The more I learn about the Trump trial the more I realize its all fraud and lies
| fluffy chapel | 05/14/24 | | violet racy theater stage factory reset button | 05/14/24 | | fluffy chapel | 05/14/24 | | Amber dashing pit | 05/14/24 | | curious bawdyhouse | 05/14/24 | | Milky Talking Associate | 05/14/24 | | flickering kitty | 05/14/24 | | irradiated step-uncle's house potus | 05/14/24 | | Amber dashing pit | 05/14/24 | | dark giraffe | 05/14/24 | | Razzle-dazzle Location | 05/14/24 | | sickened house | 05/14/24 | | Razzle-dazzle Location | 05/14/24 | | khaki stag film organic girlfriend | 05/14/24 | | irradiated step-uncle's house potus | 05/14/24 | | pink razzle boltzmann | 05/14/24 | | opaque private investor senate | 05/14/24 | | Harsh Stain | 05/14/24 | | swashbuckling cordovan plaza friendly grandma | 05/14/24 | | adventurous chestnut dog poop | 05/14/24 | | fluffy chapel | 05/14/24 | | Irate Athletic Conference | 05/14/24 | | cruel-hearted roommate | 05/14/24 | | fluffy chapel | 05/14/24 | | cruel-hearted roommate | 05/14/24 | | fluffy chapel | 05/14/24 | | cruel-hearted roommate | 05/14/24 | | fluffy chapel | 05/14/24 | | arousing federal church lettuce | 05/14/24 | | fluffy chapel | 05/14/24 | | flickering kitty | 05/14/24 | | fluffy chapel | 05/14/24 | | arousing federal church lettuce | 05/14/24 | | irradiated step-uncle's house potus | 05/14/24 | | flickering kitty | 05/14/24 | | irradiated step-uncle's house potus | 05/14/24 | | flickering kitty | 05/14/24 | | irradiated step-uncle's house potus | 05/14/24 | | flickering kitty | 05/14/24 | | irradiated step-uncle's house potus | 05/14/24 | | flickering kitty | 05/14/24 | | irradiated step-uncle's house potus | 05/14/24 | | flickering kitty | 05/14/24 | | Mind-boggling Know-it-all Brunch Liquid Oxygen | 05/14/24 | | irradiated step-uncle's house potus | 05/14/24 | | cruel-hearted roommate | 05/14/24 | | irradiated step-uncle's house potus | 05/14/24 | | Cyan idiotic market idiot | 05/14/24 | | fluffy chapel | 05/14/24 | | well-lubricated yellow crackhouse ceo | 05/14/24 | | fluffy chapel | 05/14/24 | | laughsome office | 05/14/24 | | Chrome Provocative Brethren Locus | 05/14/24 | | Odious bbw pozpig | 05/14/24 | | spectacular new version ticket booth | 05/14/24 | | vigorous lime chad | 05/14/24 | | fluffy chapel | 05/14/24 | | adventurous chestnut dog poop | 05/14/24 | | Shimmering nibblets stock car | 05/14/24 | | snowy lascivious dilemma twinkling uncleanness | 05/14/24 | | well-lubricated yellow crackhouse ceo | 05/14/24 | | cruel-hearted roommate | 05/14/24 | | Violent territorial hell | 05/14/24 | | kink-friendly glittery shitlib home | 05/14/24 | | fluffy chapel | 05/14/24 | | at-the-ready station people who are hurt | 05/14/24 | | irradiated step-uncle's house potus | 05/14/24 | | snowy lascivious dilemma twinkling uncleanness | 05/14/24 | | irradiated step-uncle's house potus | 05/14/24 | | Fiercely-loyal smoky temple pistol | 05/14/24 | | flickering kitty | 05/14/24 | | fluffy chapel | 05/14/24 | | sickened house | 05/14/24 | | Fiercely-loyal smoky temple pistol | 05/14/24 | | flickering kitty | 05/14/24 | | flickering kitty | 05/14/24 | | Violent territorial hell | 05/14/24 | | flickering kitty | 05/14/24 | | Violent territorial hell | 05/14/24 | | flickering kitty | 05/14/24 | | kink-friendly glittery shitlib home | 05/14/24 | | Heady red fortuitous meteor | 05/14/24 | | Fiercely-loyal smoky temple pistol | 05/14/24 | | flickering kitty | 05/14/24 | | Violent territorial hell | 05/14/24 | | flickering kitty | 05/14/24 | | khaki stag film organic girlfriend | 05/14/24 | | trip national background story | 05/14/24 | | well-lubricated yellow crackhouse ceo | 05/14/24 | | flickering kitty | 05/14/24 | | well-lubricated yellow crackhouse ceo | 05/14/24 | | flickering kitty | 05/14/24 | | flickering kitty | 05/14/24 | | fluffy chapel | 05/14/24 | | flickering kitty | 05/14/24 | | fluffy chapel | 05/14/24 | | flickering kitty | 05/14/24 | | well-lubricated yellow crackhouse ceo | 05/14/24 | | irradiated step-uncle's house potus | 05/14/24 | | pale nudist digit ratio | 05/14/24 | | Fiercely-loyal smoky temple pistol | 05/14/24 | | 180 bright french chef | 05/14/24 | | flickering kitty | 05/14/24 | | fluffy chapel | 05/14/24 | | laughsome office | 05/14/24 | | charismatic lay roast beef | 05/14/24 | | Violent territorial hell | 05/14/24 | | kink-friendly glittery shitlib home | 05/14/24 | | glassy university | 05/14/24 | | Amber dashing pit | 05/14/24 | | Big point gay wizard | 05/14/24 | | fluffy chapel | 05/14/24 | | flickering kitty | 