We Finally Know the Case Against Trump, and It Is Strong

[Lesh]

We both know the judge is prejudiced and in Manhattan, the jury will be 12 angry anti-Trump democrats who will convict Trump even with no evidence.

It is all going to appeals and a retrial, probably in upstate NY.

Ya know what this sounds like? It sounds exactly like Trump declaring a stolen election BEFORE the election happened because he knew he would lose

 

[Lesh]

So what is the applicable statute and why isn't it cited in the charging document?

175.10 and it is cited

 

[Cellblock2429]

Ya know what this sounds like? It sounds exactly like Trump declaring a stolen election BEFORE the election happened because he knew he would lose

/----/ You think Trump can get a fair trial in NYC?

 

[Lesh]

/----/ You think Trump can get a fair trial in NYC?

Yup

 

[HaShev]

I'm a Weissman fan, and I do not recall this conversation. Please supply a link. However, the OP is not about the property values litigation.

You are lost, this is not what the Bragg indictment is about.
Three things:
1. The statute of limitations for the charges in the indictment have not run out, due to NY 'tolling' law.
2. The enhancing crime has yet to be established, but two or three possibilities are listed in the SOF (statement of facts) none of which have anything to do with property value assessments but team Trump or anyone else.
3. The enhancing crime need not be a NY state crime, it could a federal crime, or a state crime from another state.
3. NY law has it that the enhancing crime (the crime that pushes a misdemeanor to a felony) does not have to be listed in the charging document. It is, expected, however, that the theory of the enhancement crime be listed in the SOF, which it is.

Pure speculation without correct foundation.

That makes no sense. The indictment charges have nothing to do with real estate assessments, and, in fact, are related to checks paid to Stormy Daniels for the ostensible purpose of covering up a campaign felony from the electorate,, the crime of which has already been established in the Cohen indictment, for which he was convicted and served prison time, and then there is the tax angle.

Completely irrelevant. See above.


You are utterly barking up the wrong tree.

Cheers,
Rumpole

There's no link because it was a public broadcast "voice" something TV interview just minutes before my post.
It was very propaganda political biased oriented because Weisman himself made some poor arguments and a stupid comnent that at 1 time inadvertantly admited Trump was not guilty.
I stoped reading your reply when you contradicted the law and medias own claims on the subject of needing to tie a felony that would make the statue of limitation void. And your comment admitted that hidden charge does not yet exist, that Bragg is letting them choose and see what baloney can stick to the wall. -epic fail

 

[para bellum]

175.10 and it is cited

That is the Falsification of Records charge. For the nteenth time, that cannot be charged first degree, unless the falsification was for the purpose of concealing another crime.

I asked what that other crime was.

You said:

"Exactly. Cohen pled guilty to a FELONY. That felony is what these state indictments claim Trump was trying to hide. That's a STATE felony"

My question is: What is the statute for this State felony that you say is the underlying crime? And why isn't that statute cited in the charging document?

At some point the DA will have to come up with an answer- he needs a "crime being concealed" to hang the first degree charge on...

 

[Lesh]

That is the Falsification of Records charge. For the nteenth time, that cannot be charged first degree, unless the falsification was for the purpose of concealing another crime.

I asked what that other crime was.

You said:

"Exactly. Cohen pled guilty to a FELONY. That felony is what these state indictments claim Trump was trying to hide. That's a STATE felony"

My question is: What is the statute for this State felony that you say is the underlying crime? And why isn't that statute cited in the charging document?

At some point the DA will have to come up with an answer- he needs a "crime being concealed" to hang the first degree charge on...

You answered your own question and regarding a stipulation in the indictment as to what other felony Trump was covering

Read this slowly


IT IS NOT REQUIRED UNDER NY STATE LAW

 

[Cellblock2429]

That is the Falsification of Records charge. For the nteenth time, that cannot be charged first degree, unless the falsification was for the purpose of concealing another crime.

I asked what that other crime was.

You said:

"Exactly. Cohen pled guilty to a FELONY. That felony is what these state indictments claim Trump was trying to hide. That's a STATE felony"

My question is: What is the statute for this State felony that you say is the underlying crime? And why isn't that statute cited in the charging document?

At some point the DA will have to come up with an answer- he needs a "crime being concealed" to hang the first degree charge on...

