Trump has not committed a felony (this time)

[Galactic Spin]

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

Yet your failed arguments, if they were true, would mean the judge would dismiss the case at the first opportunity.

You've spent so much time in a backward think, your arguments have become incoherent.

 

[Buckeyes85]

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).

My bad. I missed the part in the OP when you dove into all 34 counts of the as yet unreleased indictment, demonstrating none of counts can be proven.

I'll read more carefully next time.

 

[Buckeyes85]

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.

This might be the dumbest thing I have ever seen you post.
You really think a NY District attorney, an elected position, would bring what no doubt will be the highest profile case of his career, and do so without a firm belief that he can obtain a conviction? Have you no clue how the position of DA works? Never mind. Your comment demonstrates you apparently do not know.

 

[Galactic Spin]

This might be the dumbest thing I have ever seen you post.
You really think a NY District attorney, an elected position, would bring what no doubt will be the highest profile case of his career, and do so without a firm belief that he can obtain a conviction? Have you no clue how the position of DA works? Never mind. Your comment demonstrates you apparently do not know.

It is, of course, absurd. But these are the bizarre delusions the human mind creates, as a coping mechanism.

 

[Buckeyes85]

It is, of course, absurd. But these are the bizarre delusions the human mind creates, as a coping mechanism.

I guess.

While I'm just a civil litigator, maybe I've been doing it wrong all these years. I should file more high profile suits whether I think I can win or not. Just for the publicity. What I lose per case, I'll make up in volume, right?

 

[Galactic Spin]

I guess.

While I'm just a civil litigator, maybe I've been doing it wrong all these years. I should file more high profile suits whether I think I can win or not. Just for the publicity. What I lose per case, I'll make up in volume, right?

Nothing says good press or a career builder like corruptly bringing a high profile, losng prosecution.

How have all of the geniuses not thought of this already?

We are truly blessed to be in the presence of such a brilliant poster.

 

[maxparrish]

Correct, he is not required under the law to identify what law was the basis for the felony charges in the indictment.

The basis though that the underlying crime was Cohen's as described in the Statement of Facts and it was Trump's action in aiding and concealing those crimes that facilitate raising 175.10 from a misdemeanor to a felony is described in the Statement of Facts.

(Now whether this will survive trial? I have no clue.)

WW

As we await the bill of particulars, which might be sometime, these are a nice summation of the "crimes" Cohen was convicted of:

Tax fraud​

The criminal information supplied by federal prosecutors charges Cohen with evasion of personal income tax from 2012 through 2016.
Number of counts: 5
Maximum prison sentence per count: 5 years
Maximum term of supervised release per count: 3 years
Maximum fine per count: $100,000, and a $100 “mandatory special assessment”

Making false statements to a financial institution​

Prosecutors charged Cohen with making false statements to a financial institution in connection with a credit decision from about February 2015 through about April 2016.
Number of counts: 1
Maximum prison sentence per count: 30 years
Maximum term of supervised release per count: 5 years
Maximum fine per count: $1,000,000, and a $100 mandatory special assessment

Unlawful corporate contributions​

Prosecutors charged Cohen with willfully causing an unlawful corporate contribution from about June 2016 through about October 2016.
Number of counts: 1
Maximum prison sentence per count: 5 years
Maximum term of supervised release per count: 3 years
Maximum fine per count: $250,000, and a $100 mandatory special assessment

Excessive campaign contributions​

Prosecutors charged Cohen with making an excessive campaign contribution on Oct. 27, 2016.
Number of counts: 1
Maximum prison sentence per count: 5 years
Maximum term of supervised release per count: 3 years
Maximum fine per count: $250,000, and a $100 mandatory special assessment

Looks like the case is very weak, it's a challenge to show that in 2017 when the book keeping entry was made how that was done with intent to cover for a crime already prosecuted...especially when the FEC already declined to prosecute Trump.

Here are the charges Trump's ex-lawyer Michael Cohen admitted to in federal court

Cohen was slapped with a $500,000 bail and received a Dec. 12 sentencing date at the hearing on Tuesday.

www.cnbc.com

 

[WorldWatcher]

Looks like the case is very weak, it's a challenge to show that in 2017 when the book keeping entry was made how that was done with intent to cover for a crime already prosecuted...especially when the FEC already declined to prosecute Trump.