05/14/24 | | Big point gay wizard | 05/14/24 | | flickering kitty | 05/14/24 | | Big point gay wizard | 05/14/24 | | flickering kitty | 05/14/24 | | Amber dashing pit | 05/14/24 | | Heady red fortuitous meteor | 05/14/24 | | Spruce high-end famous landscape painting school cafeteria | 05/14/24 | | Spruce high-end famous landscape painting school cafeteria | 05/14/24 | | Big point gay wizard | 05/14/24 | | Turquoise goyim address | 05/14/24 | | flickering kitty | 05/14/24 | | Violent territorial hell | 05/14/24 | | Big point gay wizard | 05/14/24 | | flickering kitty | 05/14/24 | | Big point gay wizard | 05/14/24 | | fluffy chapel | 05/14/24 | | flickering kitty | 05/14/24 | | fluffy chapel | 05/14/24 | | flickering kitty | 05/14/24 | | Violent territorial hell | 05/14/24 | | flickering kitty | 05/14/24 | | Violent territorial hell | 05/14/24 | | flickering kitty | 05/14/24 | | Violent territorial hell | 05/14/24 | | irradiated step-uncle's house potus | 05/14/24 | | irradiated step-uncle's house potus | 05/14/24 | | flickering kitty | 05/14/24 | | irradiated step-uncle's house potus | 05/14/24 | | flickering kitty | 05/14/24 | | irradiated step-uncle's house potus | 05/14/24 | | well-lubricated yellow crackhouse ceo | 05/14/24 | | irradiated step-uncle's house potus | 05/14/24 | | flickering kitty | 05/14/24 | | flickering kitty | 05/14/24 | | irradiated step-uncle's house potus | 05/14/24 | | flickering kitty | 05/14/24 | | irradiated step-uncle's house potus | 05/14/24 | | flickering kitty | 05/14/24 | | irradiated step-uncle's house potus | 05/14/24 | | flickering kitty | 05/14/24 | | irradiated step-uncle's house potus | 05/14/24 | | flickering kitty | 05/14/24 | | Violent territorial hell | 05/14/24 | | irradiated step-uncle's house potus | 05/14/24 | | irradiated step-uncle's house potus | 05/14/24 | | at-the-ready station people who are hurt | 05/14/24 | | irradiated step-uncle's house potus | 05/14/24 | | flickering kitty | 05/14/24 | | irradiated step-uncle's house potus | 05/14/24 | | flickering kitty | 05/14/24 | | well-lubricated yellow crackhouse ceo | 05/14/24 | | flickering kitty | 05/14/24 | | fluffy chapel | 05/14/24 | | flickering kitty | 05/14/24 | | fluffy chapel | 05/14/24 | | flickering kitty | 05/14/24 | | fluffy chapel | 05/14/24 | | appetizing area | 05/14/24 | | flickering kitty | 05/14/24 | | jet beady-eyed heaven gaping | 05/14/24 | | arousing federal church lettuce | 05/14/24 | | irradiated step-uncle's house potus | 05/14/24 | | arousing federal church lettuce | 05/14/24 | | irradiated step-uncle's house potus | 05/14/24 | | arousing federal church lettuce | 05/14/24 | | flickering kitty | 05/14/24 | | irradiated step-uncle's house potus | 05/14/24 | | flickering kitty | 05/14/24 | | irradiated step-uncle's house potus | 05/14/24 | | flickering kitty | 05/14/24 | | irradiated step-uncle's house potus | 05/14/24 | | flickering kitty | 05/14/24 | | irradiated step-uncle's house potus | 05/14/24 | | flickering kitty | 05/14/24 | | irradiated step-uncle's house potus | 05/14/24 | | flickering kitty | 05/14/24 | | irradiated step-uncle's house potus | 05/14/24 | | flickering kitty | 05/14/24 | | Thriller Codepig Dopamine | 05/14/24 | | flickering kitty | 05/14/24 | | Thriller Codepig Dopamine | 05/14/24 | | swashbuckling cordovan plaza friendly grandma | 05/14/24 | | Big point gay wizard | 05/14/24 | | flickering kitty | 05/14/24 | | irradiated step-uncle's house potus | 05/14/24 | | irradiated step-uncle's house potus | 05/14/24 | | Big point gay wizard | 05/14/24 | | well-lubricated yellow crackhouse ceo | 05/14/24 | | irradiated step-uncle's house potus | 05/14/24 | | trip national background story | 05/14/24 | | khaki stag film organic girlfriend | 05/14/24 | | Violent territorial hell | 05/14/24 | | irradiated step-uncle's house potus | 05/14/24 | | fluffy chapel | 05/14/24 | | khaki stag film organic girlfriend | 05/14/24 | | flickering kitty | 05/14/24 | | khaki stag film organic girlfriend | 05/14/24 | | flickering kitty | 05/14/24 | | Heady red fortuitous meteor | 05/14/24 | | aphrodisiac box office | 05/14/24 | | khaki stag film organic girlfriend | 05/14/24 | | glassy university | 05/14/24 | | khaki stag film organic girlfriend | 05/14/24 | | Heady red fortuitous meteor | 05/14/24 | | irradiated step-uncle's house potus | 05/14/24 | | Heady red fortuitous meteor | 05/14/24 | | irradiated step-uncle's house potus | 05/14/24 | | Heady red fortuitous meteor | 05/14/24 | | Bateful Set | 05/14/24 | | irradiated step-uncle's house potus | 05/14/24 | | fluffy chapel | 05/14/24 | | irradiated step-uncle's house potus | 05/14/24 | | fluffy chapel | 05/14/24 | | flickering kitty | 05/14/24 | | stimulating crotch preventive strike | 05/14/24 | | flickering kitty | 05/14/24 | | fluffy chapel | 05/14/24 | | fluffy chapel | 05/14/24 | | fluffy chapel | 05/14/24 | | stimulating crotch preventive strike | 05/14/24 | | citrine legend dragon | 05/14/24 | | fluffy chapel | 05/14/24 | | sexy zombie-like sandwich | 05/14/24 | | flickering kitty | 05/14/24 | | swashbuckling cordovan plaza friendly grandma | 05/14/24 | | flickering kitty | 05/14/24 | | fluffy chapel | 05/14/24 | | irradiated step-uncle's house potus | 05/14/24 | | flickering kitty | 05/14/24 | | irradiated step-uncle's house potus | 05/14/24 | | flickering kitty | 05/14/24 | | Razzle-dazzle Location | 05/14/24 | | flickering kitty | 05/14/24 | | appetizing area | 05/14/24 | | snowy lascivious dilemma twinkling uncleanness | 05/14/24 | | flickering kitty | 05/14/24 | | Big point gay wizard | 05/14/24 | | stimulating crotch preventive strike | 05/14/24 | | Concupiscible Jew | 05/14/24 | | fluffy chapel | 05/14/24 | | Concupiscible Jew | 05/14/24 | | fluffy chapel | 05/14/24 | | swollen milk | 05/15/24 |
Poast new message in this thread
Date: May 14th, 2024 12:03 AM Author: fluffy chapel
They literally cannot prove a crime occurred. The entire case is based on subjective opinion and hearsay. They don't have Trump anywhere saying, "Would you please pay off Stormy Daniels with my election money? I need her to keep quiet so I can win the Presidency. And definitely hide it so no one finds out. Make it a fake line item. I will sign off on this once it's done."
I mean... it's having to prove so many different subjective elements. It's so crazy. It's all interpretation. There's no factual basis for a crime and no legal basis. There's neither legal nor evidentiary basis of a crime. Not any. Who is the victim of the non-crime? The people of New York? Who were defrauded by the not fraud? Unbelievable.
(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5528327&forum_id=2#47659671) |
|
Date: May 14th, 2024 9:43 AM Author: flickering kitty
even if it should have come from the campaign, there is no evidence that trump directed it to come from his personal funds knowing that.
“I don’t know if you know but I tweeted about the payments,” Trump said in the "Fox & Friends" interview, pushing back. “But they didn’t come out of the campaign. In fact, my first question when I heard about it was, did they come out of the campaign, because that could be a little dicey. And they didn’t come out of the campaign and that’s big.”
He added: “But they weren’t .... that’s not even a campaign violation.”
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/trump-insists-he-learned-of-michael-cohen-payments-later-on-in-fox-friends-exclusive
if trump *knew* the funds were supposed to come from campaign funds, why would he go public saying that they came from his personal; funds as a defense? even if the funds should have come from the campaign, and trump directed they come from his personal funds, the evidence shows that he *thought* that was proper! there is no evidence that even if he directed them to come from his personal funds there was criminal intent!
(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5528327&forum_id=2#47660137) |
Date: May 14th, 2024 12:06 AM Author: Razzle-dazzle Location
It's easily one of the worst cases I've ever seen brought. Usually when there's a politically motivated trial it happens with the tiniest amount of an understanding that an actual crime has to have occurred. Here there's literally nothing.
I don't know why libs didn't just stick to the insurrection stuff. That was also basically flame but at least close to an actual crime.
(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5528327&forum_id=2#47659679) |
Date: May 14th, 2024 12:34 AM Author: cruel-hearted roommate
I was somewhat mocked for this and admittedly don't understand crim procedure, but i don't get how the fuck this this is in front of a jury?
What is the jury even deciding here? It seems like the facts are pretty clear, and the prosecution can't really even articulate what the crime is.
It's 100% going to be in appeals for decades over like 30 different issues with the prosecution's case. It seems crazy to have this "trial" now where it seems like the jury is just going to decide if they feel like Trump committed an undefined federal crime (because the NY AG can't charge that crime and doesn't seem to be even articulating what that crime is...)
