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

[toobfreak]

Incompetent comment:

Why, just because YOU claim they are, Rumpot?

Weasel words are weak as an argument.

But so seemingly fitting that you are a weasel.

Weasel words are generalizations rife with cheap shots, ad homs, loaded phrases, etc.

Yet these are the kinds of replies you attract. Rummy, why do I get the impression that you are a fat, old, musty dude who sits around for days smelling wearing the same clothes rarely showering? Just an impression your avatar gives. Much like your stinky, holier-than-thou attitude.

 

[dudmuck]

Then why didn’t they shoot it down before it even reached U.S. airspace?

that would violate international law, since we're destroying something that hasnt violated our airspace, and doesnt belong to us.

 

[dudmuck]

You still believe that spin!
HahahhahahahaahahahahahahhhahahahahahahahHhhhHAHAAaaa

we know you wanted the balloon to be taken down over land, so you could blame Biden for endangering our air traffic. And the who ever's property it landed on would forever become a hero of the right, for Biden damaged their property in some way.

 

[Lisa558]

that would violate international law, since we're destroying something that hasnt violated our airspace, and doesnt belong to us.

Then why not drop it over the barren area of Alaska? Or even the unpopulated areas of the mainland over which it flew?

No excuse to let your #1 foe spend a week taking photos of military installations - unless that foe had made your family rich and you want to cut them some slack.

 

[Cellblock2429]

View attachment 774550

Cellblock2429 - You flagged the above post as "Fake News". Sorry, Clinton was ahead of the Trump at the national level based on the average of many polls.

Not fake news.

WW

/——/ Fake News that the popular votes matters other than a news story.

 

[LAUGHatLEFTISTS]

we know you wanted the balloon to be taken down over land, so you could blame Biden for endangering our air traffic. And the who ever's property it landed on would forever become a hero of the right, for Biden damaged their property in some way.

Nope. That’s just your lame excuse for lying to yourself.

 

[LAUGHatLEFTISTS]

that would violate international law, since we're destroying something that hasnt violated our airspace, and doesnt belong to us.

Why not over Alaskan waters?

 

[dudmuck]

Why not over Alaskan waters?

Dalton explained that shooting it down over Alaska was deemed to be unviable as it would make recovering the high-altitude aircraft far harder and far less likely to yield strong intelligence.

"A key piece of this is the recovery," she said. "For us to be able to exploit and understand the balloon and its capabilities fully, if we had taken it down over the state of Alaska—which is part of the United States—it would have been a very different recovery operation."

Dalton noted that the water depths 6 nautical miles off the Alaskan and Aleutian coast fall quickly from 150 feet to 18,000 feet, and the freezing cold waters made a salvage operation "very dangerous". There was also ice cover in the waters, which would have complicated efforts to recover the balloon.

By comparison, the waters 6 nautical miles off the coast of Myrtle Beach—where the balloon was eventually shot down—range from 35-45 feet, according to the South Carolina Department of Natural Resources, and have a mean water temperature of 66.4 Fahrenheit, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration data shows.

 

[Flopper]

They are one and the same. The only conceivable harm to the campaign is the reputational damage to the candidate.

In what way was the NDA "saving the campaign" in your mind?

So basically you know it was a crime because it was Trump.

He made the payments to Michael Cohen to conceal the fact that Cohen made an illegal campaign contribution (the Daniels NDA).

Cohen's giving the money to Daniels for the NDA "saved the campaign". And Trump thought that paying Cohen back would conceal Cohen's campaign finance violation.

Did Trump win New York thanks to this "crime"? Who was defrauded?

If the hush money was over $2700 and the payment was intended to influence the election it's an illegal campaign contribution. The Trump $130,000 was an illegal campaign contribution. This is why hush money payments are illegal. It doesn't matter whether the results of the election were influenced or not and fraud is not the issue in this campaign violation. All Bragg has to do is convince a jury that the payment was not to protect the good name of Donald Trump but rather to benefit the campaign.