/---/ I bet every Trump hating lawyer in the DAs office is looking everywhere for that crime, and maybe they are creating one out of whole cloth.

 

[para bellum]

You answered your own question and regarding a stipulation in the indictment as to what other felony Trump was covering

Read this slowly


IT IS NOT REQUIRED UNDER NY STATE LAW

No, I asked you the question and you cannot answer it.

You tried to argue it was Cohen's felony that Trump was trying to aid or conceal by falsifying the records.

The absurdity of that could consume a thread all it's own, I left it alone.

I simply asked, which NY statute defines the crime Trump was concealing? That crime is an underlying requirement to charge someone under 175.10.

The requirement is spelled out in the text of 175.10 (the only crime Trump is charged with).

"§ 175.10 Falsifying business records in the first degree.

A person is guilty of falsifying business records in the first degree
when he commits the crime of falsifying business records in the second degree, and when his intent to defraud includes an intent to commit another crime or to aid or conceal the commission thereof."

You say you know the answer, but all you do is talk in circles. Just give me the statute number for the crime Trump was trying to conceal. The indictment does not tell us, or even describe the crime beyond some amorphous "interfering with an election" allegation.

 

[Lesh]

No, I asked you the question and you cannot answer it.

You tried to argue it was Cohen's felony that Trump was trying to aid or conceal by falsifying the records.

The absurdity of that could consume a thread all it's own, I left it alone.

I simply asked, which NY statute defines the crime Trump was concealing? That crime is an underlying requirement to charge someone under 175.10.

The requirement is spelled out in the text of 175.10 (the only crime Trump is charged with).

"§ 175.10 Falsifying business records in the first degree.

A person is guilty of falsifying business records in the first degree
when he commits the crime of falsifying business records in the second degree, and when his intent to defraud includes an intent to commit another crime or to aid or conceal the commission thereof."

You say you know the answer, but all you do is talk in circles. Just give me the statute number for the crime Trump was trying to conceal. The indictment does not tell us, or even describe the crime beyond some amorphous "interfering with an election" allegation.

Again you answered your own question.

 

[para bellum]

I bet every Trump hating lawyer in the DAs office is looking everywhere for that crime, and maybe they are creating one out of whole cloth.

Of course they are, they've been going after Trump for 6+ years.

The pathological way they have gone after him is incredible. They really can't sleep while he is still alive.

 

[para bellum]

Again you answered your own question.

Then tell me what my answer was.

I am asking for the statute that defines the crime that was allegedly being concealed. I didn't (and can't) cite it, because it's something I do not know.

You seem to think you know the answer, but you can't tell us.

Which leads me to believe you have no clue...

 

[Lesh]

Then tell me what my answer was.

I am asking for the statute that defines the crime that was allegedly being concealed. I didn't (and can't) cite it, because it's something I do not know.

You seem to think you know the answer, but you can't tell us.

Which leads me to believe you have no clue...

Look it up if you’re that curious.

It’s the statute that Cohen violated

 

[para bellum]

Look it up if you’re that curious.

It’s the statute that Cohen violated

It's not my allegation, it's yours. You look it up.

First you said the crime was concealing Cohen's crime, now you say Trump committed the same crime Cohen pled guilty to. Which is it?

Because I already told you, Cohen pled to a Federal crime, not a State crime. Trump was never charged with that crime.

Now you want to say Trump is guilty of it too, but there is a problem- he hasn't been charged or convicted of it. So the DA cannot use that, unless he charges and convicts Trump of the equivalent crime under NY State law.

I say it doesn't exist in State law- it's Federal Election Law. If it did exist in the NY Penal Code, Trump would have been charged with that crime too, and it would have been used in the indictment.

"The Plaintiff's Motion to Dismiss is granted"

 

[WorldWatcher]

I simply asked, which NY statute defines the crime Trump was concealing? That crime is an underlying requirement to charge someone under 175.10.

No where in Section 175.10 does it require that the illegal activity that was being aided in concealing be a New York State law.

Cohen's crimes were federal.

WW

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

hard J. Daley (former Mayor of Chicago): Convicted on charges of mail fraud and obstruction of justice in 1980.

Huh?