(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5528327&forum_id=2#47659709) |
|
Date: May 14th, 2024 12:41 AM Author: cruel-hearted roommate
That's one of the huge issues for appeals.
The NY charges are actually a misdemeanor and the SOL has run out of them.
They need to show the fraud was part of a crime to get it to a felony - but they're relying on a federal crime to get the NY crime to a felony (otherwise the NY crime is outside the SOL).
This stuff is really a house of cards.
(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5528327&forum_id=2#47659717) |
|
Date: May 14th, 2024 1:42 AM Author: arousing federal church lettuce
Lol wtf
there is so much in here that is insane
so they are charging him with a felony connected to a misdemeanor that was never charged and for which the SOL has long passed?
Wouldn't that just allow a prosecutor in NY to charge a felony under this statute connected to a misdemeanor that occurred like 80 years ago? If the SOL has passed then there is no time limit.
Also, they have to show "intent to defraud"...who exactly is the one he is alleged to have defrauded?
(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5528327&forum_id=2#47659793) |
|
Date: May 14th, 2024 2:47 PM Author: flickering kitty
i'm not saying a person MUST be charged with a second crime. i'm saying that the only reason he's not charged with a second crime here is because they don't even have a singular theory on what that second crime is.
you discussed the NY election law as being a possible "second crime" below. so why wasn't he charged with that? if he did violate that law it is possible that he didn't misclassify his records to promote or conceal it. so why wouldn't they charge him with the object offense too?
answer the answer is obvious and the prosecution has pretty much just said it -- they're throwing everything at the wall and seeing what sticks. they want to show that trump attempt to violate some amorphous, undefined "second crime." but if they actually believed he misclassified the records in further of a second crime, they'd have a theory on what that second crime is.
(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5528327&forum_id=2#47661063) |
|
Date: May 14th, 2024 2:52 PM Author: irradiated step-uncle's house potus
"because they don't even have a singular theory on what that second crime is"
Just like with the RT case, they'll have to specify this crime and its elements in the jury instructions.
"the NY election law as being a possible "second crime" below. so why wasn't he charged with that?"
I don't specifically know, but there's neither a statutory or constitutional requirement to charge a defendant with every possible crime.
"if they actually believed he misclassified the records in further of a second crime, they'd have a theory on what that second crime is"
Pretty sure this will have to be in the jury instructions.
(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5528327&forum_id=2#47661081) |
|
Date: May 14th, 2024 3:04 PM Author: irradiated step-uncle's house potus
"which is why they didn't charge it"
You're just guessing here. A shorter statute of limitations on that offense would be one obvious potential answer, but there could be many other reasons.
I'm sure the Italian crime families were really mad that they didn't indict the Irish mob or whoever else, and probably felt like they were being picked on. It's not clear to me why a person should think that prosecutors should refrain from pursuing charges against people on the grounds that they're running for elected office. But FWIW, Bob Menendez agrees strongly with your position.
(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5528327&forum_id=2#47661111) |
|
Date: May 14th, 2024 5:52 PM Author: irradiated step-uncle's house potus
"they had ample time to press charges before the SOL tolled"
1. "tolled" isn't the word.
2. What is the SOL on those offenses?
3. On what date did they interview Cohen and learn the details he just testified to?
It's fine that you don't know 1, but unless you know the answer to both 2 and 3, you don't have any basis to make that assertion. Since you don't have any basis for that statement, you'll have to admit that you made it without knowing whether it was true, likely because you're mad that people are being mean 2 Trump.
(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5528327&forum_id=2#47661590) |
|
Date: May 14th, 2024 10:28 PM Author: cruel-hearted roommate
This is a stupid logically reason fail of an argument.
Capone could be charged for failing to apy taxes on his income. You don't need the second crime.
Here the prosecutors can't charge the misdemeanor becuase of SOL, they can only charge teh felony, which can only be charged if they have a second crime.
(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5528327&forum_id=2#47662328) |
|
Date: May 14th, 2024 2:49 PM Author: irradiated step-uncle's house potus
"so they are charging him with a felony connected to a misdemeanor that was never charged and for which the SOL has long passed?
Wouldn't that just allow a prosecutor in NY to charge a felony under this statute connected to a misdemeanor that occurred like 80 years ago? If the SOL has passed then there is no time limit."
This isn't actually unusual. For example the feds often bring RICO charges where the SOL on the underlying predicate acts has long expired.
(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5528327&forum_id=2#47661066) |
Date: May 14th, 2024 9:05 AM Author: Fiercely-loyal smoky temple pistol
I tried matching up allegation, offense and proofs with the defamation and NY Fraud trials.
None of it made any sense and all seemed like blatant overreaching. I haven't taken the time to do so with this hush money bullshit. At this point, I am just going to assume it's BS unless someone sits me down and proves that it isn't.
It all just kind of hammers home that our legal system is designed in a way that anyone who interacts with the world in any way is guilty of some offense so that if "they" want to get you, "they" can and will.
