Post New

<eom>

You beat me to it! I was just about to post this.

Guilty on all 34 counts! Unanimous!!!

A new fundraising opportunity for Don the Con.

Congrats, libs.
You just burned down the legal system. Hope it was worth it.

You just burned down the legal system.

Not even slightly. Trump committed crimes, and his station as former President and current nominee didn't shield him from being held accountable for those crimes. Rather than burning down the legal system, it has been vindicated.

It might be worth it to step back and maybe reconsider that the fact that the defense lost virtually every legal argument they made, and the fact that Trump was convicted, might - just might - mean that he actually did commit a crime and was validly convicted after being accorded due process before a jury of his peers. When you lose a trial (especially when you are well represented and have all the resources you need to mount a defense), it usually means that the prosecution actually did have a valid case against you. It's evidence that Trump did the thing, not evidence that the system has been "burned down."

Hahahaha. The NYT had a story all ready to go; it's like they pre-wrote it or something!

Just like the verdict :)

Congrats, libs.
You just burned down the legal system. Hope it was worth it.

How so?

Do you not believe in the rule of law unless you win?

Not even slightly.

Yes, very much. The "crimes" were bullshit and you know it.
You argue long and loud about intent on here about breaking the law. They never proved that Trump even knew about the payments, and yet we're supposed to believe he's guilty of 34 felonies?

Sure.

This case was a travesty from the get-go.

Allow me to spell out what the left has just done: You arrest our guys, we'll arrest your guys. That's the Pandora's Box the democrats just opened. Good luck.

That's the point.
This wasn't the rule of law.

I don't expect somebody like you to understand it.

You just burned down the legal system.

Give me a break. The legal system worked as it should.

OTOH, Trump did his best to burn down our system of free and fair elections and he's sure not done trying to do that.

You argue long and loud about intent on here about breaking the law. They never proved that Trump even knew about the payments, and yet we're supposed to believe he's guilty of 34 felonies?

What do you mean they never proved Trump knew about the payments? He signed the checks. There was eyewitness testimony - not only by Cohen but by Trump Org comptroller Jeffrey McConney - that Trump was aware of and signed off on the Cohen reimbursement plan. And McConney's contemporaneous notes of that meeting.

More than enough to prove knowledge of the payments, even if you ignore Cohen's testimony completely. And the jury always has the power to believe Cohen, if they felt his testimony was credible.

When you lose a trial (especially when you are well represented and have all the resources you need to mount a defense), it usually means that the prosecution actually did have a valid case against you. It's evidence that Trump did the thing, not evidence that the system has been "burned down."

In the sane world, that's the conclusion any reasonable person would come to. But in MAGAnistan, this "guilty on all counts" verdict will only serve to provide definitive proof to the "faithful" that the legal system is totally rigged against Trump, that the "fix was in" from the start, and that Biden had to have been behind this, and that Trump could never have gotten any other outcome in heavily Democratic Manhattan, NY. I see huge fundraising numbers in Trump's future.

They never proved that Trump even knew about the payments,

WHAT??

That is EXACTLY what they proved.

MAGA world is a crazy place to live.

What do you mean they never proved Trump knew about the payments? He signed the checks.

And the checks said "Pay off Stormy Daniels" (that's not illegal, by the way)? No they didn't.

Again, this was BS from the start.

So now it'll be up to this judge. I suspect house arrest for oh, something convenient to Biden like...the next 6 months to keep him off the campaign trail. Along with restrictions on what he can say publicly. After all, why not?

That's the point.
This wasn't the rule of law.

Of course it was. And Trump has a right to appeal under the rule of law.

I don't expect somebody like you to understand it.

Please explain how this wasn’t the rule of law.

Here's one thing you've just done.

1/2 the country - no matter what happens - will reject the results of the 2024 elections.

That's what you did. Congrats.

So now it'll be up to this judge. I suspect house arrest for oh, something convenient to Biden like...the next 6 months to keep him off the campaign trail. Along with restrictions on what he can say publicly. After all, why not?

ROTFLMFAO!!!!!

Trump won’t do a day in jail.

Trump won’t do a day in jail.

Re-read it, then understand

And the checks said "Pay off Stormy Daniels" (that's not illegal, by the way)? No they didn't.

But they had eyewitness testimony from the Trump Org comptroller that Trump was the one who signed off on the payment plan to Stormy Daniels. He had contemporaneous notes from that meeting where Trump and Weisselberg and Cohen agreed to the plan, where the payments to Stormy Daniels would be falsely treated as legal fees to Cohen - necessitating the "gross-up" to compensate Cohen for claiming those payments as income on his federal income tax forms rather than their true purpose.

Were you under the impression they didn't have proof that Trump did this? Or that it was just Cohen?

He had contemporaneous notes from that meeting where Trump and Weisselberg and Cohen agreed to the plan, where the payments to Stormy Daniels would be falsely treated as legal fees to Cohen

Oh, so they had a meeting where they all conspired to violate election law and wrote this down? Wow. Why wasn't that trumpeted as the Smoking Gun?

Here's one thing you've just done.

1/2 the country - no matter what happens - will reject the results of the 2024 elections.

That portion of the country (it will be less than half) was going to do that anyway, just like they did the 2020 elections. The GOP will be out there telling them that any election Trump loses was rigged - whether it was or not - and a big chunk of the electorate will believe it.

Oh, so they had a meeting where they all conspired to violate election law and wrote this down? Wow. Why wasn't that trumpeted as the Smoking Gun?

It was! It was a key piece of evidence! Cohen testified about that meeting at length! It's part of the reason that Cohen went to jail!

That portion of the country (it will be less than half) was going to do that anyway, just like they did the 2020 elections. The GOP will be out there telling them that any election Trump loses was rigged - whether it was or not - and a big chunk of the electorate will believe it.

Not like this. Not even close.
And what happens...if Trump wins?

Do you think the left doesn't riot?

Not like this. Not even close.
And what happens...if Trump wins?

Do you think the left doesn't riot?

Nope. They'll protest and complain and redouble their efforts to Resist. But they won't riot.

It was! It was a key piece of evidence! Cohen testified about that meeting at length! It's part of the reason that Cohen went to jail!

You just said the other guy was the one testifying to this, not Cohen.

At any rate:
https://pjmedia.com/victoria-taft/2024/05/30/the-j...

If the five-woman, seven-man jury doesn't find Donald Trump guilty of the alleged bookkeeping mistakes, it will be a miracle. This is because the 55-page final jury instructions that attorneys saw only moments before the judge read them in court on Wednesday is a "directed verdict" to Trump's guilt. That's it. That's why an uncharacteristically somber Trump announced that even "Mother Teresa couldn't beat these charges." See his comments below.
...
As I've said, jury instructions are key to understanding what the chances are of an acquittal or hung jury.