 

[Mr. Friscus]

I'm sorry, but you are ignoring the simple fact that a few ( not all, nor did I imply that) among Trump's base have sent threatening mail, voice mails, emails to prosecutors and election officials Trump has criticized, both repubs and democrats. The number is quite large, actually. What amazing me is the lack of concern by the likes of you, and your response are irrelevant whataboutisms.

BLM riots were not inspired by any US President, they were inspired by policy brutality ('perceived" police brutality, i'm NOT defending riots or violence). As such, the whataboutism is IRRELEVANT.

How very partisan of you.

I'm not. I'm 'empathizing', It's called putting yourself in someone else's shoes to understand them better.

Irrelevant.

Irrelevant.

The logic offered is sound.


I see nothing in your reply that remotely quells/rebuts/refutes the points I made.

Cheers
Rumpole

This is sad to see.

If you refuse to have your logical consistency tested by claiming “whataboutism” and “irrelevant”.. you unfortunately expose a desire to push an agenda here.. and don’t want to partake in any genuine organic discourse.

Until you allow your demanded standards to be questioned to expose possible bias (which is what we’re talking about)… what is even the point?

 

[Mr. Friscus]

Clinton was disbarred and impeached. The following democrats did NOT get a 'free pass', so your premise is flawed:

1. hard J. Daley (former Mayor of Chicago): Convicted on charges of mail fraud and obstruction of justice in 1980.
2. Daniel J. Flood (U.S. Representative from Pennsylvania): Pleaded guilty to a conspiracy charge in 1980.
3. Raymond Lederer (U.S. Representative from Pennsylvania): Convicted in the Abscam bribery scandal in 1981.
4. Harrison A. Williams (U.S. Senator from New Jersey): Convicted in the Abscam bribery scandal in 1981.
5. Mario Biaggi (U.S. Representative from New York): Convicted on charges of racketeering, bribery, and extortion in 1987.
6. Mel Reynolds (U.S. Representative from Illinois): Convicted on charges of sexual assault, obstruction of justice, and solicitation of child pornography in 1995.
7. James A. Traficant Jr. (U.S. Representative from Ohio): Convicted on charges of bribery, racketeering, and tax evasion in 2002.
8. William J. Jefferson (U.S. Representative from Louisiana): Convicted on charges of bribery, racketeering, and money laundering in 2009.
9. Rod Blagojevich (former Governor of Illinois): Convicted on charges of corruption, including attempting to sell Barack Obama's Senate seat, in 2011.
10. Chaka Fattah (U.S. Representative from Pennsylvania): Convicted on charges of racketeering, fraud, and money laundering in 2016.

Ah yes… Democrats have been caught in the past, so that means it’s impossible for any current Democrat corruption..

You don’t actually believe that this is a compelling argument, do you?

 

[para bellum]

No where in Section 175.10 does it require that the illegal activity that was being aided in concealing be a New York State law.

Cohen's crimes were federal.

WW

I agree, but Trump has not been charged or convicted with any violations of Federal law, and none are alleged in the indictment. And the DA does not have the jurisdiction to charge a Federal crime.

The DOJ's position was that the money that Cohen paid Daniels amounted to a campaign contribution, and Cohen failed to report it as such, and/or it exceeded the legal amount someone can contribute. That was his "crime".

That "crime" was never proved, there was no trial. Cohen pled guilty in the plea deal and received the sentence.

Trump was never charged with making illegal campaign contributions to himself, and reimbursing Cohen for the payment for the Daniels NDA wasn't illegal.

The most you can argue is that the payments were not a legitimate legal expense, and that's what the DA is basing the charges on. But that's only a misdemeanor...

Absent the "crime being concealed", and proof that concealment was the intent of the payments, there is no first degree falsification of business records.

 

[WorldWatcher]

I agree, but Trump has not been charged or convicted with any violations of Federal law, and none are alleged in the indictment. And the DA does not have the jurisdiction to charge a Federal crime.

Trump wasn't charged under Federal law. Trump was charged under Section 175.10 of the New York State Penal Code which is where the DA does have jurisdiction.

This whole idea that Trump's charges are in any way tied to the FEC or DOJ is - sorry - wrong. The charges are based on New York law.

The elevation to felony status is because of attempting to aid and conceal Cohen's federal crimes.

WW