(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5528327&forum_id=2#47660017) |
Date: May 14th, 2024 9:16 AM Author: flickering kitty
the craziest thing about it is that even if they establish all the facts they are alleging they still lose. the indictment should have been dismissed.
even if trump personally directed for the money to come from his personal funds rather than campaign funds because he was trying to cover up the catch-and-kill scheme because he thought it was illegal, he still wins because that scheme was not illegal.
catch-and-kill schemes are not illegal. seeking to plug leaks of negative facts to influence and election is not illegal. id bet that nearly every campaign has attempted to suppress bad press in some way. whether he asked stormy not to talk about it or whether he paid her not to is irrelevant. you don't think every candidate in history has skeletons they've avoided getting public?
(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5528327&forum_id=2#47660051) |
|
Date: May 14th, 2024 9:46 AM Author: Fiercely-loyal smoky temple pistol
OK I know i said i wasn't going to do this.
Is it illegal for someone to pay another person to refrain from disclosing damaging information about a presidential candidate?
This is really the only thing that matters IMO.
Without the underlying crime, the "coverup" is just a minor internal accounting error, even if intentional, that would never in any other circumstance be prosecuted.
(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5528327&forum_id=2#47660151)
|
|
Date: May 14th, 2024 10:05 AM Author: flickering kitty
nope. according to the prosecutors they don't have to charge, or even allege, what the second crime was. which is insane.
how is a layman jury supposed to even know what a crime is? people have to go to law school to get a firm understanding of what is criminal. and even then most lawyers aren't campaign finance specialists. i'm a lawyer and i wouldn't be able to tell you what is or isn't illegal in campaign finance. how the fuck is a jury supposed to know?
i can't wait to see whether the jury instructions include what the prosecution is alleging as the second crime.
(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5528327&forum_id=2#47660196) |
|
Date: May 14th, 2024 11:21 AM Author: flickering kitty
"The People's response to defendant's request for a Bill of Particulars stated that the identification of
particular crimes that defendant may have intended to commit or conceal was "expressly without
limiting the People's theory at trial." People's Resp. to Def.'s Req. for a Bill of Particulars 5 (May 12,
2023) (citing People v. Barnes, 50 N.Y.2d 375, 379 n.3 (1980)). The People adhere to this express
reservation of rights here."
we can charge you with a felony and don't even have to tell you what we're accusing you of!
how the fuck can any thinking person agree with this? this is a major party candidate heading into an election. for all the lisping libs do about trump "destroying democracy." jesus christ.
(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5528327&forum_id=2#47660413) |
Date: May 14th, 2024 11:26 AM Author: glassy university
even with three or four lolyers on the panel, there is NO way this jury will comprehend what is necessary to apply facts to these laws and render a verdict.
this is a feature, not a bug, for the prosecution, because what the verdict becomes is "trump: yay or nay"
and they get to do it in manhattan
(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5528327&forum_id=2#47660428)
|
Date: May 14th, 2024 11:27 AM Author: Big point gay wizard
i dont see why shouldnt be a directed verdict for the defendant
prosecution hasn't introduced any evidence that "legal expenses" was an incorrect classification for the expenses in the financials, hasn't even specified a second crime that the alleged misclassification was meant to hide, let alone presented evidence that such crime was implicated. the whole case is just "look isnt this a bunch of shady shit" and hope for conviction. a travesty of justice.
(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5528327&forum_id=2#47660432) |
|
Date: May 14th, 2024 11:52 AM Author: flickering kitty
cr.
anyone that is basing their vote on "preserving democracy" should be voting for trump. it is absolutely stunning that libs justify shit like these baseless prosecutions and attempting to remove him from ballots with "we need to preserve democracy! trump is an authoritarian!"
to preserve democracy we must destroy democracy! we need to lock trump up and prevent people from voting for it because he's a bad dude! the people should not be able to vote for candidates we determine are bad!
(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5528327&forum_id=2#47660497) |
|
Date: May 14th, 2024 11:43 AM Author: Heady red fortuitous meteor
cr.
the term was "legal expenses" and not "attorneys fees." it clearly was a legal expense.
(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5528327&forum_id=2#47660480) |
|
Date: May 14th, 2024 12:23 PM Author: flickering kitty
the lib pumo is a retard and doesn't even know the prosecutor's theory.
no one is arguing that recording this as "legal expenses" was unlawful. obviously paying a lawyer to execute a legal agreement and reimbursing him for expenses are legal expenses. the argument is that this was structured as a retainer and paid out over time in order to disguise the repayment. and that the timing of the payments was unlawful.
this all might be true, but if anyone thinks trump was in the weeds on the accounting on this they are insane. and even if he was that it was done in this way to conceal the scheme itself. what, if he just recorded it as a lump sum people would have guessed it was a hush money payment? or if he recorded it as a lump sum for legal services in his campaign records? everyone knew cohen was trump's lawyer and so it would not raise any red flags to see payments to him.
also, all of this occurred in january 2017. you know, when trump was president-elect and scrambling to put an administration together? even under ordinary circumstances trump is obviously not in the weeds on accounting minutiae for matters under $1m, likely not ever. if you think he was in fucking january 2017 you are out of your mind. of course, this is the mind of people with TDS. although i think in their heart of hearts they know trump is innocent but are ok with him being convicted of anything regardless of whether he is guilty. they want to seem him hang and don't care how it happens.