The most bizarre and worrisome thing about these instructions to the jury is that the judge gave jurors an a la carte menu of three choices — three crimes on which jurors may decide for themselves, individually, not unanimously what they think were Trump's motivations for making 34 bookkeeping notations. All Trump's complicity involves, and I'm not making this up, is if he may have been motivated to win the 2016 election, which means they can conclude he's guilty of a federal or state campaign law, or that he violated a tax law, for which there was no evidence offered.

...The only thing they must agree unanimously on are the 34 charged indictments. Prosecutors have hidden the ball on these predicate crime options since they were announced. But one of Alvin Bragg's theories was alluded to in his accompanying letter to the charges. And it's why, the Trump team tried to put on expert witness Brad Smith, who was the former head of the Federal Elections Commission. Smith was to explain why Trump's legal payments to Michael Cohen weren't campaign expenses and why he, as the chairman of the FEC, turned down the request to jack up Trump on charges for them.

Nope. They'll protest and complain and redouble their efforts to Resist. But they won't riot.

LOLOLOLOL. They rioted last time. They'd riot this time.

Albaby, in general, what’s the odds of winning an appeal in this type of ordinary case? Thanks.

The most bizarre and worrisome thing about these instructions to the jury is that the judge gave jurors an a la carte menu of three choices — three crimes on which jurors may decide for themselves, individually, not unanimously what they think were Trump's motivations for making 34 bookkeeping notations. All Trump's complicity involves, and I'm not making this up, is if he may have been motivated to win the 2016 election, which means they can conclude he's guilty of a federal or state campaign law, or that he violated a tax law, for which there was no evidence offered.

Why is that bizarre and worrisome? As I noted in the other thread, this is what New York criminal law provides - jurors do not need to be unanimous on predicate crimes. Regardless of whether you think that they should be, that's not the law in New York.

As for the rest of this, it's nonsense. The jury wasn't required to find only that he was motivated to win the election - they had to find affirmatively that he intended to violate FECA. It might help to read the actual jury instructions for yourself:

https://static01.nyt.com/newsgraphics/documenttool...

They rioted last time.

Can you post a link to the 2016 riots?

Can you post a link to the 2016 riots?

Seriously?

https://www.cnn.com/2017/01/19/politics/trump-inau...

Washington
CNN
—
Six police officers were injured and 217 protesters arrested Friday after a morning of peaceful protests and coordinated disruptions of Donald Trump’s inauguration ceremony gave way to ugly street clashes in downtown Washington.

At least two DC police officers and one other person were taken to the hospital after run-ins with protesters, DC Fire Spokesman Vito Maggiolo told CNN. Acting DC Police Chief Peter Newsham said the officers’ injuries were considered minor and not life threatening.

Bursts of chaos erupted on 12th and K streets as black-clad “antifascist” protesters smashed storefronts and bus stops, hammered out the windows of a limousine and eventually launched rocks at a phalanx of police lined up in an eastbound crosswalk.

There's the "anti-facists" again. Glad they're just an idea.

I am raising a glass to the State of New York as I type: Salute !

Dersh for the usual suspects, https://m.youtube.com/live/dZfxcNt_Wqc?si=b8fgewZu...

Albaby, in general, what’s the odds of winning an appeal in this type of ordinary case? Thanks.

In general? Very poor. Most appeals lose. Defense attorneys will fill the record with legal arguments and objections, but success on appeal is rare. It's a high bar to demonstrate reversible error.

Obviously it does happen - people do get their convictions reversed on appeal. The judge made several pre-trial legal rulings that will be fodder for an appellate argument, and obviously the defense will claim that his rulings on objections and witness testimony were wrong too. If any of them were mistaken, and serious enough to have affected the defendant's right to a fair trial, then an appellate court can reverse.

So we'll see.

" Obviously it does happen - people do get their convictions reversed on appeal. The judge made several pre-trial legal rulings that will be fodder for an appellate argument, and obviously the defense will claim that his rulings on objections and witness testimony were wrong too. If any of them were mistaken, and serious enough to have affected the defendant's right to a fair trial, then an appellate court can reverse."


ok, thanks bud. Trump should retire, Haley can replace him and pardon trump and Hunter, and lets move forward. What a country.

Seriously?

Yes, seriously. Not every protest is a riot - even when some of the protestors get arrested.

There's the "anti-facists" again. Glad they're just an idea.

No one said that individual anti-fascists are just an idea.

We've been over this. Antifa is an idea or a movement, but it is not an organization. That doesn't mean that individual adherents of the idea don't exist. It just means you can't designate the "idea" as a terrorist organization. So it's dumb to say that you want your administration to designate it as such.

Congrats, libs.
You just burned down the legal system. Hope it was worth it.

To most of the rational world, the American legal system worked.

Yes, very much. The "crimes" were bullshit and you know it.
You argue long and loud about intent on here about breaking the law. They never proved that Trump even knew about the payments, and yet we're supposed to believe he's guilty of 34 felonies?

Are you following what we've been following? Trump not only knew, they showed he caused the payments to be made, caused the cover up - the disguising of payments,etc., and that this was done for a political purpose.

But other than that, how can you talk to someone like Albaby, who you know is interested,, knows the law well, and tell him that he knows the crimes are bullshit? That isn't something you can agree to disagree on. So just calm down and realize Trump has been found guilty and he is genuinely a criminal. All that "Lock her up!" y'all did? Well....

ot every protest is a riot - even when some of the protestors get arrested.

When the black-bloc clad goofballs show up, it's a riot from the start. That was a riot.

And we have been over this. Sure, it's an idea. With a significant number of adherents who all have the same gear, same training and how cross state lines for exactly the same purpose at the same time. Coincidence, I suppose.

They never proved that Trump even knew about the payments, and yet we're supposed to believe he's guilty of 34 felonies?


You are delusional. Proven beyond a reasonable doubt.

Aaaand this is what's being said now:

https://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2024/05/gui...

Second, the Democrats understand nothing except the raw exercise of power. Therefore, Republican attorneys general and district attorneys should bring criminal charges against Democratic officeholders wherever possible. No Democratic officeholder should be allowed to retire, in any jurisdiction with Republican law enforcement, without facing criminal charges. There can’t be a single Democratic official in America against whom a criminal case can’t be brought that is better than this case against Trump. It should be open season on Democrats in the criminal courts.

and
Third, the criminal prosecutions should begin with Joe Biden. Unlike Trump, Biden is actually a criminal. He is already known to be guilty under the federal bribery statute. If Trump wins in November, his Department of Justice should immediately indict Biden, and Biden should be hounded until the day he dies or goes to prison, whichever happens first.

Some might say, "But red states don't have any jurisdiction to charge Biden with anything!".

But that's part of the Pandora's Box that was just opened: Alvin Bragg was essentially trying a federal case in a New York court.

What's stopping a Texas or a Florida DA from doing the same thing?

So now it'll be up to this judge. I suspect house arrest for oh, something convenient to Biden like...the next 6 months to keep him off the campaign trail. Along with restrictions on what he can say publicly. After all, why not?


