows:
The defendant, in the County of New York and elsewhere, on or about February 14, 2017,
with intent to defraud and intent to commit another crime and aid and conceal the commission
thereof, made and caused a false entry in the business records of an enterprise, to wit, an entry in
the Detail General Ledger for the Donald J. Trump Revocable Trust, bearing voucher number
842457, and kept and maintained by the Trump Organization.

https://manhattanda.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/04/Donald-J.-Trump-Indictment.pdf

The rest are just the same. It's basically the same charge repeated almost verbatim 34 times. It doesn't say "made or caused to be made," it says "made and caused."

That seem pretty far-fetched.

It's a stretch to say that payments to a lawyer is not a legal expense.

When someone pays their lawyer or law firm, it isn't just for billable hours of work by the lawyer, but also copies, private investigators, court fees that the lawyer paid on behalf of the client, and any other way the firm either worked for or spent money on behalf of the client.

"Legal expenses" seems a reasonable description. How wo you even know that was what the entry said? The indictment does not support that claim.

If the entry said "purchase of classic Cadillac," but it was payment for the NDA, they might have a point. Again, if they could prove Trump made the entry.

Either 12 or 13 payments were made to Cohen by Trump that added up to the hush money payments made by Cohen plus his expense in funneling the money through shell corporations. These payments were recorded in Trump's check register as business legal expense beginning the month after the election and continuing thru Trump's 1st year in office. Cohen had spilled the beans back when he was facing federal charges. I don't remember any other record falsification. I guess they are somewhere in the indictment or Cohen's testimony. Possibly one fraudulent entry that covers up 3 crimes could be charged as 3 felonies, not one. That could explain all the felony chares.

Trump did not record any payments directly to Daniels because the whole purpose of the scheme was to hide the payments. Paying off whores and strippers can not be considered a legal expense. Had he just recorded the payments as a personal expense, there would be no case.

 

[billyerock123]

Conspiracy theorists?

That's funny. You come on here hyperventilating about insurrection, and can't handle it when someone doesn't see it your way.

Fact is, insurrection means something in a court of law, and for all your ranting, no one is charged with insurrection- and when I show you what it really means, you come unstuck.

When I post the lesser statute in this case, to show that it has legal elements to be met- look at post #1002 to illustrate the level of intelligence you guys are putting forward. It's so comical and juvenile. You guys can't carry on a coherent conversation- it devolves to ad homs in two posts max...

Don't ask a fucking question if you can't handle the answer!

another exaggeration from a right-wing liar ... you love to make shit up ...

 

[Flopper]

Conspiracy theorists?

That's funny. You come on here hyperventilating about insurrection, and can't handle it when someone doesn't see it your way.

Fact is, insurrection means something in a court of law, and for all your ranting, no one is charged with insurrection- and when I show you what it really means, you come unstuck.

When I post the lesser statute in this case, to show that it has legal elements to be met- look at post #1002 to illustrate the level of intelligence you guys are putting forward. It's so comical and juvenile. You guys can't carry on a coherent conversation- it devolves to ad homs in two posts max...

Don't ask a fucking question if you can't handle the answer!

Trump was charged with conspiracy to defraud the United States, conspiracy to obstruct an official proceeding, obstruction of and attempt to obstruct an official proceeding and conspiracy against rights. It is basically an election interference case.

Trump was charge with insurrection in Jan 6th House proceeding but it was discarded by Smith because he would have to rely on Trump’s speech the day of the riot to prove he was encouraging a riot. That kind of argument could face potentially tricky First Amendment issues. Even it that were not the case, Trump's inflammatory language might not rise to the level of encouraging a riot in the eyes of the jury. So Smith chose charges that would be much easier to prove even thou they did not provide the very severe penalty of insurrection.

 

[Seymour Flops]

Either 12 or 13 payments were made to Cohen by Trump that added up to the hush money payments made by Cohen plus his expense in funneling the money through shell corporations.

Yes, to cover the legal expenses of the NDA, exactly as they were recorded in the ledger. NDA's are perfectly legal. Maybe they should be banned, but until they are, they remain legal.

These payments were recorded in Trump's check register as business legal expense beginning the month after the election and continuing thru Trump's 1st year in office.

"Legal expenses" not "business legal expenses."

Cohen had spilled the beans back when he was facing federal charges. I don't remember any other record falsification. I guess they are somewhere in the indictment or Cohen's testimony. Possibly one fraudulent entry that covers up 3 crimes could be charged as 3 felonies, not one. That could explain all the felony chares.