(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5528327&forum_id=2#47660578) |
|
Date: May 14th, 2024 12:58 PM Author: flickering kitty
yes. and you'll see i clarified libpumo above pointing that out, he was arguing categorizing the payments as legal expenses period was the improper recording. the trump organization is likely guilty of the misdemeanor of misclassifying business records. that's not really in dispute.
what's the crux here is that this misclassification could not have done to promote or conceal a second crime, because there is no second crime. a catch-and-kill scheme is legal. operating a catch-and-kill scheme to prevent legal yet potentially damaging information from coming to light in order to influence an election is legal. this misclassification happened after the election anyway. so what is the second crime?
even if trump personally and knowing it was unlawful structured and recorded the payments in this fashion, what crime was he seeking to promote or conceal by doing so?
(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5528327&forum_id=2#47660699) |
|
Date: May 14th, 2024 1:08 PM Author: irradiated step-uncle's house potus
"the trump organization is likely guilty of the misdemeanor of misclassifying business records"
Sec. 175.05: "*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"
I gather they're alleging that Trump caused the false entries to be made.
"because there is no second crime"
You're just declaring that. I gather they're alleging that spending money to advance a political campaign while misclassifying it as a "legal expense" is a violation of some NY election statute.
"this misclassification happened after the election anyway"
Why would that matter? You can't amend your 2022 tax filing in 2024 with some false entries, but say "I made those false entries well after 2022."
"what crime was he seeking to promote or conceal by doing so"
I gather it has something to do with NY campaign/election law.
(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5528327&forum_id=2#47660745) |
|
Date: May 14th, 2024 1:17 PM Author: flickering kitty
except he's being charged under 175.10
§ 175.10 Falsifying business records in the first degree.
A person is guilty of falsifying business records in the first degree when he commits the crime of falsifying business records in the second degree, and when his intent to defraud includes an intent to commit another crime or to aid or conceal the commission thereof"
"I gather they're alleging that spending money to advance a political campaign while misclassifying it as a "legal expense" is a violation of some NY election statute."
it's clear at this point you haven't even done cursory research on this. but they need to establish a second crime. your circular argument here makes no sense. how can the misclassification itself be the second crime?
"Why would that matter?"
because one of the "second crime" theories is "unlawfully promoting a candidate", and so the misclassification could not have been done to promote trump since it occurred after the election
"I gather it has something to do with NY campaign/election law."
it's actually mostly theories involving federal campaign laws, which is why it's so funny you jumped all over doodikoff for asking about a federal statute.
(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5528327&forum_id=2#47660782) |
|
Date: May 14th, 2024 1:42 PM Author: irradiated step-uncle's house potus
"I gather they're alleging that spending money to advance a political campaign while misclassifying it as a "legal expense" is a violation of some NY election statute."
"it's clear at this point you haven't even done cursory research on this. but they need to establish a second crime. your circular argument here makes no sense. how can the misclassification itself be the second crime?"
I don't follow. The recordation is the 175.05 misdemeanor, and the crime that it "conceals" is a violation of some kind of election law.
"because one of the "second crime" theories is "unlawfully promoting a candidate", and so the misclassification could not have been done to promote trump since it occurred after the election"
I'm just guessing here, but I expect that campaign funding laws can be deemed violated by post-election book-keeping activities, just like tax laws can be violated by things you do after the tax year has passed.
"it's actually mostly theories involving federal campaign laws"
I got the NY notion from what that law professor wrote: "How would Trump even know about the obscure New York Election Law § 17.152 provision that he is being accused of intentionally concealing?"
(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5528327&forum_id=2#47660874) |
|
Date: May 14th, 2024 1:57 PM Author: flickering kitty
"I don't follow. The recordation is the 175.05 misdemeanor, and the crime that it "conceals" is a violation of some kind of election law."
the statute says ANOTHER crime. so if the misclassification violates a campaign finance law as well it's not relevant. you can use the misclassification as the ANOTHER crime just because it violates another law. not even the prosecution is arguing that.
"I'm just guessing here, but I expect that campaign funding laws can be deemed violated by post-election book-keeping activities, just like tax laws can be violated by things you do after the tax year has passed."
there is no doubt that the misclassification can be unlawful even though it occurred after the election. the issue is that it can't have been done to "promote a candidate" when it occurred after the election. note that no one is arguing that the catch-and-kill scheme was illegal, which is why they are quibbling with record violations.
"I got the NY notion from what that law professor wrote: "How would Trump even know about the obscure New York Election Law § 17.152 provision that he is being accused of intentionally concealing?""
that is one of the prosecutions theories but most rely on federal election laws. even in this NY statute they are arguing the "unlawful" element is satisfied by a violation of federal law.
(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5528327&forum_id=2#47660919) |
|
Date: May 14th, 2024 2:58 PM Author: irradiated step-uncle's house potus
"if the misclassification violates a campaign finance law as well it's not relevant."
I haven't read, but I assume the campaign finance violation isn't the recordation itself, but the submission of a report of some kind that is based on the falseness.
"can't have been done to "promote a candidate" when it occurred after the election"
I think the "promote a candidate" charge is alleged under a conspiracy theory, isn't it? If the conspiracy begins with an agreement to pay Stormy to promote the candidate and was carried through to the recordation, that's a very typical use of conspiracy theory in criminal charges.