Whether the case is "weak" or not will be up to the jury.

The FEC isn't responsible for violation of State Penal Codes.

(Personally I don't think the FDOTUS will be convicted, but this isn't about my personal opinions.)

WW

 

[maxparrish]

As we await the bill of particulars, which might be sometime, these are a nice summation of the "crimes" Cohen was convicted of:

Tax fraud​

The criminal information supplied by federal prosecutors charges Cohen with evasion of personal income tax from 2012 through 2016.
Number of counts: 5
Maximum prison sentence per count: 5 years
Maximum term of supervised release per count: 3 years
Maximum fine per count: $100,000, and a $100 “mandatory special assessment”

Making false statements to a financial institution​

Prosecutors charged Cohen with making false statements to a financial institution in connection with a credit decision from about February 2015 through about April 2016.
Number of counts: 1
Maximum prison sentence per count: 30 years
Maximum term of supervised release per count: 5 years
Maximum fine per count: $1,000,000, and a $100 mandatory special assessment

Unlawful corporate contributions​

Prosecutors charged Cohen with willfully causing an unlawful corporate contribution from about June 2016 through about October 2016.
Number of counts: 1
Maximum prison sentence per count: 5 years
Maximum term of supervised release per count: 3 years
Maximum fine per count: $250,000, and a $100 mandatory special assessment

Excessive campaign contributions​

Prosecutors charged Cohen with making an excessive campaign contribution on Oct. 27, 2016.
Number of counts: 1
Maximum prison sentence per count: 5 years
Maximum term of supervised release per count: 3 years
Maximum fine per count: $250,000, and a $100 mandatory special assessment

Looks like the case is very weak, it's a challenge to show that in 2017 when the book keeping entry was made how that was done with intent to cover for a crime already prosecuted...especially when the FEC already declined to prosecute Trump.

Here are the charges Trump's ex-lawyer Michael Cohen admitted to in federal court

Cohen was slapped with a $500,000 bail and received a Dec. 12 sentencing date at the hearing on Tuesday.

www.cnbc.com

The problem here is EVEN if a federal crime could be used to enhance a state charge, the prosecution needs to show that in 2017 the authorized book keeping entry and payment scheme was to cover for tax and credit charges on Cohen to which he has already admitted. That makes no sense.

As for the two latter election related contributions, its not even clear that those are actual crimes, let alone how an ex post book entry conceals them.

 

[Linuxcooldude]

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

Why wasn't it in the indictment?

 

[Lursa]

You may have missed the earlier hand-wringing from some that somehow this entire thread, begun on Saturday, was a waste of time because it was based on mere "speculation" about the charges. That has proven to be wrong. As could have easily been guessed, what was being widely reported was accurate because, most likely, both legal teams were leaking information to their friends in the media.

It wasnt proven wrong. Even those that 'guessed' correctly were still just guessing...as were all the professional legal experts until Bragg released the charges and Stmt of Facts.

I know you're trying to regain some self-respect here, but you didnt know any more than anyone else...you just speculated on what was available...and likely colored by what you 'hoped' would happen.

 

[Linuxcooldude]

This might be the dumbest thing I have ever seen you post.
You really think a NY District attorney, an elected position, would bring what no doubt will be the highest profile case of his career, and do so without a firm belief that he can obtain a conviction? Have you no clue how the position of DA works? Never mind. Your comment demonstrates you apparently do not know.

Appeal to authority argument. You totally underestimate the stupidity of liberal DA's to screw up cases based on political agendas. Agian I point out the Rittenhouse case had the DA's ass handed to him on such a sure fire win.
Under the stupid premise, they wouldn't bring such charges unless they knew what they were doing.

 

[maxparrish]

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

Yes. As far as the Trump people go, they would like it dismissed ASAP BEFORE it goes to trial. However, at the very least that would require well researched legal arguments as well as some level of refuting of any obvious factual errors.

This shouldn't take till December. August or September at the latest.

 

[Lursa]

The problem here is EVEN if a federal crime could be used to enhance a state charge, the prosecution needs to show that in 2017 the authorized book keeping entry and payment scheme was to cover for tax and credit charges on Cohen to which he has already admitted. That makes no sense.

As for the two latter election related contributions, its not even clear that those are actual crimes, let alone how an ex post book entry conceals them.