That would be cool..house arrest..President Trump’s poll numbers will climb all the more.
People will be out there campaigning for him and campaign money pouring in.
Look what the last six weeks have done for President Trump..higher poll numbers and lot’s more campaign money.

PutinBiden just dug himself deeper in the hole.

That would be cool..house arrest..President Trump’s poll numbers will climb all the more.
People will be out there campaigning for him and campaign money pouring in.
Look what the last six weeks have done for President Trump..higher poll numbers and lot’s more campaign money.

PutinBiden just dug himself deeper in the hole.

With respect LM, his name is Zho Bai Din. The Big Guy works for China, not Russia :)

The ""sentencing"" (air quotes) is where this gets interesting. This judge seems like the greedy type. Jail is out of the question; but house arrest in Trump Tower for 6 months plus a gag order isn't. Will he go that far? He's already made a martyr out of Trump; how far does he want to go?

Both Trump's campaign and the RNC's website crashed due to donations flooding in today.

What's stopping a Texas or a Florida DA from doing the same thing?

The absence of a crime committed in their jurisdiction.

Again, the flaw in this whole idea is neatly encapsulated in the following sentence from your quote:


There can’t be a single Democratic official in America against whom a criminal case can’t be brought that is better than this case against Trump.


That's the delusion - that every government official has committed a provable felony offense of which there is sufficient evidence to get through a grand jury and a motion to dismiss. That if Joe Biden were to retire to Wyoming, that there would be automatically be evidence of a state felony offense that Joe Biden had committed in Wyoming that the local Wyoming prosecutor could bring charges on.

It's the delusion that Trump didn't do anything illegal, but they convicted him, therefore it must be easy to convict people of crimes even though they didn't actually do anything illegal. The thought that Trump was susceptible to being convicted because he had done something illegal simply doesn't occur, so they don't see how or why Democrats could escape retribution....

Allow me to spell out what the left has just done: You arrest our guys, we'll arrest your guys.

Fine.

If sufficient evidence exists to press charges, as was the case in the last 2 Trump trials, and corroborating witnesses testify under oath to the veracity of the evidence, and juries of Americans find one of 'our guys' guilty of those charges, that's fair and just.

No problem.

So now it'll be up to this judge. I suspect house arrest for oh, something convenient to Biden like...the next 6 months to keep him off the campaign trail. Along with restrictions on what he can say publicly. After all, why not?

Unlikely. If the judge imposes a prison or jail term, or house arrest, it's unlikely that he would schedule it to begin until after the election is over. Sentences don't have to start on the day of the sentencing hearing, and scheduling it to begin a few months out is pretty common.

TBH, I think it's pretty likely that he would stay the beginning of sentencing until the resolution of Trump's appeal - at least the first round.

What's stopping a Texas or a Florida DA from doing the same thing?

The fact that Biden has not committed a crime.

The absence of a crime committed in their jurisdiction.

All bets are off now. That's what you're not getting.

It's the delusion that Trump didn't do anything illegal, but they convicted him, therefore it must be easy to convict people of crimes even though they didn't actually do anything illegal. The thought that Trump was susceptible to being convicted because he had done something illegal simply doesn't occur, so they don't see how or why Democrats could escape retribution....

You're not understanding what was just done here: The Biden admin, through its proxies, just convicted its major political opponent of a bunch of BS felonies. The democrats threw away most of "The Norms" we operate on as a country.

Why do you think there should be Business As Usual after this? There are people in the country who think this is BS and needs to stop. What makes it worse is the piousness of the "But the Rule of Law..." intonements coming out of this. There was no "Rule of Law" here; this was a contrived trial to Get The Bad Orange Man from the get-go.

If sufficient evidence exists to press charges, as was the case in the last 2 Trump trials, and corroborating witnesses testify under oath to the veracity of the evidence, and juries of Americans find one of 'our guys' guilty of those charges, that's fair and just.

I wholeheartedly agree. For example, politicians like Bob Menendez and Henry Cuellar don't deserve to be immune from prosecution just because they are Congresscritters - if there's evidence they've broken the law, prosecute them! And if a jury convicts, then that's fair and just.

Sure he has.

And under your standard, we'll just invent one.

Besides, Joe's done enough influence peddling that literally anything would stick.

But I have bigger goals in mind. Tell Obama to lawyer up; after all, he droned American citizens to death without a trial. Pretty cut and dried.

You're not understanding what was just done here: The Biden admin, through its proxies, just convicted its major political opponent of a bunch of BS felonies.

Again, that's your delusion. You've convinced yourself that these are "BS" felonies, rather than just felonies.

These were legitimate charges. If any of "our guys" has committed acts that result in legitimate charges, then they deserve to be charged. Just like Menendez and Cuellar.

That's why no one's worried about this scenario you're describing....because most elected officials haven't committed actual felonies, and since Trump's felonies weren't "BS" there's no change to the status quo ante.

Again, that's your delusion. You've convinced yourself that these are "BS" felonies, rather than just felonies.


Okay, ""delusion"".
Whatever you say. I think we're done here.

Tell Obama to lawyer up; after all, he droned American citizens to death without a trial. Pretty cut and dried.

Pretty tough for a state prosecutor to charge someone with a killing that was committed in Yemen. Which state do you believe has jurisdiction over that alleged crime?

Which state do you believe has jurisdiction over that alleged crime?

Does it matter? New York can try federal election cases, so why can't Texas try federal murder ones?

Whatever you say. I think we're done here.

Yep, if you start from the premise that these were utterly unsubstantiated charges, then you can spin all kinds of parades of horribles about what happens when all the prosecutors in all the land start bringing utterly unsubstantiated charges. Except, of course, when you realize that we have a ton of civil rights and other procedural protections to keep prosecutors from bringing utterly unsubstantiated charges. Except then you have to add the additional premises that those protections are useless....because otherwise you have to confront the fact that Trump was convicted, which isn't supposed to happen with unsubstantiated charges.

But as long as you're fixed in your belief that these were unsubstantiated charges, your forecast consequences flow naturally from that initial premise. If you won't open up at least to the possibility that your premise is wrong - that Trump did do something wrong - there really isn't much room for discussion.

Does it matter? New York can try federal election cases, so why can't Texas try federal murder ones?

Yes it matters, because New York didn't try a federal election case. They tried a state falsified business records case. One of the elements of that state crime is an intent to commit or conceal another crime - state or federal. But the charge itself was a state law.

So....what state do you think has a state statute that would be implicated by a drone killing in Yemen?

But as long as you're fixed in your belief that these were unsubstantiated charges, your forecast consequences flow naturally from that initial premise. If you won't open up at least to the possibility that your premise is wrong - that Trump did do something wrong - there really isn't much room for discussion.

I can just as easily flip this around. If you won't open up at least to the possibility that your premise is wrong - that Trump was railroaded - there really isn't much room for discussion. Especially if you're going to use verbiage like "delusion" rather than grant the other side 1mm worth of argumentative room.

