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

[g5000]

Cohen was convicted of conspiring with his father in law to sell fake taxi medallions.

Nope.

In addition to the campaign finance violation, Cohen was convicted of concealing from the IRS income he received from the leasing of tax medallions he owns. They were not fake medallions.

 

[EvilCat Breath]

Nope.

In addition to the campaign finance violation, Cohen was convicted of concealing from the IRS income he received from the leasing of tax medallions he owns. They were not fake medallions.

I knew it was taxi medallions, with his father in law.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Why have your propagandists kept you people so in the dark? And why do you tolerate that?

It's a real mystery.

I don't have any propagandists.

 

[g5000]

I knew it was taxi medallions, with his father in law.

Cohen was not involved with his father-in-law's scheme. That was an entirely different case.

DocumentCloud

www.documentcloud.org

 

[g5000]

I don't have any propagandists.

You mean to tell me you came by all this ignorance about the case all on your own?

Because it sure does align with all the same ignorance spouted by a whole lot of other people these past few days!

 

[Rumpole]

Why is paying off a bimbo a violation? Of any law?

Ah, Toddsterpatriot, I see that you have raised an intriguing question regarding the implications of the alleged "bimbo payment."

You see, the crux of the issue does not lie solely in the act of paying off an individual for their silence. Rather, it is the alleged circumvention of campaign finance laws (thus affecting NY tax laws) and the subsequent falsification of records in an effort to conceal potential felony violations that brings the legal ramifications to the fore.

I hope this explanation has brought clarity to the complexities surrounding this case. I could go deeper, if you need a more robust explanation, but the indictment and the (SOF) Statement Of Facts explain it quite thoroughly.

Cheers,
Rumpole

 

[Rumpole]

We'll see. Only takes one New York small business owner on that jury to tank the whole prosecution. People hide shit as business expenses that aren't really 7 days a week be it their cell phone, their spouse's cell phone, xmas presents and such bought with company plastic, donations disguised as advertising expenses, etc etc etc. The fundamental problem they may face in this case is that the person who created the invoices weren't the Donald. They were the former lawyer who is a convicted felon who probably designed the whole scheme to begin with.

And this is what trials are for. Right, Dekster? Like you say, 'We shall see'. I'm' curious, myself.
Yes, there's always a potential for a hung jury. But, alas, Trump Org was indicted and CFO Weisselberg sits in Rikers.

It's possible that a unanimous verdict, one way or the other, is achievable.

Cheers,
Rumpole

 

[excalibur]

When can we expect felony charges against Hillary and her 2016 campaign and the DNC?

Federal campaign watchdog fines DNC, Clinton campaign over dossier spending disclosure

The conciliation agreements found “probable cause to believe” that both the campaign and national party “misreport[ed] the purpose of certain disbursements.”

www.politico.com

 

[Rumpole]

A mistrial would pretty much end Trump.

That's what you are counting on?

Unless they retry the case, methinks Trump would twist a mistrial as a 'full exoneration'.

 

[Rust_Cohle]

A mistrial would pretty much end Trump.

That's what you are counting on?

Please explain this one for the LOLZ

 

[excalibur]

campaign finance laws (thus affecting NY tax laws)

Federal law is being used by a local DA. Uh-huh. NY tax laws? Where is that in the indictment?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

You mean to tell me you came by all this ignorance about the case all on your own?

Because it sure does align with all the same ignorance spouted by a whole lot of other people these past few days!

Tell me how paying off a bimbo is a campaign related expense.

 

[westwall]

Ah, yes, so it appears that the Manhattan district attorney, Alvin Bragg, has been receiving quite a bit of flak for pursuing a case against none other than Donald Trump. However, I must say that upon closer inspection, the charges brought against Mr. Trump are anything but weak. In fact, the charge of creating false financial records is not novel and has been used time and time again in New York to prosecute individuals who create fake documentation to cover up campaign finance violations - precisely the accusation leveled against Mr. Trump, or rather, defendant Trump.

It's worth noting that the Manhattan D.A.'s office is hardly your run-of-the-mill local cog in the judicial system. Rather, it is unique, with jurisdiction over the financial capital of the world, which means the office regularly deals with complex white-collar crimes, including those involving high-profile individuals. Indeed, the office recently secured a conviction of the Trump Organization and a guilty plea from one of its top executives, Allen Weisselberg, on charges related to a tax fraud scheme.