The only thing I really cared about was for there to be a single felony count to stick. Seems unlikely now or at best 50-50. I think it's probable he'll get misdemeanor convictions but who gives a shit?

 

[Linuxcooldude]

The only thing I really cared about was for there to be a single felony count to stick. Seems unlikely now or at best 50-50. I think it's probable he'll get misdemeanor convictions, but who gives a shit?

Aparently YOU do, as all you care about is a single felony count to stick.

 

[Lursa]

I am sure he'll make it in court. He doesn't have to tell the public anything. If I'm not mistaken, and I'm not a lawyer, he's not charging the tax felony charge, but rather using it as the intent to bump up the many misdemeanors. He has a few options.

I'd love for that to be true...and maybe it was presented to the grand jury to pursuade them?...but none of the legal expert talking heads in the media sounded particularly confident about this, and I was watching the more neutral and left-leaning channels. I've read a couple this am too.

 

[Lursa]

Aparently YOU do, as all you care about is a single felony count to stick.

Worthy retort, I am soundly chastened.

All I wanted was to keep that orange asshat out of the WH so misdemeanors are useless.

 

[Buckeyes85]

Appeal to authority argument. You totally underestimate the stupidity of liberal DA's to screw up cases based on political agendas. Agian I point out the Rittenhouse case had the DA's ass handed to him on such a sure fire win.
Under the stupid premise, they wouldn't bring such charges unless they knew what they were doing.

That is not an appeal to authority. It's a statement of why DA's might bring a case or why not. And your reference to the Rittenhouse case is just as dumb, perhaps dumber. Because the point I was countering was the suggestion that the DA is bringing the charges against Trump without even believing he has a winnable case.
You claim the prosecutors of Rittenhouse thought they had a sure fire win, but lost. So you are defeating the whole argument that DA's routinely bring cases they don't think they can win. They obviously thought they could win as does the DA in NYC.

 

[Linuxcooldude]

Worthy retort, I am soundly chastened.

All I wanted was to keep that orange asshat out of the WH so misdemeanors are useless.

Which wouldn't prevent Trump from being President, even if convicted as a felon. So all you have is your hatred for Trump.

 

[Linuxcooldude]

That is not an appeal to authority. It's a statement of why DA's might bring a case or why not. And your reference to the Rittenhouse case is just as dumb, perhaps dumber. Because the point I was countering was the suggestion that the DA is bringing the charges against Trump without even believing he has a winnable case.
You claim the prosecutors of Rittenhouse thought they had a sure fire win, but lost. So you are defeating the whole argument that DA's routinely bring cases they don't think they can win. They obviously thought they could win as does the DA in NYC.

Yes, it's called sarcasm. As I said before, don't underestimate the stupidity of liberal DA's to screw up cases based on political agendas.

 

[Lursa]

Which wouldn't prevent Trump from being President, even if convicted as a felon.

Much less likely. The more barriers the better, it's cumulative.

So all you have is your hatred for Trump.

Who denied that? I love that you had to put on your big boy pants just for me to try and score empty points on the obvious. I must really be 'somebody!'

 

[Linuxcooldude]

Much less likely. The more barriers the better, it's cumulative.



Who denied that? I love that you had to put on your big boy pants just for me to try and score empty points on the obvious. I must really be 'somebody!'

Yes, I'm well aware of your, "By any means nessicary."

 

[Lursa]

Yes, I'm well aware of your, "By any means nessicary."

*snicker* Take your time...craft something that's at least a decent attempt and spelled correctly. No need to get excited.

 

[Buckeyes85]

Yes, it's called sarcasm. As I said before, don't underestimate the stupidity of liberal DA's to screw up cases based on political agendas.

A DA screwing up a case is not the same thing as bringing a case even they don't believe they can win. Particularly one as high profile as Trump. I think it's patently ridiculous to believe Bragg would put his neck out by charging Trump if he didn't think he could win, or that he is likely to win. Losing such a case in its totality would likely be political suicide.
Will he win? I don't know. But I would bet the house that he believes he can win.

 

[Linuxcooldude]

Will he win? I don't know. But I would bet the house that he believes he can win.

So much so, he passed on it the first time. But as more stupidity sets in, he gets stupider and does it anyway.