I can just as easily flip this around. If you won't open up at least to the possibility that your premise is wrong - that Trump was railroaded - there really isn't much room for discussion. Especially if you're going to use verbiage like "delusion" rather than grant the other side 1mm worth of argumentative room.

Oh, certainly. If you can provide me with a cogent legal argument that invalidates the prosecution's case - that demonstrates that there isn't a valid basis for prosecuting Trump - I'll absolutely acknowledge the possibility that he was "railroaded." None of Trump's lawyers was able to find it. The judge's order denying Trump's motion to dismiss lays out all of the cases and arguments raised by both sides, and all of the law supports the prosecution's legal theory of the case:

https://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/24432832/20...

Specifically, the court found i) there's plenty of prior precedent where a federal crime was the object crime under this statute; ii) the state election law statute on its face says it applies to both state and federal elections; iii) there's no requirement under NY state tax law that the state be financially harmed by a tax fraud for it to be criminal activity.

But if you've identified the deficiency in the charges that shows they're BS, which the defense team missed, I'd love to hear it.

Oh, certainly. If you can provide me with a cogent legal argument that invalidates the prosecution's case - that demonstrates that there isn't a valid basis for prosecuting Trump -

What was the underlying crime that the Stormy Daniels payoffs allegedly covered up?

With respect LM, his name is Zho Bai Din. The Big Guy works for China, not Russia :)

Yes but biden is trying to do the same as Putin does to his opponents..silence them and send them to prision.

Both Trump's campaign and the RNC's website crashed due to donations flooding in today

Well glory be.
In all my years I’ve only given two political donations, a dem $20 and a republican, $35.
I’m in a position now I can open wide my check book and make a donation to President Trump.

What was the underlying crime that the Stormy Daniels payoffs allegedly covered up?

That's not the relevant question. For the charges, the question is "What was the underlying crime that the falsified business records allegedly covered up?"

And that's an easy one to answer. There are three crimes:

1) Criminal violation of FECA. There were two violations of federal campaign finance laws: the amount paid to Daniels exceeded the federal contribution limit, and some of the funds were paid by corporate entities. Falsifying the business records concealed the fact that these payments were made to Daniels by pretending they were payments to Cohen, rather than Cohen simply serving as a conduit.

2) Submittal of fraudulent tax filings. Cohen falsely declared the $130K payment that he passed through to Daniels as personal income to himself, which is tax fraud under NY law. It is not necessary for tax fraud to result in financial harm to the government - knowingly submitting a tax return with intentionally false information is still fraud. The falsified business records at Trump Org concealed that crime by falsely characterizing the payments as being for legal services by Cohen as part of his retainer, rather than client funds to be disbursed by Cohen to a third party. (BTW, this is the one where Dersh's comments are completely inexcusable - he keeps mistakenly talking about this element as if the prosecution was trying to prove that Trump's tax returns were wrong, when the prosecution made it very clear that it's Cohen's returns that were fraudulent. Since the defense motion to dismiss is correctly targeted to those returns, not Trump's, as well as the prosecutor's response and the courts ruling, there's no excuse for Dersh to not know this).

3) Conspiracy to commit election fraud. NY State law makes it unlawful for two or more people to conspire to promote the election of any person to public office through any unlawful means. Making campaign contributions in excess of the legal limit is an unlawful means. Therefore, the false business records that falsified the actual monetary transaction concealed the commission of that crime.

Again, all laid out pretty straightforwardly in the judge's ruling on Trump's motions to dismiss:

https://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/24432832/20...

"Oh, so they had a meeting where they all conspired to violate election law and wrote this down? Wow. Why wasn't that trumpeted as the Smoking Gun?"

::: Facepalm :::

Did you pay any attention to the trial and know anything about it at all or did you get all of your information from poor sources that took advantage of you?

Turn of Fox, educate yourself. Stop destroying America with your ignorance. Do better.

1) Criminal violation of FECA.

Bragg doesn't have jurisdiction here. He can't say "This guy broke this law" when it's not on him to prosecute that.

2) Submittal of fraudulent tax filings.

So did the IRS weigh in on this? Why wasn't this tried in federal court also?

3) Conspiracy to commit election fraud. NY State law makes it unlawful for two or more people to conspire to promote the election of any person to public office through any unlawful means. Making campaign contributions in excess of the legal limit is an unlawful means. Therefore, the false business records that falsified the actual monetary transaction concealed the commission of that crime.

How is this a felony? There's no universe where it is, and especially in one where 1)and 2) are off the table. Bragg clearly went reaching for something he could manufacture into multiple felonies and this was how he did it.

Odd things during the trial
*Stormy's testimony. Added zero value to the case, was just there to embarrass Trump.
*The judge barred the former Election Commissioner guy from testifying that what Trump did wasn't even a crime under federal election law. How can a judge say a witness can't testify "because it might confuse the jury"?
*Then there's the judge's instructions to the jury. Merchan told the jury they needed to unanimous on the "falsification of records charge"...but they could pick out whatever underlying "unlawful means" were used...without the prosecution actually ever proving any of that. Talk about Choose Your Own Adventure, especially in light of stifling the exculpating witness to the Election bit.


Do you see how a layperson would look at this and conclude that the trial was rigged?

I’m in a position now I can open wide my check book and make a donation to President Trump.

His attorneys are grateful.

😁

Making campaign contributions in excess of the legal limit is an unlawful means.

----------

Was there a finding of fact with respect to this element?

Stop destroying America with your ignorance. Do better.

=================

My plan is to stop the destruction of America by opposing the progressive agenda which includes opposing Biden.

My plan is to stop the destruction of America by opposing the progressive agenda which includes opposing Biden.

This guy laid it all out:
https://x.com/shaunmmaguire/status/179629377479426...

...and he says he just gave Trump $300,000. Not sure if that's real or not, but the case he makes in this very long X post is spot on.

Bragg doesn't have jurisdiction here. He can't say "This guy broke this law" when it's not on him to prosecute that.

Sure he can. There were several cases cited in the judge’s ruling where that exact thing happened - a person was convicted under the business records law for attempting to conceal a federal crime. Bragg can’t prosecute it, but he can prove it up as an element of the state law case. The law is crystal clear on that - the prosecution had several NY cases on that point, the defense had none, which is why the defense lost the ruling.

So did the IRS weigh in on this? Why wasn't this tried in federal court also?

State tax filings. Cohen filed fraudulent state returns. The IRS has nothing to do with it.

How is this a felony?

Because that’s what the criminal statute says. If you falsify business records with intent to conceal another crime, it becomes a felony. The “other crime” doesn’t have to be a felony.

The judge barred the former Election Commissioner guy from testifying that what Trump did wasn't even a crime under federal election law. How can a judge say a witness can't testify "because it might confuse the jury"?

