Trump has not committed a felony (this time)

[WorldWatcher]

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.

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

 

[Rawley]

They are shown in the Statement of Facts.

The crimes for which Cohen was convicted.

WW

Seems you're up on the legal aspects.

Who was reading these falisified records that was defrauded?

 

[Rawley]

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

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.

 

[WorldWatcher]

Seems you're up on the legal aspects.

Who was reading these falisified records that was defrauded?

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

 

[Rawley]

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

My bad, I thought you understood the law.

 

[WorldWatcher]

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.

Not as bad as you think when "Lawyer A" is coorborated via texts, emails, audio recordings, invoices, payment records, home loan records, shell corporation records, etc. And confirming testimony by other individuals involved like Pecker and Allen Weisselberg, the Trump Organization's former CFO.

Please continue to believe that after investigation the only thing that the DA bringing to the table is Cohen's oral testimony in the case against the FDOTUS.

WW

 

[WorldWatcher]

My bad, I thought you understood the law.

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

 

[Galactic Spin]

Without 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.

*to you

Others seem to be having no problem finding it.

 

[Galactic Spin]

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.

Then why was it in the statement of facts? You're not thinking this through.

 

[Rawley]

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

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?

 

[jnug]

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

Next up:
- Defense team has about 3 maybe 4 months to make pre-trial motions (this defense team actually asked that the next hearing date be Spring 2024)
- Likely to ask for a "Bill of Particulars" among other asks
- DA has about the same amount of time to respond
- No real surprises ....Bragg will answer them. His prosecution might take a bit of a trim based on rulings from the Bench. No chance IMO that it will be wiped out by pre-trial motions
- Next hearing date set for Dec 4, 2023

This again represents a difference between federal prosecution and state prosecutions with the states varying one to the next to some degree. Federal Prosecutors for all intents present the entire "Theory of the Case" at Arraignment when the Indictment is unsealed. This is not the same thing as presenting the entire case. No witnesses have yet appeared at Trial. There is no evidence that has at this point been admitted as it will be at trial. This is also one reason why so many federal prosecutions are settled before they get to trial. The Federal Prosecutor has presented the entire Theory of the Case at Indictment. As such it is often a very strong case, often iron clad and the Defendant and his attorneys can see it. Defendant may decide to to plead out and save the time and money.

DA's are not compelled to nor do they often present the entire "Theory of the Case" at arraignment in the charging documents (Indictment and Statement of Facts). They do have to fill in the blanks at some point before the start of the trial itself, generally done via a "Bill of Particulars.

 

[WorldWatcher]

Then why was it in the statement of facts? You're not thinking this through.

It 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

 

[Rawley]

It 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

LOL

 

[PoliSciPulse]

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 )

 

[Galactic Spin]

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 )

I think everyone is in agreement on that.

 

[WorldWatcher]

It requires there someone reading these "falisified" records be defrauded. Did you not read that source material?

He's not my hero, don't know the man.

It requires there someone reading these "falisified" records be defrauded. Did you not read that source material?

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.



WW

 

[Buckeyes85]

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.

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.

 

[Rawley]

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

??? "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?

"The defendant, in the County of New York and elsewhere, on or about February 14, 2017, with intent to defraud" If no one is ever going to read the falsified document, how can there be an "intent to defraud?"

 

[Rawley]

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.

Got it When someone hands you the shitty end of the stick, you grab it with gusto, rather than say "I'll pass"

 

[Buckeyes85]

Got it When someone hands you the shitty end of the stick, you grab it with gusto, rather than say "I'll pass"

Pointless analogy, but if you like it, so be it.

We shall see how the actual evidence plays out.

But while you are throwing Cohen under the bus as a worthless, lying felon scumbag, remember he was once a trusted confidant of your hero Trump. In his "inner circle"- privy to all the dirty secrets. Trump being the guy who promised to only hire the best people. That guy.

 

[NatMorton]

I am concluding that Bragg would not have done this if he didn't think he had a path to conviction.

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.

 

[Galactic Spin]

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.

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.

The grip Trump has on people's minds is so fascinating.

 

[NatMorton]

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.

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).

 

[NatMorton]

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 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.

 

[NatMorton]

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...?

You're missing the point. Again, I'm arguing that a prolonged trial is exactly what the Democrats want.