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

[Seymour Flops]

But isn't the intent to defraud, hiding Cohen's crimes by falsifying their business records on what he was reimbursed for....?

No. Incorrect on all counts. Concealing a crime may be illegal but it isn’t an intent to defraud, because it isn’t depriving anyone of anything.

Trump paid his lawyer and someone recorded it as a legal fee or a retainer. That’s what payments to a lawyer are called.

Did they not intend to hide Cohen's crimes?

Maybe Cohen did, but how can you prove that Trump had any idea that somebody might someday say that he was violating campaign finance law? Cohen was Trump‘s lawyer. Cohen relied on him to tell him what was legal and what was not.

Clearly, the DOJ did not say he violated federal campaign, finance law, nor did Bragg prosecute him for violating New York State campaign finance law.

 

[Crepitus]

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

You.

DERP

 

[Faun]

The first bar is Falsifying Business Records in the second degree. You cannot elevate the misdemeanor to a felony unless you can first prove the misdemeanor.

Penal Law Section 175.05
Falsifying business records in the second degree

A person is guilty of falsifying business records in the second degree when, with intent to defraud, he:

1.Makes or causes a false entry in the business records of an enterprise, etc....

It's elevated to a felony only if the intent to defraud includes the intent conceal another crime. The "another crime" cannot be the "falsification of records".

The only suggested crimes associated with the NDA's are AMI and Cohen's FECA violations, which Trump had no part in, and were not the purpose of the "catch and kill" plan.

But the DA is not arguing FECA violations as the underlying crime, he is arguing the never-used NY Election Law 17-152:

"Any two or more persons who conspire to promote or prevent the election of any person to a public office by unlawful means and which conspiracy is acted upon by one or more of the parties thereto, shall be guilty of a misdemeanor."

The "unlawful means" cannot be falsification of records. Trump was never charged with any FECA violations, and no other "unlawful means" have been offered to make "catch and kill" an illegal conspiracy...

The only thing Trump is guilty of, is overpaying a lawyer for shoddy and unprofessional work...

The only suggested crimes associated with the NDA's are AMI and Cohen's FECA violations, which Trump had no part in, and were not the purpose of the "catch and kill" plan.

And right there is where your whole argument crumbles.

Trump was very much involved. Cohen is going to testify Trump was involved. And while Cohen, by his own testimony, has no credibility, in this case, he has audio recordings backing up his claims where he and Trump are planning how they're gonna pay David Pecker.

 

[Seymour Flops]

Sorry Care4all you were being sealioned.

LoL! "sealioned." The accusastion from Democrats who are made uncomfortable by questions they cannot or will not answer. I hope Colangelo uses that during the defense's closing arguments, when they start listing all the elements of the crime that the prosecution failed to prove,

"Where is the person who was intended to be defrauded? How is calling a payment to one's lawyer a legal fee falsifying a record? What is the "another crime" that allowed the prosecution to indict long after the statute of limitations."

"Objection, Your Honor! Counsel is sealioning!"

Bragg isn't an AG (Attorney Genera, federal or state) he is a DA (District Attorney for the County of Manhattan).DA Bragg had/has no option to charged federal crimes, that is in the purview of the USA (United States Attorney's with the Department of Justice). He can charge New York State laws, not federal.It was a trick question.
WW

Responding to Care4all stating that New York has election laws as well and "that" was unlawful.

New York has election law as well, that was unlawful.

 

[Faun]

No. Incorrect on all counts. Concealing a crime may be illegal but it isn’t an intent to defraud, because it isn’t depriving anyone of anything.

Trump paid his lawyer and someone recorded it as a legal fee or a retainer. That’s what payments to a lawyer are called.

Maybe Cohen did, but how can you prove that Trump had any idea that somebody might someday say that he was violating campaign finance law? Cohen was Trump‘s lawyer. Cohen relied on him to tell him what was legal and what was not.

Clearly, the DOJ did not say he violated federal campaign, finance law, nor did Bragg prosecute him for violating New York State campaign finance law.

Cohen relied on Trump to tell him what was legal or not??

You know it was Cohen, not Trump, who was the lawyer?

 

[John Edgar Slow Horses]

Anyone who writes "Do you support the administration promoting and probably funding malicious prosecution of a political opponent" as a malicious twister of facts.

 

[Seymour Flops]

Anyone who writes "Do you support the administration promoting and probably funding malicious prosecution of a political opponent" as a malicious twister of facts.

The administration is clearing promoting it. Why else did Nathan Wade meet multiple times with the White House Counsel? Looking for another tax-funded sugar mamma?

I don't know about funding it, though.

 

[para bellum]

I try not to take straw men too seriously, and I am amused by mot supposed legal opinions from folks who are speaking from political agendas.