Because witnesses aren’t allowed to “testify” as to matters of law. It’s up to the judge to determine what the law is, including whether a set of facts (if proven) would violate the law. That’s why the defense was told they were perfectly free to call him, but he couldn’t propound on legal issues - just facts. Which is what witnesses are allowed to do - testify on factual, not legal, questions.

Was there a finding of fact with respect to this element?

Don’t know. There’s a jury form they have to fill out, but I don’t know how granular it was. I didn’t see it released.

Bragg can’t prosecute it, but he can prove it up as an element of the state law case.

And did he? No way.

State tax filings. Cohen filed fraudulent state returns.

Then indict Cohen, not Trump.

How is this a felony? Again, the 1st two things were bogus.

Because witnesses aren’t allowed to “testify” as to matters of law. It’s up to the judge to determine what the law is, including whether a set of facts (if proven) would violate the law. That’s why the defense was told they were perfectly free to call him, but he couldn’t propound on legal issues - just facts. Which is what witnesses are allowed to do - testify on factual, not legal, questions.

The judge shot down most of his appearance as a witness. The prosecution can object and the judge can sustain, but sheesh let the guy testify to something.

You didn't answer my question: Do you see how a layperson would look at this and say, "This guy got railroaded?"

And did he? No way.

Sure he did. Cohen went to jail for this. Both AMI and Pecker were found by the FEC to have violated FECA. The underlying facts weren’t even really disputed.

Then indict Cohen, not Trump.

Trumps the one guilty of causing the falsified business records in order to conceal a crime. It doesn’t have to be his crime - if he conceals Cohen’s crime, it’s a felony. Because the statute says so.

The judge shot down most of his appearance as a witness. The prosecution can object and the judge can sustain, but sheesh let the guy testify to something.

The judge did. He allowed the witness to testify to factual matters, not legal conclusions. As is standard for witnesses. The fact that the only purpose the defense wanted to use him for was to try to make legal arguments in the guise of witness testimony doesn’t change that.

Do you see how a layperson would look at this and say, "This guy got railroaded?"

Not if they actually paid attention to the trial - or got correct information about the trial. If they listened to and believed people that were making inaccurate statements about the trial, they might falsely conclude he got railroaded. But since they’d be wrong about that, that’s no reason not to prosecute - or for any of us to pretend that the prosecution wasn’t valid.

Not if they actually paid attention to the trial - or got correct information about the trial.

lol. What correct information?

So not even 1mm of space, lol.

What correct information?

A correct assessment of the evidence that the prosecution had and the actual legal arguments that were being made. Just look at what you’ve written in this thread. From your posts, it appears that you believed that it was the payments that had to conceal the crime, that it was wrong to allow a federal crime to serve as a predicate crime, that the tax crime was Trump’s and not Cohen’s, that Cohen’s federal taxes were at issue and not his state ones, and that the judge’s ruling on testimony wasn’t. only barred legal argumentation.

All of those things were wrong. So it’s no wonder you might wrongfully conclude Trump was railroaded. There’s a lot of pundits who didn’t bother to learn the details of the case (and that includes Dersh, sadly) who went out and spouted a lot of nonsense about weaknesses that didn’t really exist. So, had they given a more accurate assessment, the public would have a better understanding of the trial.

There were several cases cited in the judge’s ruling where that exact thing happened - a person was convicted under the business records law for attempting to conceal a federal crime. Bragg can’t prosecute it, but he can prove it up as an element of the state law case. - albaby

------------

Prove it. But can he prove it or better, did Bragg prove it?


Bragg can't prosecute for the federal crime, I get that. But is seems only fair that Bragg would have to prove Trump committed the federal crime for it serve as a predicate. Heck, it appears that Bragg doesn't even have to name the federal crime. Despite what NY Law says, How can a defendant prepare a defense if that essential crime is not identified?

Absurdities like this are what Dope is getting at when he says the common man is losing confidence is the system.

You're not understanding what was just done here: The Biden admin, through its proxies, just convicted its major political opponent of a bunch of BS felonies. The democrats threw away most of "The Norms" we operate on as a country.

Dope, the above are a delusional statements. Seriously, if you really believe that you have departed from reality and are way out there. Come back! There isn't that much air out there. You are seeing proxies and conspiracies that don't exist.

LM: PutinBiden just dug himself deeper in the hole.

PutinBiden.....eyes still wide shut, LM. You and reality still need to develop a relationship.

"Do you see how a layperson would look at this and conclude that the trial was rigged?"

A layperson who is in a cult, immersed in sources that feeds that person a consistent diet of misinformation and distractions from the facts will consistently reach erroneous conclusions.

The defense had every opportunity to address the actual charges and laws. They chose to attack the messengers while ignoring the message; Trump is a felon.

It's understandable that the Trump cultists are dumbfounded since they were assured by their pundits that the defense's misdirected efforts must surely sway a jury, even though that jury is dealing with the facts presented to them, and not the attempted misdirections of a frauds team.

Let me try, I've been reading Albaby. Hope I remember.

Prove it. But can he prove it or better, did Bragg prove it?

Wasn't Cohen convicted of the crime, therefore there is no need to prove it.

Bragg can't prosecute for the federal crime, I get that. But is seems only fair that Bragg would have to prove Trump committed the federal crime for it serve as a predicate.

The crime Trump helps cover up doesn't have to be his (Trump's) crime. In this case helping Cohen commit the crime of of fraudulent tax returns, and Trump causing the creation of false business records to assist in the crime. Trump signed the checks and set all the wheels in motion.

Heck, it appears that Bragg doesn't even have to name the federal crime. Despite what NY Law says, How can a defendant prepare a defense if that essential crime is not identified?

Bragg identified three crimes. The confusion is that each juror can decide which of the three, or a combo, that they believe is believable.

Absurdities like this are what Dope is getting at when he says the common man is losing confidence is the system.

It isn't absurd, but your sources will make it absurd. Most of the sources HC posts are junk that doesn't help you understand. Dope isn't any better.

Dope is talking to someone that is his intellectual superior, telling him this is all BS, when it obviously is not. The jurors understood and seemed to come to a good conclusion. I don't think the jurors are geniuses.

vBragg identified three crimes. The confusion is that each juror can decide which of the three, or a combo, that they believe is believable.

--------------------

Let this be an essential lesson, a teachable moment if you will, for all you future crimesters out there.

If you're considering commiting a crime, it's REALLY a good idea to AVOID committing MULTIPLE crimes at or around the SAME time as the MAIN crime. Especially in the same jurisdiction when the crimes could be considered as a related set. Doing so really puts the odds in your favor on trial when hoping for one dissenter on a jury to keep you from joining the felon community.

As it stands, the more holes you burn through the slices of swiss cheese, the more likely it is some of those holes will line up when stacked together and allow bad things to pass through.

It's not that hard to understand. It's simple math and probability, really. Oh wait. Who am I talking about? Never mind.


WTH

...and that Trump could never have gotten any other outcome in heavily Democratic Manhattan, NY.

