That is only speculation at this point as it was not in the actual indictment and Bragg himself said he didn't have to say it by law.
Seems you're up on the legal aspects.They are shown in the Statement of Facts.
The crimes for which Cohen was convicted.
WW
Good luck with that. He and his lawyers have said just the opposite on numerous occasions. Having a convicted felon and serial liar as your star witness doesn't bode well.It does not have to be in the indictment, that will be argued later.
However, it was mentioned, it's in the Statement of Facts.
WW
Seems you're up on the legal aspects.
Who was reading these falisified records that was defrauded?
My bad, I thought you understood the law.I'm sorry that question doesn't make sense.
Obviously there were many people in the TO that were involved with the FDOTUS action and records. Then there were the individuals involved with the crimes. I'm sure investigators have read them. Same for the DA and the DA's staff attorney's. Probably the Grand Jury has seen them also as part of the evidence submitted. Accounting first that the TO used probably also read them - although they probably were not aware of the underlying meaning.
Those are the ones I can think of off the top of my head, there may be more.
WW
Good luck with that. He and his lawyers have said just the opposite on numerous occasions. Having a convicted felon and serial liar as your star witness doesn't bode well.
My bad, I thought you understood the law.
*to youWithout the crime he was suppose to cover up is not mentioned, the crime to cover up THAT crime by false buisness filings make no sense.
Then why was it in the statement of facts? You're not thinking this through.That is only speculation at this point as it was not in the actual indictment and Bragg himself said he didn't have to say it by law.
The law that your new hero Bragg used in all 34 counts. It requires there someone reading these "falisified" records be defrauded. Did you not read that source material?Depends on the law.
I just tend to go to source documents instead of listening to talking heads (both left, right, and FDOTUS) and try to actually read what is presented to the court.
WW
Next up:It's actually reading both documents, not speculation.
In the Indictment? He's correct.
The results are still the same though the FDOTUS will face further proceedings now.
WW
Then why was it in the statement of facts? You're not thinking this through.
LOLIt would be so much easier if people learned to actually read primary documents instead of getting information from talking heads on TV (left or right) or listening to the FDOTUS.
WW
I think everyone is in agreement on that.As far as in re: Stormy Daniels, based on what I saw on LegalEagle's YouTube channel, simply making a misstatement in your finances is a simple misdemeanor. Making a misstatement in your books with the intent to -commit another crime- is what makes it a felony in NY. So, Bragg will not only have to show that Trump fudged the numbers deliberately, but will also have to prove that he did so in the furtherance of a -different- crime.
(looking forward to someone challenging this view or debunking him)
It requires there someone reading these "falisified" records be defrauded. Did you not read that source material?
It requires there someone reading these "falisified" records be defrauded. Did you not read that source material?
Fair point but when Trump only surrounded himself with felons and serial liars, what other witnesses will ever be available to testify?Good luck with that. He and his lawyers have said just the opposite on numerous occasions. Having a convicted felon and serial liar as your star witness doesn't bode well.
??? "While there will likely be a fraud aspect to this" Likely? It's an element of the crime. I thought you read the source material?He's not my hero, don't know the man.
There is no requirement for you hypothetical person to (a) have to read the records, or (b) to be defrauded by the records.
The charge isn't "fraud" it's "falsifying". While there will likely be a fraud aspect to this, that will probably be more important later. Such as claiming "legal expenses" as a tax deduction that were not legal expenses but were non tax deductible payments as part of the hush money/NDA process.
View attachment 67443568
WW
Got it When someone hands you the shitty end of the stick, you grab it with gusto, rather than say "I'll pass"Fair point but when Trump only surrounded himself with felons and serial liars, what other witnesses will ever be available to testify?
Gotta' play the cards you're dealt.
Pointless analogy, but if you like it, so be it.Got it When someone hands you the shitty end of the stick, you grab it with gusto, rather than say "I'll pass"
I couldn't disagree more. I seriously doubt he believes a conviction is possible, and if he does, he's just being used by the Democratic leadership as their stalking horse.I am concluding that Bragg would not have done this if he didn't think he had a path to conviction.
So now you read minds and you are accusing Bragg of being a corrupt criminal. Oh, and also accusing the grand jury of either being ignorant of the law or also corrupt criminals.I couldn't disagree more. I seriously doubt he believes a conviction is possible, and if he does, he's just being used by the Democratic leadership as their stalking horse.
I simply commented on what was being reported in the media about the indictment, and what was reported has been proven to be completely accurate. I did try to tell you it would be, but alas, you would not listen (again).Rather comical question from the guy who started this thread claiming to know Trump had committed no felony, before the indictment had even been unsealed.
You're talking past the issue. The question is not whether Trump falsified business records; that is all but proven. The question remains is there a second crime that Trump attempted to cover up. At least so far, the answer seems to be no.lol, nope, wrong. Falsifying business records to cover up another crime is a felony. By the way, the statute does not limit this to either felonies or state crimes:
You're missing the point. Again, I'm arguing that a prolonged trial is exactly what the Democrats want.lol... No, this is entirely typical. That "next appearance" will basically be the start of the actual trial. A lot of work needs to be done by both prosecution and defense before then, including discovery, interviewing witnesses, researching legal arguments, and so on. Not to mention that Trump is well known for using excessive delays as a legal strategy.
If the trial was scheduled to start in June or even September, Trump's team would be screaming at the top of their lungs that they aren't getting sufficient time to prepare a defense.
But hey, any port in a storm, right...?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?