Moreover, the books and records counts laid out in the charging papers against Mr. Trump are the bread and butter of the D.A.'s office. He is the 30th defendant to be indicted on false records charges by Mr. Bragg since he took office just over a year ago, with the D.A. bringing 151 counts under the statute so far. Indeed, the Trump Organization conviction and the Weisselberg plea included business falsification felonies.

The 34 felony books and records counts in the Trump indictment turn on the misstatement of the hush-money payment to Stormy Daniels arranged by Michael Cohen in the waning days of the 2016 election and the repayment of that amount by Mr. Trump to Mr. Cohen, ostensibly as legal expenses. There are 11 counts for false invoices, 11 for false checks and check stubs and 12 for false general ledger entries. This allegedly violated the false records statute when various entries were made in business documents describing those repayments as legal fees.

While Mr. Trump's case may be unique in its particulars, his behavior is not. Individuals have often attempted to skirt the disclosure and dollar limit requirements of campaign finance regulations and falsified records to hide it. Contrary to Mr. Trump's protestations, New York prosecutors regularly charge felony violations of the books and records statute and win convictions when the crimes covered up were campaign finance violations, resulting in false entries in business records to conceal criminal activity.

All in all, my fellow members of this illustrious snakepit and a few ladies and gentlemen, it seems that Mr. Bragg is hardly navigating uncharted waters. His actions are supported by previous prosecutions in New York and elsewhere, which have demonstrated that state authorities can enforce state law in cases relating to federal candidates. It remains to be seen what will come of this case, but one thing is certain - Mr. Trump cannot persuasively argue that he is being singled out for some unprecedented theory of prosecution. He is being treated like any other New Yorker would be with similar evidence against him.

And let the war begin, the war of words, that is.

Cheers,
Rumpole.

Opinion | We Finally Know the Case Against Trump, and It Is Strong (Published 2023)

There’s nothing novel or weak about Alvin Bragg’s case.

www.nytimes.com

For weeks, Alvin Bragg, the Manhattan district attorney, has come under heavy fire for pursuing a case against Donald Trump. Potential charges were described as being developed under a novel legal theory. And criticism has come not only from Mr. Trump and his allies, as expected, but also from many who are usually no friends of the former president but who feared it would be a weak case.

With the release of the indictment and accompanying statement of facts, we can now say that there’s nothing novel or weak about this case. The charge of creating false financial records is constantly brought by Mr. Bragg and other New York D.A.s. In particular, the creation of phony documentation to cover up campaign finance violations has been repeatedly prosecuted in New York. That is exactly what Mr. Trump stands accused of.
[theater.

No, it is a joke. As are you for thinking it serious.

 

[excalibur]

All NY allegations are barred by the SoL.

 

[excalibur]

Tell me how paying off a bimbo is a campaign related expense.

And this was massively more egregious, yet no felony charges.

Federal campaign watchdog fines DNC, Clinton campaign over dossier spending disclosure

The conciliation agreements found “probable cause to believe” that both the campaign and national party “misreport[ed] the purpose of certain disbursements.”

www.politico.com

 

[g5000]

1. Donald Trump has an affair with a Playboy playmate and another affair with a pornographic actress while his wife is at home with their newborn son. Apparently, the affair with the playmate lasted for an extended period. The porn star slept with him once but made several attempts to get him to put her on his game show. Trump spurned her requests.

2. In October 2016, an audio recording of Trump bragging about hitting on married women and grabbing the pussies of beautiful women the moment he sees them is released into the wild. Everyone but his most devoted handlers believe this is the end for his presidential aspirations.

3. At the same time the Hollywood Access tape is hitting the public consciousness, Trump's personal friend David Pecker, who is the CEO of AMI, the parent company of the National Enquirer, pays the Playboy playmate for the rights to her story of her sexual affair with Trump and buries it so it does not influence the election. Pecker has been capturing and killing stories embarrassing to Trump for some time. He also publishes stories meant to damage Hillary for Trump, like this one:

4. Donald Trump and his longtime fixer Michael Cohen collude to pay off the porn star for her silence in order to keep her story from influencing the election. Trump has very good reason to believe the Playboy playmate and the porn star can completely destroy his chances of being elected, what with the Hollywood Access already being a campaign dumpster fire.

5. Trump attempts to convince Cohen to put off paying the porn star until after the election, at which time he will be president and can tell her to fuck off. But Stormy Daniels isn't stupid. She knows she will have no leverage after the election.

6. Cohen keeps begging Trump to authorize the payoff as the election grows nearer and nearer. He also begs Trump to provide the money as he does not personally have $130,000 to throw at her. Trump blows him off, and Cohen ends up having to mortgage his house to come up with the money. Trump is notorious for his attempts to cheating everyone who works for him out of their money.