Right, that's what Trump's supporters erroneously think. But rational people understand that a fair jury could have found Trump not guilty if the evidence were insufficient against him. But the evidence was more than sufficient.

That said, Trump could have chosen to commit any of his 34 felonies in any city, county, or state in the nation. But he chose to commit those 34 felonies in a heavily Democratic location. Therefore, he chose the jury of his peers that he wound up with. He and his supporters never find fault in all the dumb things he says and does. It's always somebody else's fault.

since they were assured by their pundits that the defense's misdirected efforts must surely sway a jury, - sano

-----------------

Not really, I am sure some did predict acquittal but none that I recall.

Most conservative pundits expressed Trump had little chance given the venue and opined there could be a hung jury at best. However they were pretty optimistic about the likelihood of a successful appeal.

The crime Trump helps cover up doesn't have to be his (Trump's) crime. In this case helping Cohen commit the crime of of fraudulent tax returns, and Trump causing the creation of false business records to assist in the crime. Trump signed the checks and set all the wheels in motion. - Lapsody

--------------------

Tax Fraud doesn't have anything to do with Federal Election Law. It is as irrelevant as a porn star expanding on Trumps sexual technique, allowed in to prejudice the jury.

The key element being asserted is Trump committed an unspecified violation of Federal Election Law, and the faulty business record were done to cover up that unspecified violation of Federal Election Law. As far as I know that violation was treated as a given but not proven with evidence subject to cross examination. That is what is unfair about it.

Tax Fraud doesn't have anything to do with Federal Election Law. It is as irrelevant as a porn star expanding

That's not your job here Mike. Your job is to figure why State tax Fraud is relevant, and try and understand it. Your opinion on prejudicing the jury is irrelevant.


The key element being asserted is Trump committed an unspecified violation of Federal Election Law,

That was proven up by Cohen's testimony. Cohen was convicted and spent time, so his conviction isn't debatable, but whether the jurors thought he was credible was very important. There were three different crimes - and one involved state tax fraud, another involved the size of the payment being against the law (FECA). The other one escapes me at the moment, it's very late.

Albaby has explained all this.

There’s a lot of pundits who didn’t bother to learn the details of the case (and that includes Dersh, sadly) who went out and spouted a lot of nonsense about weaknesses that didn’t really exist. So, had they given a more accurate assessment, the public would have a better understanding of the trial.

Oh, there were plenty of wrong things about the trial. I'm using Andy McCarthy as my source:

https://www.nationalreview.com/2024/05/how-judge-m...

The main issue: Trump violated FECA's campaign contribution limits and campaign reporting requirements. Never mind that's not Bragg's jurisdiction and as the friggin' candidate he can donate whatever he wants to his own candidacy. But Bragg alleges this huge conspiracy between Trump, Cohen and David Pecker.

What are the odds the 3 of them are even thinking about FECA in 2016? Or how about 2017 when Trump was already President? That's one of the stupidities of all this.

What does the FECA law state? It states that the defendants have to violate the law willfully. Did Bragg ever prove that? No.

It's even worse:
Yet, Merchan has enabled Bragg to fill this gaping hole in his case with improper evidence, namely, the federal guilty pleas of Michael Cohen to FECA crimes, and the fact that Pecker entered a non-prosecution agreement with the Justice Department — after which AMI paid a fine to settle the FEC probe.

So Merchan allows a lot of supposed "evidence" into his jury instructions that's...not really evidence at all. Stormy's testimony? Cohen's legal history? Irrelevant to Trump's guilt or innocence. In fact there was zero evidence Trump violated FECA, but Merchan let the jury think that Bragg actually proved something he didn't.

But it gets even better!
He has blandly instructed them that it is unlawful for a person to “willfully” make or cause the making of contributions that exceed FECA limits. (Jury Instructions at pp. 31, 44.) But he hasn’t instructed them on what “willfully” means.

I doubt Trump ever heard of FECA before this trial started. So where's the intent? It's a part of the FECA statute. Can't convict someone without it, yet here we are.

Then we get to the payment. Trump's payoff to Daniels was not illegal. There are many reasons why one would pay somebody off that aren't campaign expenditures - Cohen's own testimony said he did it to protect Melania.

But the jury never heard any of that, because Merchan refused to allow the defense's witness to testify to any of the particulars of the law. Yeah, yeah, yeah you said witnesses can't testify to the law but they CAN testify to particulars. But why did that matter?

But here’s the thing: The defense needed — I believe, was entitled to call — a witness to explain that “irrespective” concept to the jury. Trump’s lawyers tried to call former FEC commissioner Bradley Smith to do just that, but Merchan refused to allow it. As a result, not only were jurors deprived of an expert witness’s explanation of a key concept in the case; they received, in effect, incorrect instructions from Cohen and Pecker. Those prosecution witnesses did not testify about what a campaign expenditure is as an objective legal category, as Smith would have. Instead, they explained what they claim subjectively to have been thinking when they negotiated and paid for the NDAs.

So the prosecution got to have their witnesses describe what they thought was a crime but the defense wasn't allowed an expert witness to the contrary. How nice for the prosecution.

Andy sums it up
This prosecution is outrageous not just because Bragg purports to enforce federal law despite his lack of authority to do so. It is outrageous because Bragg and Merchan are making up their own version of federal campaign law — a version that steers the jury toward convicting Trump.

Merchan and Bragg controlled the trial, misled the jury, and got the outcome they wanted.

Plenty of reasonable people can look at this farce and conclude that Alvin Bragg - a man who charges crime victims for defending themselves and routinely downplays real felonies - engaged in lawfare to bring down the Bad Orange Man.

But is seems only fair that Bragg would have to prove Trump committed the federal crime for it serve as a predicate. Heck, it appears that Bragg doesn't even have to name the federal crime. Despite what NY Law says, How can a defendant prepare a defense if that essential crime is not identified?

Absurdities like this are what Dope is getting at when he says the common man is losing confidence is the system.

They needed to prove that Trump committed an underlying crime along with the "conspiracy". They didn't prove ANYTHING.

https://www.nationalreview.com/2024/05/how-judge-m...

...if there's evidence they've broken the law, prosecute them! And if a jury convicts, then that's fair and just.

I don't get how the right wing doesn't get that. We're not talking nuances of state law. We're talking basic civics.

And this was a jury trial. A jury selected at random, and which the defense could object to prospective jurors during the selection process.

For all it's flaws, ours is the most fair system on the planet.

Tax Fraud doesn't have anything to do with Federal Election Law. It is as irrelevant as a porn star expanding on Trumps sexual technique, allowed in to prejudice the jury.

The key element being asserted is Trump committed an unspecified violation of Federal Election Law, and the faulty business record were done to cover up that unspecified violation of Federal Election Law. As far as I know that violation was treated as a given but not proven with evidence subject to cross examination. That is what is unfair about it.

Lots of discussion last night....teach me to go to bed! Lapsody did a solid job of explaining a lot of this.