 

[Flopper]

The false business flings. They don't charge you with a crime for honest mistakes. You are only charged if you did so with an intent to defraud the State.

And if that intent to defraud the State includes committal/concealment of another crime, now it's a felony.

The McDougal hush money which was paid in 2016 to keep her story from being released could also be an underlying crime. In the indictment there were a number checks paid but not to Cohen. That could have been the payoff to suppress her story or something elses because there was no payee listed in indictment for those checks.

 

[Flopper]

It's all in the statement of facts that accompanies the indictment.

That's all it talks about.

Thanks. It looks like there are several crimes. I wonder if Bragg can tie all of them to falsified records charge.

 

[para bellum]

Thanks. It looks like there are several crimes. I wonder if Bragg can tie all of them to falsified records charge.

The DOJ and the previous Manhattan DA Cyrus Vance Jr. both looked at the NDA and concluded they couldn't call it a campaign finance violation. The SoF focuses almost entirely on the NDA, so based on that, I'd say Bragg has his work cut out for him.

Classifying the Cohen payments as legal expenses on the books might be tax evasion if Trump deducted the money as a business expense- but the SoF says he paid it from his personal account. Vance had his tax records, so I would guess that Trump probably didn't deduct the payments- Vance should have bounced on that if it was there.

Lots of inferences, not much in thge way of real evidence that I can see...

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

If the hush money was over $2700 and the payment was intended to influence the election it's an illegal campaign contribution. The Trump $130,000 was an illegal campaign contribution. This is why hush money payments are illegal. It doesn't matter whether the results of the election were influenced or not and fraud is not the issue in this campaign violation. All Bragg has to do is convince a jury that the payment was not to protect the good name of Donald Trump but rather to benefit the campaign.

This is why hush money payments are illegal.

They aren't.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

The McDougal hush money which was paid in 2016 to keep her story from being released could also be an underlying crime. In the indictment there were a number checks paid but not to Cohen. That could have been the payoff to suppress her story or something elses because there was no payee listed in indictment for those checks.

The McDougal hush money which was paid in 2016 to keep her story from being released could also be an underlying crime.

Why? Because not publishing is a campaign benefit?

 

[Lesh]

Thanks. It looks like there are several crimes. I wonder if Bragg can tie all of them to falsified records charge.

He doesn’t need to. Daniels is enough

The DOJ and the previous Manhattan DA Cyrus Vance Jr. both looked at the NDA and concluded they couldn't call it a campaign finance violation. The SoF focuses almost entirely on the NDA, so based on that, I'd say Bragg has his work cut out for him.

Classifying the Cohen payments as legal expenses on the books might be tax evasion if Trump deducted the money as a business expense- but the SoF says he paid it from his personal account. Vance had his tax records, so I would guess that Trump probably didn't deduct the payments- Vance should have bounced on that if it was there.

Lots of inferences, not much in thge way of real evidence that I can see...

So given all that, how was it that the DOJ prosecuted Cohen ?

 

[Lesh]

This is why hush money payments are illegal.

They aren't.

It certainly was in Cohan’s case

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

It certainly was in Cohan’s case

He must have made hush money payments a bunch of times. Only one was illegal?

 

[Lesh]

He must have made hush money payments a bunch of times. Only one was illegal?

That one got him convicted.

 

[Rumpole]

Cheers,
Rumphole

You're so cool!

Not a cool as you! Congratulations, you've earned it! I now have incontrovertible
evidence into which group you belong! Crack open a cheap bottle of Thunderbird, time to celebrate!

 

[OKTexas]

The indictment does show ALL the charges under which Trump was charged. They all stem from Section 175.10 of the New York State Penal Code on First Degree Falsification of Business Records.

WW

Well dummy, falsification of business records is a misdemeanor in NY "unless" it is done in the furtherance of a separate crime. The indictments hint at another, crime but doesn't name it. That's a violation of the 6th amendment.

.