7. Cohen draws up an NDA for Stormy Daniels to sign upon receipt of her payoff. Stormy Daniels uses the pseudonym "Peggy Peterson" on the NDA, while Trump was to use the name "David Dennison" on the NDA. Trump never actually signs the NDA, which from the porn star's point of view makes it null and void.

8. This payment by Cohen to Daniels is the basis of his conviction for violating campaign finance laws. The payoff is an in-kind contribution to Trump's campaign as the intention of the payoff was to influence the election.

9. After he wins the election, Trump begins funneling a reimbursement to Cohen through the Trump Organization. Since the reimbursement is going to be falsified as a non-existent retainer, it will be taxed as income. So Trump reimburses Cohen the original $130,00, plus another $360,000 to cover fees and taxes, and an additional $60,000 for being such a good little lapdog.

10. The reimbursement is divided up into monthly $35,000 chunks to make them look like legitimate retainer payments, and this is where Trump falsified his business documents, and for which he is being indicted on 34 counts.

11. In January 2018, a year after Trump is sworn in, Stormy goes loud and wide about the affair with Trump. This is the first domino which leads to Cohen's conviction and Trump's current indictment.

I hope this catches everyone up.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

1. Donald Trump has an affair with a Playboy playmate and another affair with a pornographic actress while his wife is at home with their newborn son. Apparently, the affair with the playmate lasted for an extended period. The porn star slept with him once but made several attempts to get him to put her on his game show. Trump spurned her requests.

2. In October 2016, an audio recording of Trump bragging about hitting on married women and grabbing the pussies of beautiful women the moment he sees them is released into the wild. Everyone but his most devoted handlers believe this is the end for his presidential aspirations.

3. At the same time the Hollywood Access tape is hitting the public consciousness, Trump's personal friend David Pecker, who is the CEO of AMI, the parent company of the National Enquirer, pays the Playboy playmate for the rights to her story of her sexual affair with Trump and buries it so it does not influence the election. Pecker has been capturing and killing stories embarrassing to Trump for some time. He also publishes stories meant to damage Hillary for Trump, like this one:

4. Donald Trump and his longtime fixer Michael Cohen collude to pay off the porn star for her silence in order to keep her story from influencing the election. Trump has very good reason to believe the Playboy playmate and the porn star can completely destroy his chances of being elected, what with the Hollywood Access already being a campaign dumpster fire.

5. Trump attempts to convince Cohen to put off paying the porn star until after the election, at which time he will be president and can tell her to fuck off. But Stormy Daniels isn't stupid. She knows she will have no leverage after the election.

6. Cohen keeps begging Trump to authorize the payoff as the election grows nearer and nearer. He also begs Trump to provide the money as he does not personally have $130,000 to throw at her. Trump blows him off, and Cohen ends up having to mortgage his house to come up with the money. Trump is notorious for his attempts to cheating everyone who works for him out of their money.

7. Cohen draws up an NDA for Stormy Daniels to sign upon receipt of her payoff. Stormy Daniels uses the pseudonym "Peggy Peterson" on the NDA, while Trump was to use the name "David Dennison" on the NDA. Trump never actually signs the NDA, which from the porn star's point of view, makes it null and void.

8. This payment by Cohen to Daniels is the basis of his conviction for violating campaign finance laws. The payoff is an in-kind contribution to Trump's campaign as the intention of the payoff was to influence the election.

9. After he wins the election, Trump begins funneling a reimbursement to Cohen through the Trump Organization. Since the reimbursement is going to be falsified as a non-existent retainer, it will be taxed as income. So Trump reimburses Cohen the original $130,00, plus another $360,000 to cover fees and taxes, and an additional $60,000 for being such a good little lapdog.

10. The reimbursement is divided up into monthly $35,000 chunks to make them look like legitimate retainer payments, and this is where Trump falsified his business documents, and for which he is being indicted on 34 counts.

I hope this catches everyone up.

the intention of the payoff was to influence the election.

Anything that is intended to "influence" the election is illegal?

 

[Rumpole]

When can we expect felony charges against Hillary and her 2016 campaign and the DNC?