But needless to say, all of the above is incorrect.

Tax fraud isn't irrelevant to the case, because either election law violations or a tax fraud can serve as a predicate crime for falsifying business records. It doesn't have to be election fraud, and I imagine that tax fraud is involved in quite a lot of false business records cases, for obvious reasons.

Also, the election fraud violations were fully specified in the judge's order on the motion to dismiss (campaign contributions in violation of the cap, campaign contributions from a corporate entity), and Trump's team was well aware of what those were. That's why they tried to bring in Smith - because they were fully informed what the alleged violations were. And of course, all of the violations were proven - there was both testimony and documentary evidence that showed that the payments were made, that they were above the contribution limit, that some of them came from corporate entities, and that steps were taken to conceal that the payments were made by Trump to Daniels. All of those witnesses were subject to cross, and all of the documents were made available to defense.

I can't get to McCarthy's article, since it's behind a paywall, but there's just so much wrong here. I'll respond to your comments:

What are the odds the 3 of them are even thinking about FECA in 2016? Or how about 2017 when Trump was already President? That's one of the stupidities of all this.

What does the FECA law state? It states that the defendants have to violate the law willfully. Did Bragg ever prove that? No.

So this is wrong, because of one of the more fundamental precepts of the law: Ignorance of the law is no excuse. The intent element of a crime does not require that the defendant be aware of the actual statute, or be thinking about it at the time - it only requires that the person intend to perform that actions that are forbidden (and to do them for the forbidden purpose, if it's a specific intent crime). To say nothing of the fact that knowledge of the law will be imputed in many situations - it's long been the law that willful ignorance will satisfy the intent requirements of a crime. That's why, for example, a CEO can't just shut their eyes and never learn about Sarbannes-Oxley as a way of getting out of the obligations of that statute. So (to address a point you made again down below) it doesn't matter whether Trump had ever heard of the specific FECA law - if he breaks that law, it's still a crime.

So yes, Bragg proved they violated the law willfully. There was ample evidence that the payments were made, that they exceeded the campaign limits, that some of them were made by corporate entities (a big no-no), and that the defendant and his accomplices took steps to hide it.

BTW, that's the biggest weakness in the defense's case - they never came up with an explanation of why Trump tried to conceal the payments. Not conceal the sex - those reasons are obvious. But what was the reason why he tried to present this as income to Cohen, rather than as client funds for payment of a settlement? There's no reason for that, except if he was trying to hide the illegal contribution.

So Merchan allows a lot of supposed "evidence" into his jury instructions that's...not really evidence at all. Stormy's testimony? Cohen's legal history? Irrelevant to Trump's guilt or innocence.

The first is entirely the fault of the Trump defense team (presumably at Trump's direction). Because Trump denied he ever had sex with Daniels, admitting her testimony was relevant to allow the prosecution to prove that it happened. Because Trump's team attacked Cohen's credibility, evidence on that point is relevant as well. I'm sure that the defense would have objected if Cohen's legal history was omitted from being mentioned in the instructions.

Then we get to the payment. Trump's payoff to Daniels was not illegal. There are many reasons why one would pay somebody off that aren't campaign expenditures - Cohen's own testimony said he did it to protect Melania.

But the jury never heard any of that, because Merchan refused to allow the defense's witness to testify to any of the particulars of the law.

Of course they heard of that. I assume that McCarthy didn't bother to actually read the jury instructions, because Merchan specifically instructed the jury on this point. It's on page 32 of the attached instructions, but here's the key excerpt:

"Under federal law, a third party's payment of a candidate's expenses is deemed to be a contribution to the candidate unless the payment would have been made irrespective of the candidacy.

If the payment would have been made even in the absence of the candidacy, the payment should not be treated as a contribution."

https://static01.nyt.com/newsgraphics/documenttool...

McCarthy is just flat-out wrong (or lying) when he asserts that the jury never heard any of that. They were instructed on it! And of course the judge isn't going to let a witness give legal statements to the jury - that's the judge's job.

Plenty of reasonable people can look at this farce and conclude that Alvin Bragg - a man who charges crime victims for defending themselves and routinely downplays real felonies - engaged in lawfare to bring down the Bad Orange Man.

Yes, because people like McCarthy are making these kinds of ridiculous pronouncements about the trial, when they clearly haven't bothered to learn or research some basic concepts of criminal law, and apparently haven't bothered to read even the key documents in the trial - like the jury instructions.

" I can't get to McCarthy's article, since it's behind a paywall, but there's just so much wrong here. I'll respond to your comments:"

good morning albaby, a poster on the brka board knows how to do this, I want to read peggy noonan today," We are starting to enjoy hatred " , lets see IF I can figure it out.

Trump could have chosen to commit any of his 34 felonies in any city, county, or state in the nation. But he chose to commit those 34 felonies in a heavily Democratic location.

Not too put too fine a point on that observation, but

1) Trump's political identification has been all over the place. Wiki does a decent job summarizing his political affiliations, citing liberal's and conservative's opinions as to the reasons for the switching back and forth between Dem, Rep, and Independent, seeking acceptance/respect/power.

All that switching while also going through bankruptcies, fraud trials, divorces has got to be tough on ones psyche. It's no wonder he sounds like a raving lunatic upon being convicted in his home town.

and 2)

C'mon man... Trump is a native New Yorker. He only changed his official residence to Florida in September of 2019. He's a New Yorker from his accent and schpiel, right down to his gold plated Trump Tower toilets.

Like so many other wealthy New Yorkers, Florida was Trump's winter retreat. 2019, Florida residency become a legal strategy as well. But make no mistake about it..... Trump shat the bed in New York, home sweet home, and that New York provided a jury of his peers.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_positions_...

"Conservative commentator Mary Katharine Ham characterized Trump as a "casual authoritarian," saying "he is a candidate who has happily and proudly spurned the entire idea of limits on his power as an executive and doesn't have any interest in the Constitution and what it allows him to do and what [it] does not allow him to do. That is concerning for people who are interested in limited government."[31] Charles C. W. Cooke of the National Review has expressed similar views, terming Trump an "anti-constitutional authoritarian."[32] Libertarian journalist Nick Gillespie, by contrast, calls Trump "populist rather than an authoritarian".[33] Rich Benjamin refers to Trump and his ideology as fascist and a form of inverted totalitarianism.[34]"

Not really, I am sure some did predict acquittal but none that I recall.

Oh my, Mike.

That perception does not jibe with a non-cultists view of the judicial process that just concluded.

All the way to the end the right wing pundits declared that there could be no just conclusion but acquittal. Even some liberals were expressing the nervous possibility that Trump would be acquitted.

I could waste time copy/paste examples you would dismiss anyway, and the coffee pot just beeped, the tide is peaking and I got a brand new surf-fishing chrome/sardine lure that has striped bass written alll over it.

Life is good even when the surf is small.