The case has made it into court -- which is more tan can be said for most MAGA arguments. On an anonymous message board you are parsing words and attempting some sort of legal defense of an accused criminal, acting as if your arguments are before the court. They are not.

Any parts of your personal opinions/arguments taken from the legal arguments made in court could simply be linked to and referenced, rather than have them posted and passed off as your own thinking.

You sir, are what's commonly referred to as a poser.

And there you go again, zero rebuttal.

Your own source refutes your claim, dipshit.

You have to show an intent to defraud someone, and that intent has to include the intent to conceal.

175.10 requires TWO intents.

Intent to conceal in itself, does not constitute intent to defraud.

The "unlawful means" in the election law 17-152 has to be something that is actually illegal. Absent that, the conspiracy itself would not be illegal. Removing that requirement, as Eisen was trying to do, renders the law meaningless.

His argument took one paragraph of a decision from a 100 year-old case and applied it completely out of context.

Eisen is like that. He's a DNC hack lawyer. He is the reason "Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors" is no longer needed to impeach a President.

Whenever I see his name on something, I know it's an attack on the Constitution and the rule of law.

 

[para bellum]

But isn't the intent to defraud, hiding Cohen's crimes by falsifying their business records on what he was reimbursed for....?

Well, the prosecution is saying the payments were split up like that to conceal their purpose...

Did they not intend to hide Cohen's crimes?

i.e. intent to conceal.

If not, then why did they reimburse Cohen in the manner they did, for $420,000 for the $130 k that Cohen paid stormy for the NDA?

Stormy cost Trump $420,000 and not just the $130,000.... Why?

The OP is asking the question- who did that defraud?

Which NY State gov't entity was that intended to deceive or confound?

 

[Dante]

Eisen is like that. He's a DNC hack lawyer. He is the reason "Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors" is no longer needed to impeach a President.

I'm sure you are misinformed, if informed at all about "High Crimes and Misdemeanors."

Now, from some of my old notes/research on that topic:

diminishing the authority of institutions conservatives liberals radicals

What does high crimes and misdemeanors mean 14th century textualism strict construction originalism

The Common Misconception About ‘High Crimes and Misdemeanors’

The constitutional standard for impeachment is different from what’s at play in a regular criminal trial.

By
Frank O. Bowman III

The Common Misconception About ‘High Crimes and Misdemeanors’

The constitutional standard for impeachment is different from what’s at play in a regular criminal trial.

www.theatlantic.com

 

[Dante]

Well, the prosecution is saying the payments were split up like that to conceal their purpose...

i.e. intent to conceal.

The OP is asking the question- who did that defraud?

Which NY State gov't entity was that intended to deceive or confound?

The OP is delusional because there is no "Who" required. Y'all keep misunderstanding the language.

Care4all gets it. Pay attention to her words, not what you imagine she is saying, but what exactly she is saying.

 

[John Edgar Slow Horses]

The administration is clearing promoting it. Why else did Nathan Wade meet multiple times with the White House Counsel? Looking for another tax-funded sugar mamma?

I don't know about funding it, though.

You are making things up you know nothing about.

 

[Toro]

 

[Weatherman2020]

The people, voters.

How exactly are taxpayers and voters victimized?

 

[John Edgar Slow Horses]

The OP is delusional because there is no "Who" required. Y'all keep misunderstanding the language.

Care4all gets it. Pay attention to her words, not what you imagine she is saying, but what exactly she is saying.

The Trumpets' conspiracy was to evade the law, which they did.

 

[Toro]

 

[Toro]

Keep on clinging, Trump cultists!

 

[para bellum]

The only suggested crimes associated with the NDA's are AMI and Cohen's FECA violations, which Trump had no part in, and were not the purpose of the "catch and kill" plan.

And right there is where your whole argument crumbles.

Trump was very much involved. Cohen is going to testify Trump was involved. And while Cohen, by his own testimony, has no credibility, in this case, he has audio recordings backing up his claims where he and Trump are planning how they're gonna pay David Pecker.

Except the prosecution is not making that argument.

He is not claiming "catch and kill" is a scheme to violate campaign finance laws.

Paying Pecker from Trump's personal funds would not have been illegal. Pecker, in effect, violated the campaign finance laws when he made the decision to not take the reimbursement.

 

[John Edgar Slow Horses]

Except the prosecution is not making that argument.

He is not claiming "catch and kill" is a scheme to violate campaign finance laws.

Paying Pecker from Trump's personal funds would not have been illegal. Pecker, in effect, violated the campaign finance laws when he made the decision to not take the reimbursement.

No. Don't give up your day.

 

[Dante]

You have to show an intent to defraud someone,

There is no "someone"

The prosecution is not claiming Mr. Trump defrauded somebody. You obviously have trouble understanding the indictment and prosecution's case so far.

there is your straw man.

keeper thread - keeper post