(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5528327&forum_id=2#47661103)
|
|
Date: May 14th, 2024 3:05 PM Author: flickering kitty
"I haven't read, but I assume the campaign finance violation isn't the recordation itself, but the submission of a report of some kind that is based on the falseness."
they don't even know. they've thrown a bunch of theories against the wall. my question to you is whether *YOU* think trump is guilty and why or why not. you can pick one of the myriad of second crime theories the prosecution lays out. i don't think any of them hold water.
"If the conspiracy begins with an agreement to pay Stormy to promote the candidate and was carried through to the recordation, that's a very typical use of conspiracy theory in criminal charges."
no one is arguing that the payments to stormy or the catch-and-kill scheme was unlawful. that is why they are focusing on recordation violations. if the scheme was lawful, and the scheme was used to promote trump, how does recordation violations have been part of the conspiracy to promote the candidate considering they all occurred after the election?
(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5528327&forum_id=2#47661113) |
|
Date: May 14th, 2024 5:47 PM Author: irradiated step-uncle's house potus
"no, i have no read the jury instructions that have not been drafted yet"
Then you're like a child who walks into the room in the middle of movie, bleating "this movie doesn't make any sense!!"
"but i do know the facts and the law"
'I don't know either what the instructions say or the elements of the offenses, but I know THE LAW, goddammit!!'
(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5528327&forum_id=2#47661577) |
|
Date: May 14th, 2024 6:08 PM Author: flickering kitty
how do you think the prosecutors were able to create the indictments without jury instructions?
you're just copping out. you said you'd give me an answer at the outset, and now you're slithering away.
http://www.xoxohth.com/thread.php?thread_id=5528327&mc=235&forum_id=2#47660675
i know what charges trump has been indicted for. frankly, it doesn't matter what the second crime they're alleging because it's clear that trump isn't in the fucking weeds directing how small payments like this are structured and recorded, nor is he even aware of campaign finance laws to ever be able to form the requisite mens rea required here.
(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5528327&forum_id=2#47661637) |
|
Date: May 14th, 2024 1:02 PM Author: flickering kitty
fair re the OP
but you're off base with doodikoff's shit. first of all it's not really fair to make fun of him for asking a question considering he at least read the indictment.
but worse than that it seems like you're making fun of him for even thinking that a federal statute was violated. however the prosecution has explicitly laid out several federal laws as a hook for the "second crime." so, if that's the case, you're the one wrong here.
(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5528327&forum_id=2#47660714) |
|
Date: May 14th, 2024 1:14 PM Author: well-lubricated yellow crackhouse ceo
I mean, can you spell out the specific federal statute that was violated, or any other statute that makes this a felony? The indictment is somehow silent on that part. I can't find it anywhere else either, and in fact it was cited above the following (by the prosecution)
"In addition, there is "no requirement that the People allege or establish what particular crime was intended." People v. Mahboubian, 74 N.Y.2d 174, 193 (1989). Rather, the People need only establish "general intent to commit [or conceal] a crime . . . not [defendant's] intent to commit [or conceal] a specific crime." People v. Thompson, 206 A.D.3d 1708, 1708 (4th Dep't 2022); see also People v. Mackey, 49 N.Y.2d 274, 279 (1980)"
So yeah I am a dumbass so please help me out here.
(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5528327&forum_id=2#47660772) |
|
Date: May 14th, 2024 2:16 PM Author: flickering kitty
it's funny that libs always accuse trump of being a blithering retard. but this case would require him to be some super competent guy who was in the weeds directing how minor expenses were recorded. and have superior knowledge of campaign violence laws and accounting standards.
no one at his level is like this. this is what lawyers and accountants are for. i'm sure he said "yeah, pay cohen X." but there's no fucking way trump did directed specifically how it would be recorded, let alone that he directed in this manner with criminal intent.
after this shit came to light he went on fox & friends and bragged about how he recorded it as a personal expense. why would he admit that if the whole reason he recorded it that way was to cover up some other crime?
(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5528327&forum_id=2#47660979) |
|
Date: May 14th, 2024 1:02 PM Author: irradiated step-uncle's house potus
It'd take some time, but the general sloppiness of this fellow's writing suggests that his analysis is muddled also:
+"Section 175.05, in turn, provides that the defendant is guilty of a misdemeanor “if, with the intent to defraud, *you* make, or even cause through other means, a false entry in an enterprise’s business records.”"
+"Judge Marshan allowed the District Attorney to proceed"
+"So the misdemeanor requires proof of intent to “defaud,” the"
+"Despite Trump’s denials, the argument that Michael Cohen paid *$175,000* to Stormy Daniels on his own does not seem credible.
(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5528327&forum_id=2#47660715) |
|
Date: May 14th, 2024 1:46 PM Author: irradiated step-uncle's house potus
No silly I didn't quote the "wrong" statute -- a violation of 175.05 is a predicate of a 175.10 violation. That means we first need to see if 175.05 was violated. I was showing how a jury could believe that Trump "caused" the false entries in response to some pumo saying that only the Trump org could be guilty of the violation.