There was no crime covered, which is why Bragg originally refused to prosecute this particular case, even though he had run on a promise to prosecute Trump.

Trump did not record any payments directly to Daniels because the whole purpose of the scheme was to hide the payments.

Yes, the purpose of an NDA is to maintain privacy about something. Stormy and Cohen would have missed the opportunity for self-enrichment if payment of NDA's had to be public.

Paying off whores and strippers can not be considered a legal expense.

Paying for an NDA is perfectly legal. Since it was arranged through the lawyer, it was a legal expense, same as paying off a lawsuit, or paying for copies billed by a law firm.

This is a desperate attempt to have Trump be stuck in a courtroom during the campaign season. One of several desperate attempts that finally worked.

Had he just recorded the payments as a personal expense, there would be no case.

There are other indikements that have nothing to do with Trump supposedly making entries in a ledger. There are cases because the Democrats, and some Republicans are afraid to run against Trump.

How is the prosecution going to prove that Trump even knew about the ledger entries, much less made them himself? What credible witness will testify to that?

 

[Faun]

Yes, to cover the legal expenses of the NDA, exactly as they were recorded in the ledger. NDA's are perfectly legal. Maybe they should be banned, but until they are, they remain legal.

"Legal expenses" not "business legal expenses."

There was no crime covered, which is why Bragg originally refused to prosecute this particular case, even though he had run on a promise to prosecute Trump.

Yes, the purpose of an NDA is to maintain privacy about something. Stormy and Cohen would have missed the opportunity for self-enrichment if payment of NDA's had to be public.

Paying for an NDA is perfectly legal. Since it was arranged through the lawyer, it was a legal expense, same as paying off a lawsuit, or paying for copies billed by a law firm.

This is a desperate attempt to have Trump be stuck in a courtroom during the campaign season. One of several desperate attempts that finally worked.

There are other indikements that have nothing to do with Trump supposedly making entries in a ledger. There are cases because the Democrats, and some Republicans are afraid to run against Trump.

How is the prosecution going to prove that Trump even knew about the ledger entries, much less made them himself? What credible witness will testify to that?

Paying someone to commit a crime, is a crime.

 

[billyerock123]

Trump was charged with conspiracy to defraud the United States, conspiracy to obstruct an official proceeding, obstruction of and attempt to obstruct an official proceeding and conspiracy against rights. It is basically an election interference case.

Trump was charge with insurrection in Jan 6th House proceeding but it was discarded by Smith because he would have to rely on Trump’s speech the day of the riot to prove he was encouraging a riot. That kind of argument could face potentially tricky First Amendment issues. Even it that were not the case, Trump's inflammatory language might not rise to the level of encouraging a riot in the eyes of the jury. So Smith chose charges that would be much easier to prove even thou they did not provide the very severe penalty of insurrection.

free speech isn't covered when violence is being charged ..in this case, it was considered iffy he was on the edge ... Special Counsel Jack Smith charged Trump with conspiracy to defraud the U.S., conspiracy to obstruct an official proceeding, obstruction of and attempt to obstruct an official proceeding, and conspiracy against rights. this was easy to prove ... insurrections would be more difficult to charge because of the 1st Amendment... not that they couldn't charge him with it but it was decided to not charge him with insurrection because of the difficulty ... he was totally guilty of the other charges so they went with them ...

 

[billyerock123]

Yes, to cover the legal expenses of the NDA, exactly as they were recorded in the ledger. NDA's are perfectly legal. Maybe they should be banned, but until they are, they remain legal.

"Legal expenses" not "business legal expenses."

There was no crime covered, which is why Bragg originally refused to prosecute this particular case, even though he had run on a promise to prosecute Trump.

Yes, the purpose of an NDA is to maintain privacy about something. Stormy and Cohen would have missed the opportunity for self-enrichment if payment of NDA's had to be public.

Paying for an NDA is perfectly legal. Since it was arranged through the lawyer, it was a legal expense, same as paying off a lawsuit, or paying for copies billed by a law firm.

This is a desperate attempt to have Trump be stuck in a courtroom during the campaign season. One of several desperate attempts that finally worked.

There are other indikements that have nothing to do with Trump supposedly making entries in a ledger. There are cases because the Democrats, and some Republicans are afraid to run against Trump.

How is the prosecution going to prove that Trump even knew about the ledger entries, much less made them himself? What credible witness will testify to that?

boy do you love to tap dance the facts ...not to worry he will get convicted that why trump is so panic
in court ... he knows he's in Bigly trouble ,,,

 

[Seymour Flops]

boy do you love to tap dance the facts ...not to worry he will get convicted that why trump is so panic
in court ... he knows he's in Bigly trouble ,,,

He may actually be convicted, but that’s doubtful. The prosecutor and the judge have done well in stacking the jury, but they need to be perfect and I doubt they did that. Trump and Trump supporters are way smarter than the DEI judge and the elected DA.