Federal campaign watchdog fines DNC, Clinton campaign over dossier spending disclosure

The conciliation agreements found “probable cause to believe” that both the campaign and national party “misreport[ed] the purpose of certain disbursements.”

www.politico.com

Indeed, excalibur, the cases involving former President Trump and Hillary Clinton's campaign have some similarities, but they are also different in key respects. Both cases involve allegations of misreporting financial transactions, but the nature of those transactions, the specific laws in question, and the jurisdictions involved are distinct. Here is a comparison of the two cases:

1. Nature of the transactions:
   • Trump: The indictment alleges that Trump falsified business records to conceal hush-money payments made to Stormy Daniels and Karen McDougal, which were intended to influence the 2016 presidential election.
   • Clinton: The FEC fine relates to misreporting payments made for opposition research (i.e., the Steele Dossier) by the Clinton campaign and the DNC.
2. Laws and regulations involved:
   • Trump: The charges in Trump's case involve alleged violations of New York state law, specifically the false records statute.
   • Clinton: In the Clinton campaign and DNC case, the issue involves alleged violations of federal campaign finance laws, specifically the Federal Election Campaign Act, which requires accurate disclosure of expenditures.
3. Jurisdictions:
   • Trump: The indictment against Trump was brought by the Manhattan District Attorney's office, a state-level prosecutor in New York.
   • Clinton: The FEC, a federal agency, was responsible for levying the fines against the Clinton campaign and the DNC.

As for why Hillary Clinton was not indicted in the same manner as Trump, it is essential to recognize that the legal standards and processes for imposing fines by a regulatory agency like the FEC are different from those required to bring criminal charges in a court of law. In the case of the Clinton campaign and DNC, the FEC determined that a fine was an appropriate remedy for the violations of federal campaign finance laws. The FEC's jurisdiction and authority are limited to civil enforcement of campaign finance laws, so it could not pursue a criminal indictment.

In Trump's case, the Manhattan District Attorney's office determined that there was sufficient evidence to bring criminal charges under New York state law for alleged falsification of business records. The decision to indict is based on the specific facts of the case, the applicable laws, and the discretion of the prosecuting authority.

It is worth noting that the outcomes of these cases are not necessarily final. Legal proceedings may continue, and further developments could arise as more information becomes available or as appeals are pursued.

While I cannot provide specific reasons for the decisions made by U.S. Attorney General Merrick Garland or the Department of Justice, there are several factors that could explain why a grand jury has not been empaneled to investigate Hillary Clinton and the DNC in the matter of misreporting payments related to the Steele Dossier:

1. Jurisdiction: The Federal Election Commission (FEC) is the primary agency responsible for enforcing campaign finance laws, including those related to accurate reporting of expenditures. The FEC investigated the matter and imposed fines on both the Clinton campaign and the DNC, which could be viewed as an appropriate resolution within the scope of their jurisdiction.
2. Criminality threshold: To bring criminal charges in a case like this, the Department of Justice would need to establish that the misreporting rose to the level of criminal conduct, rather than merely being an administrative violation of campaign finance laws. This would typically require proving elements such as intent to deceive, or that the misreporting involved significant amounts of money. In this instance, the FEC may have determined that the violations did not reach the criminal threshold, and therefore imposed fines as an appropriate remedy.
3. Resource allocation and prosecutorial discretion: The Department of Justice has limited resources and must prioritize cases based on factors such as the severity of the alleged crimes, the potential harm to the public, and the likelihood of successful prosecution. It is possible that the DOJ has determined that pursuing a criminal investigation into the misreporting of payments by the Clinton campaign and the DNC would not be the best use of their resources, particularly if the FEC has already addressed the issue through fines.
4. Statute of limitations: Depending on the specific legal provisions involved, the statute of limitations for certain campaign finance violations may have expired. If this is the case, it would not be possible for the Department of Justice to pursue a criminal investigation into the matter.

It is important to note that these are general factors that could potentially explain the absence of a grand jury investigation, and they may not necessarily reflect the specific reasoning or decision-making process of the Attorney General or the Department of Justice in this case.

However, if the above does not shed enough light on the question for you, you'll have to go above my paygrade, either ask a real lawyer (alas, I'm just a layman) or contact the DOJ, itself, and pray for a proper response.

Cheers,
Rumpole

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Nature of the transactions:

• Trump: The indictment alleges that Trump falsified business records to conceal hush-money payments made to Stormy Daniels and Karen McDougal, which were intended to influence the 2016 presidential election.
• Clinton: The FEC fine relates to misreporting payments made for opposition research (i.e., the Steele Dossier) by the Clinton campaign and the DNC.

The Dossier was intended to influence the election.

 

[g5000]

the intention of the payoff was to influence the election.

Anything that is intended to "influence" the election is illegal?

If you secretly make an in-kind contribution to a campaign, and it is not reported, that is a federal violation of campaign finance laws.