"when federal election violations are most of the prosecution's theory on what the second crime may be"
Do we know that's true? Can you link to a non-xo source? The law prof seems to think the second crime is something about NY election law.
(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5528327&forum_id=2#47660886) |
|
Date: May 14th, 2024 1:49 PM Author: flickering kitty
you quoted that when i was admitting that the misclassification may have occurred, which is why a conceded that the trump org may have violated 170.05. the issue isn't so much whether the misclassification occurred, it's the second crime elements of 170.10.
"Can you link to a non-xo source?"
yes, in the prosecution's opposition to dismiss i quoted above.
(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5528327&forum_id=2#47660893) |
|
Date: May 14th, 2024 2:52 PM Author: flickering kitty
good school. but why don't you respond here where we were debating this in substance:
http://www.xoxohth.com/thread.php?thread_id=5528327&mc=184&forum_id=2#47660919
i've already conceded for the purpose of this debate that trump may have directed this misclassification. the question i have for you is what, specifically, is the second crime that trump misclassified this to promote or conceal?
(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5528327&forum_id=2#47661083) |
|
Date: May 14th, 2024 2:54 PM Author: khaki stag film organic girlfriend
Fuck Bush v. Gore. THIS case is all u need:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/City_of_Chicago_v._Morales
Look at the mental contortions shitlibs ITT have to do to justify these charges. They are far more elaborate than anything Chicago was saying. This Georgia RICO statute is fuckin joke that's already going down in flames separate from anything to do with Trump.
(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5528327&forum_id=2#47661092) |
|
Date: May 14th, 2024 3:50 PM Author: Heady red fortuitous meteor
lol, McQuade? lazy trolling.
In 2017, McQuade became a regular contributor to MSNBC, initially commenting primarily on purported scandals related to President Donald Trump, though the range of topics she analyzes has become broader over time. Since 2021, she also co-hosts the #SistersInLaw podcast with Jill Wine-Banks, Joyce Vance and Kimberly Atkins Stohr.[9]
btw, she was one of the US Attorneys that trump fired.
(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5528327&forum_id=2#47661244) |
|
Date: May 14th, 2024 5:09 PM Author: flickering kitty
it's a matter of degree.
the federal documents case is a political prosecution, but there it's at least plausible violated the law in a very minor and never-before-prosecuted way. it would be like a cop who didn't like charging you for speeding for going 56 in a 55.
this is bullshit factually and legally, and it's broad overreach. it would be like a cop charging you for vehicular homicide when you were on a cruise.
(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5528327&forum_id=2#47661490) |
|
Date: May 14th, 2024 5:42 PM Author: irradiated step-uncle's house potus
Sure:
"a very minor and never-before-prosecuted way"
My friend John Edwards would like a word.
(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5528327&forum_id=2#47661573) |
|
Date: May 14th, 2024 5:58 PM Author: flickering kitty
first, i was referring to the federal classified docs case.
second, i seem to recall that john was charged with receiving hundreds of thousands of dollars in campaign donations that were used to fund his lover and child. not only was this case brought federally, where campaign finance violations are almost always brought, but is was that edwards was spending campaign money to fund his ex to keep the news from being leaked.
in this case, trump *DID* use his own money! yet for some reason people think that the money should have come from campaign funds in trumps case? i suppose if you pay a woman off using a campaign funds without an NDA it's illegal, but if you do it with an NDA is must come from the campaign? seems like a bullshit distinction, which is *probably* why a justice department willing to charge trump with stupid classified documents charges declined to charge him for any campaign finance violations.
seems odd you'd bring up edwards since the distinction between these two cases demonstrates further why the case against trump is bullshit.
(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5528327&forum_id=2#47661606) |
|
Date: May 14th, 2024 6:06 PM Author: irradiated step-uncle's house potus
Oh sorry, in that case my response is:
"a very minor and never-before-prosecuted way"
Since no POTUS has concealed classified docs in the way Drumpf did, one can hardly be surprised that it's not previously been prosecuted against a POTUS. But it's prosecuted against fed employees all the time, and without the courtesy of subpoenas and months of pleading.
(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5528327&forum_id=2#47661631) |
|
Date: May 14th, 2024 5:23 PM Author: flickering kitty
not through official channels.
the argument is that the whole classification system is based an executive order, therefore a former president cannot violate it for documents that entered his possession as POTUS. or that he can declassify them in any way he chooses, including just thinking it.
although he kind of fucked that potential argument because there is testimony he showed people some of them and was like "i could have declassified them, but i didn't"
(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5528327&forum_id=2#47661534) |
Date: May 14th, 2024 11:30 PM Author: Concupiscible Jew
they played a recording of him arranging to pay her off because it would hurt his 2016 prospects if he didn't. then he called it a legal expense (because lawyers always reimburse clients for legal services, obviously). that part is open and shut. the part about whether or not the $125,000 loan constitutes a felonious contribution because it exceeds the $5,000 contribution limit is also open and shut:
https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-11/chapter-I/subchapter-A/part-100/subpart-B/section-100.52#100-52
accordingly, he committed 34 felonies because he falsified business records to conceal a felony.
(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5528327&forum_id=2#47662441) |
|
|