One holdout is all it will take and since the case is so weak, there will be several. That’s assuming the make it to deliberations with twelve jurors left.

In the incredibly unlikely event he’s found guilty, the judge will either fine him or give him a prison term and then suspend it pending appeal.

Trump behind bars is a fantasy for basement dwelling masturbators, not something intelligent people expect to happen.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Some of us are normal adults and prefer reading things that have words instead of pictures.

 

[billyerock123]

He may actually be convicted, but that’s doubtful. The prosecutor and the judge have done well in stacking the jury, but they need to be perfect and I doubt they did that. Trump and Trump supporters are way smarter than the DEI judge and the elected DA.

One holdout is all it will take and since the case is so weak, there will be several. That’s assuming the make it to deliberations with twelve jurors left.

In the incredibly unlikely event he’s found guilty, the judge will either fine him or give him a prison term and then suspend it pending appeal.

Trump behind bars is a fantasy for basement dwelling masturbators, not something intelligent people expect to happen.

Say what you want …the fact isn that this bastard is going to be shown on trial every day he goes to court … a n he really is and these maga fool might see the light … what he really is … that’s a narcissist basters… they will see that he could care less about anyone accept himself … you can say how hard it might be to convict … the fact remains there are 34 counts against him and they are all felonies … he’s going to jail …
the least charge felony will get him 4 years and that’s priceless do say what you want he’s going to jail he’s not going to be the next president the only thing he will become is a felon…

 

[Faun]

Say what you want …the fact isn that this bastard is going to be shown on trial every day he goes to court … a n he really is and these maga fool might see the light … what he really is … that’s a narcissist basters… they will see that he could care less about anyone accept himself … you can say how hard it might be to convict … the fact remains there are 34 counts against him and they are all felonies … he’s going to jail …
the least charge felony will get him 4 years and that’s priceless do say what you want he’s going to jail he’s not going to be the next president the only thing he will become is a felon…

I too believe it will be difficult to convict. This country hasn't been this divided since the Civil War. Getting 12 people to agree on conviction if the evidence proves he's guilty is near impossible if there's even one Trump supporter on that jury. I'm feeling like the most likeliest outcome of the trial will be a hung jury.

 

[para bellum]

Trump was charged with conspiracy to defraud the United States, conspiracy to obstruct an official proceeding, obstruction of and attempt to obstruct an official proceeding and conspiracy against rights. It is basically an election interference case.

Trump was charge with insurrection in Jan 6th House proceeding but it was discarded by Smith because he would have to rely on Trump’s speech the day of the riot to prove he was encouraging a riot. That kind of argument could face potentially tricky First Amendment issues. Even it that were not the case, Trump's inflammatory language might not rise to the level of encouraging a riot in the eyes of the jury. So Smith chose charges that would be much easier to prove even thou they did not provide the very severe penalty of insurrection.

Now we are conflating the second impeachment with the Special Council's investigation?

The House impeached Trump for "incitement of insurrection", which is a made-up offense (something that dems are very fond of, and which Trump was acquitted of in the Senate).

If you have a statement from Smith that says he didn't charge insurrection because of the First Amendment, I'd like to see it.

The rest of Smith's charges are about Trump challenging the validity of the election, which was his right (and he is not the first to do that).

Whether or not that case will move forward will be dependent on the SCOTUS.

 

[Flopper]

It’s obvious you haven’t been listening to the real news

Well if they would get a no vote they would have to say no on all 34 counts … good luck with that wishful thinking …

All counts are for violation of Penal Law §175.10 which makes it illegal to falsify business records. Each count is a different violation of this statue. Some of the counts were for violations on the same date. All the violations are for checks written to Cohen in 2017. I believe they were all recorded as legal expenses although I didn't see that in the indictment. Since each count is a separate violation, the jury would not have to vote the same on each count.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

The House impeached Trump for "incitement of insurrection", which is a made-up offense

But is a high crime all the same.

 

[Flopper]

Well I guess you haven't read the indictment and/or do not understand the charges. In which case your comments mean absolutely nothing...

The jury has an "all or nothing" choice. There is no real argument to be made for a partial verdict.

The only possible argument is if the jury thinks only one count is reasonable for each invoice- e.g. entering it is a crime but paying it is not (or vice-versa). In that case it would be 17 "guilty" and 17 "not guilty". Or that they would decide that the entirety of the charges should be encompassed in a single count.

