Who Did Trump Intend to Defraud when he Allegedly Falsified Business Records?

[Seymour Flops]

It covered up Cohen's crimes, until Cohen was caught a year or two later...?

Intent not to be caught, my boy, intent.

None of that is intent to defraud, as required by THE LAW.

 

[John Edgar Slow Horses]

None of that is intent to defraud, as required by THE LAW.

Show us your J.D. degree and your appointment as a judge. You are a poseur, Sam, only a poseur.

 

[Rawley]

The people, voters.

The election was over when he "falsified" his business records.

 

[Seymour Flops]

Show us your J.D. degree and your appointment as a judge. You are a poseur, Sam, only a poseur.

I showed you the law.

Sorry that you don't like the law. But TDS does not put anyone above the law.

 

[Rawley]

It covered up Cohen's crimes, until Cohen was caught a year or two later...?

How did it "cover up" Cohen's "crime?"

 

[Rawley]

So Cohen committed the campaign finance law criminal offense and found guilty when charged a few years later....

Nope. It was a plea agreement. Huge difference.

And because Trump falsified his business records to conceal the commission of Cohen's crimes, the falsifying of his business records becomes a felony?

Is that how this is going to play out???

Prosecution is going to have to prove Trump thought it was a crime. How are they going to do that?

 

[Care4all]

None of that is intent to defraud, as required by THE LAW.

To aid or conceal the commission of another crime.... Is in this law as well, and that is the section of the law prosecutors seems to be going after...

 

[Rawley]

To aid or conceal the commission of another crime.... Is in this law as well, and that is the section of the law prosecutors seems to be going after...

And I'll ask again , how is the prosecution going to prove Trump thought it was a crime.

 

[John Edgar Slow Horses]

I showed you the law.

Sorry that you don't like the law. But TDS does not put anyone above the law.

You showed us nothing that proves your case. Your TDS is gobbling you with fear for Trump's fate. It should, you poseur.

 

[Care4all]

Nope. It was a plea agreement. Huge difference.

Prosecution is going to have to prove Trump thought it was a crime. How are they going to do that?

Well, I've read or heard on the news talk shows, that when Trump was running for President years back, or contemplating it ...he got in to some trouble with campaign finance law back then and was thoroughly informed by the FEC on how campaign finance law all works.... Apparently, he should have known....

But I agree with you, that has to be established by the prosecution, beyond a reasonable doubt, to win this case imo too!

 

[Seymour Flops]

To aid or conceal the commission of another crime.... Is in this law as well, and that is the section of the law prosecutors seems to be going after...

That has been addressed many times. Every element of the crime must be proven for a conviction. The "intent to defraud" piece is not even addressed in the prosecutor's case.

 

[Care4all]

Well, I've read or heard on the news talk shows, that when Trump was running for President years back, or contemplating it ...he got in to some trouble with campaign finance law back then and was thoroughly informed by the FEC on how campaign finance law all works.... Apparently, he should have known....

But I agree with you, that has to be established by the prosecution, beyond a reasonable doubt, to win this case imo too!

That has been addressed many times. Every element of the crime must be proven for a conviction. The "intent to defraud" piece is not even addressed in the prosecutor's case.

That's only for one of the reasons....I think he doesn't have to meet all....

Can you please post the law again if you can easily get to it, so I don't have to look for it? I've been bouncing around a few threads on this trial, and the good Lord knows a gazillion trillion posts to answer in my Alert thingy...and not certain if it was on this thread, or a different one?

 

[Seymour Flops]

That's only for one of the reasons....I think he doesn't have to meet all....

Can you please post the law again if you can easily get to it, so I don't have to look for it? I've been bouncing around a few threads on this trial, and the good Lord knows a gazillion trillion posts to answer in my Alert thingy...and not certain if it was on this thread, or a different one?

Certainly.

The prosecutino has to meet all the elements, or this is not a crime, it is a book keeping error, or difference in opinion.

 

[para bellum]

Who did Trump specifically intend to deceive and deprive when he allegedly called money he paid his lawyer "legal fees?" Who was the "another?"

Whenever you ask who was defrauded, the lefties always give the same answer.

EVERYONE!!!!!

The records are the equivalent of a personal checkbook ledger. They aren't used by anyone but the account holder to keep track of his spending.

The only person who was cheated was Trump. The repayment schedule that Weisselberg and Cohen worked up compensated Cohen $260K for a NDA he only paid $130K to acquire.

Trump let himself get talked into the scheme in that August meeting, and then left it to Cohen to handle the details. That was the mistake.

The money should have been deposited into, and paid to Daniel's attorney from Cohen's client trust account, and the only extra charge should have been the transfer fees.

Then no one has to worry about the taxes- the trust account does not belong to Cohen and the money in it is not his income.

Cohen should have provided an invoice for his services, with an accounting for the funds from the trust account.

Really, all 3 of them should have known better. There was nothing illegal about entering into an NDA, and no reason to try to obscure it.

 

[Seymour Flops]

Whenever you ask who was defrauded, the lefties always give the same answer.

EVERYONE!!!!!

They don't care whether Trump met the elements of a crime or not. They're just happy a porn star got to get on the stand of a court and describe Trump having sex wither her. She went to far implying it was somehow forced, and the prosecution had to talk her through walking her back.

Trying to explain the law in a GET TRUMP case to people with TDS is like trying to explain gravity and aerodynamics to Muslims who want to through a gay gender fluid person off a building. They're not listening and couldn't understand if they did listen.

The records are the equivalent of a personal checkbook ledger. They aren't used by anyone but the account holder to keep track of his spending.

The only person who was cheated was Trump. The repayment schedule that Weisselberg and Cohen worked up compensated Cohen $260K for a NDA he only paid $130K to acquire.

Trump let himself get talked into the scheme in that August meeting, and then left it to Cohen to handle the details. That was the mistake.

The money should have been deposited into, and paid to Daniel's attorney from Cohen's client trust account, and the only extra charge should have been the transfer fees.

Then no one has to worry about the taxes- the trust account does not belong to Cohen and the money in it is not his income.

Cohen should have provided an invoice for his services, with an accounting for the funds from the trust account.

Really, all 3 of them should have known better. There was nothing illegal about entering into an NDA, and no reason to try to obscure it.

I will always believe that Cohen and Avanatti were colluding, not adversarial.

 

[Care4all]

The election was over when he "falsified" his business records.

Of course, the crime was committed first, then he falsified his business records to cover it up.

Crime was in October 2016, falsifying records for the reimbursement crime began Jan. 2017....

 

[Rawley]

Of course, the crime was committed first, then he falsified his business records to cover it up.

Crime was in October 2016, falsifying records for the reimbursement crime began Jan. 2017....

Again, how is the prosecution going to to prove Trump knew COhen had "committed a crime?"

 

[Seymour Flops]

Of course, the crime was committed first, then he falsified his business records to cover it up.

Crime was in October 2016, falsifying records for the reimbursement crime began Jan. 2017....

The campaign finance "crime" that the DOJ declined to prosecute, set up the falsifying records "crime" that Alvin Bragg declined to prosecute? Is that what you're saying?

 

[Rawley]

The campaign finance "crime" that the DOJ declined to prosecute, set up the falsifying records "crime" that Alvin Bragg declined to prosecute? Is that what you're saying?

Nah. People have told her the theory is that Trump was covering up COhen's crime.

 

[Seymour Flops]

Nah. People have told her that theory is that Trump was covering up COhen's crime.

And she believed that?

Wow! That's pretty gullible.