Neither of those are very likely because the jury will probably not be given that option in the jury instructions.

It is also possible (and more likely) that they will find Trump guilty of the lesser offense of 175.05, due to the absence of a predicate crime. In which case it is just a bunch of misdemeanors, (and even 175.05 requires showing of fraudulent intent).

It's a garbage case that should never have been filed- the SDNY already pursued and abandoned it because no laws were broken beyond a violation of campaign finance accounting rules.

The prosecutor at his option can allow the defendant to plead guilty to a lessor charge. Otherwise, the jury will vote guilty or not guilty on each of the 34 counts since each count is a different violation of the same statue. There could be evidence introduced at the trial so jury would have reason to vote other than all or none, although I can't think of what that might be.

 

[para bellum]

The prosecutor at his option can allow the defendant to plead guilty to a lessor charge. Otherwise, the jury will vote guilty or not guilty on each of the 34 counts since each count is a different violation of the same statue. There could be evidence introduced at the trial so jury would have reason to vote other than all or none, although I can think of what that might be.

The prosecutor might be able to offer the reduced charge, but the misdemeanor is time-barred so yeah, Trump would have to agree to it.

There are 17 counts of the same charge for each AP and GL entry. They are all the exact same thing. I cannot imagine any evidence that would make one invoice okay and another one not okay, when they are all payments for the same reimbursement...

 

[Flopper]

Yes, to cover the legal expenses of the NDA, exactly as they were recorded in the ledger. NDA's are perfectly legal. Maybe they should be banned, but until they are, they remain legal.

"Legal expenses" not "business legal expenses."

There was no crime covered, which is why Bragg originally refused to prosecute this particular case, even though he had run on a promise to prosecute Trump.

Yes, the purpose of an NDA is to maintain privacy about something. Stormy and Cohen would have missed the opportunity for self-enrichment if payment of NDA's had to be public.

Paying for an NDA is perfectly legal. Since it was arranged through the lawyer, it was a legal expense, same as paying off a lawsuit, or paying for copies billed by a law firm.

This is a desperate attempt to have Trump be stuck in a courtroom during the campaign season. One of several desperate attempts that finally worked.

There are other indikements that have nothing to do with Trump supposedly making entries in a ledger. There are cases because the Democrats, and some Republicans are afraid to run against Trump.

How is the prosecution going to prove that Trump even knew about the ledger entries, much less made them himself? What credible witness will testify to that?

An NDA is a legal binding contract to prevent disclosure. That is not in question. Just like any contract, a lawyer creates and arranges execution and is due a fee for his services. That is certainly a legal expense. However, the funds exchanged between the parties of the contract are not legal expenses. I don't know what business expense category you enter paying off prostitutes' and strippers but it is certainly not a legal expense.

 

[Flopper]

The prosecutor might be able to offer the reduced charge, but the misdemeanor is time-barred so yeah, Trump would have to agree to it.

There are 17 counts of the same charge for each AP and GL entry. They are all the exact same thing. I cannot imagine any evidence that would make one invoice okay and another one not okay, when they are all payments for the same reimbursement...

Maybe the defense would argue that since the payments to Cohen were installments of what he owed Cohen for hush money payoff, 34 charges should be one charge. The prosecution would argue that there were 34 falsified business records and therefore there should be 34 charges.

It is interesting that "other crimes" committed by the defendant which made the falsifying of business records a felony are not mentioned in the indictment. Bragg did mention in a news conference attempts to violate state and federal election laws.

 

[para bellum]

Maybe the defense would argue that since the payments to Cohen were installments of what he owed Cohen for hush money payoff, 34 charges should be one charge. The prosecution would argue that there were 34 falsified business records and therefore there should be 34 charges.

I mentioned that possibility earlier, also the possibility that the AP and GL entries could be considered one payment, and therefore only one count rather than two. Then it would be 17 counts instead of 34.

But those are the only reasons I could think of that would permit something other than an "all or nothing" verdict.

It is interesting that "other crimes" committed by the defendant which made the falsifying of business records a felony are not mentioned in the indictment. Bragg did mention in a news conference attempts to violate state and federal election laws.

Yes, it's very interesting. I don't know how that has been allowed to stand. The "other crimes" are predicate to the felony charge, and are not specified in the indictment.

The defense does not know what "other crime" it is being accused of. You can't just charge someone and tell them "we'll tell you your crimes at the trial"...

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Trump is not being accused of the secondary crimes. Those are the crimes Cohen was charged with and convicted of.