Ignorance of the law is no excuse. The intent element of a crime does not require that the defendant be aware of the actual statute, or be thinking about it at the time - it only requires that the person intend to perform that actions that are forbidden (and to do them for the forbidden purpose, if it's a specific intent crime).

McCarthy covered this. There was no intent - required by the statute - to not comply with FECA. No intent, no crime.

You’re aware that McCarthy is a former federal prosecutor, right? I think he understands the law just fine.

You’re aware that McCarthy is a former federal prosecutor, right? I think he understands the law just fine.

Sure. And Bragg, and all the lawyers in his office, are current state prosecutors. And Marchan is a current state criminal court judge. I think they understand the law just fine, too. Again, this is not about credentials, but the strength of the arguments.

McCarthy covered this. There was no intent - required by the statute - to not comply with FECA. No intent, no crime.

I was able to bypass the paywall, and McCarthy is simple wrong in his argument here - and he should know better, even when writing as an advocate. Again, you don't have to be familiar with the provisions of a statute in order to commit the crime, or be thinking of the statute when you take the actions. You just have to intend to do the thing covered in the statute (actus rea), with the malintent specified by the statute (mens rea). You don't have to have any knowledge of the statute at all. Which is how you know that McCarthy is making an advocacy pitch here, rather than a fair assessment of the legal standards.

And we know there was intent not to comply with FECA because....why the complicated scheme? We know why Trump wanted to hide the affair....but why conceal the payments? As you point out, Trump could have done this legally. He just needs to write a check to Cohen for Cohen to put in his client account, and then use those funds to pay Daniels. Instead, they decided to falsify the transaction, and pretend that this was money being paid to Cohen himself, which he commingled with his personal funds and booked as personal income. The only reason to do it that way - and end up having to pay tens of thousands of dollars in extra taxes - is to conceal the transaction. Again, not to conceal the sex - to conceal the flow of money.

It's just not plausible that this wasn't done with ill intent. It's not illegal to pay off a porn star, but it is usually illegal to try to hide the flow of cash. There's tons of laws requiring that there be an honest and accurate record of the source and destination of funds, especially for candidates for public office. There's no innocent explanation for the decision to book these funds as personal income to Cohen, rather than client funds - the only purpose is to conceal something beyond the sexual dalliance.

That's one of the reasons Trump's defense lost. They don't have an alternative theory of the case, an explanation to the jury why they decided to fake that this was income to Cohen. It's not against the law to pay off someone threatening to disclose a sexual dalliance, but it is against the law to misrepresent the source and destination of those funds.

You've asked me a lot of questions, so perhaps you can answer this: why do you think they chose to book this money as earned income to Cohen, rather than what it really was - Cohen making a payment for a client. Why the false arrangement? It can't be to conceal the underlying affair - Trump could have just booked the payment to Cohen as "third party expenses" or something like that, and Cohen could have just deposited it in Trump's client trust account. That way he wouldn't have illegally claimed the funds as income, co-mingled them with his personal funds (a big no-no), and Trump wouldn't have had to "gross up" his payments for an extra five figures to cover the scheme. It doesn't make the transaction any more confidential - Cohen's records are protected by attorney-client privilege, and the Trump Org doesn't have to book the end purpose of the funds.

So why fake that this was a payment to Cohen, and not to Daniels?


https://archive.ph/cw1hx

McCarthy covered this. There was no intent - required by the statute - to not comply with FECA. No intent, no crime.

albaby already covered this. You should consider reading all of his posts slowly and carefully. I’m definitely NOT an attorney (despite the fact that my mother wanted me to be), but his posts appear to be accurate and educational. Here’s what he said about intent:

”So this is wrong, because of one of the more fundamental precepts of the law: Ignorance of the law is no excuse. The intent element of a crime does not require that the defendant be aware of the actual statute, or be thinking about it at the time - it only requires that the person intend to perform that actions that are forbidden (and to do them for the forbidden purpose, if it's a specific intent crime). To say nothing of the fact that knowledge of the law will be imputed in many situations - it's long been the law that willful ignorance will satisfy the intent requirements of a crime. That's why, for example, a CEO can't just shut their eyes and never learn about Sarbannes-Oxley as a way of getting out of the obligations of that statute. So (to address a point you made again down below) it doesn't matter whether Trump had ever heard of the specific FECA law - if he breaks that law, it's still a crime.”

You can believe the system is politicized and rigged, that multiple DAs in multiple states (both red and blue) are in a vast conspiracy against you, that sleepy Joe Biden is a criminal mastermind pulling strings behind the scene, that ordinary citizen jurists have preconceived outcomes, that dozens of judges (nominated by Reagan, Bush 1, Clinton, Bush 2, Obama, Trump, and Biden) are all in a conspiracy against you, and that the SCOTUS is out to get you.

Or you can believe Trump is a crook.

Usually the simplest answer is the correct one.

They needed to prove that Trump committed an underlying crime along with the "conspiracy". They didn't prove ANYTHING.

Yes they did, Albaby has explained it to you and it's your job to understand what Albaby is saying. Instead you turn to the comfort of a lie, other wise you have to deal with all the emotions of finding out you are wrong. It would put a huge dent in that armor you have erected to not deal with the real world. It's gonna take some courage on your part Dope. But let me point out to you again, the jurors aren't geniuses, you can do this.

And Bragg, and all the lawyers in his office, are current state prosecutors. And Marchan is a current state criminal court judge. I think they understand the law just fine, too. Again, this is not about credentials, but the strength of the arguments.

They're also partisan democrats who twisted the law towards their own ends, to get the verdict they wanted.

We're not going to agree here. The facts show us that

*There was no FECA violation
*There was no illicit campaign payment, so there was no falsification of campaign finance forms, no hiding of anything
*The Daniels payoff is perfectly legal, and even Cohen testified that it was for another purpose
*The judge refused the defense access to witnesses to explain FECA to the jury
*The judge didn't define how the law was to be applied to the jury
*The judge allowed the jury to basically "pick something" (that the state didn't prove) to be the thing to convict Trump over.

You can ask about accounting issues - and that's fine - but the MOST you'll get from that is a reprimand. There's no 34 felonies here. There's no case here at all...if there were, federal prosecutors would have brought it a long time ago.

But they didn't. Bragg concocted a way to invent a series of felony charges just to Get the Bad Orange Man so the democrats and their robots online can say "Convicted Felon Donald Trump".

Again, something was broken in the heart of the United States yesterday. Don't underestimate what the d's have done.

The facts show us that

*There was no FECA violation
*There was no illicit campaign payment, so there was no falsification of campaign finance forms, no hiding of anything
*The Daniels payoff is perfectly legal, and even Cohen testified that it was for another purpose
*The judge refused the defense access to witnesses to explain FECA to the jury
*The judge didn't define how the law was to be applied to the jury
*The judge allowed the jury to basically "pick something" (that the state didn't prove) to be the thing to convict Trump over.

Most of that is completely wrong.

*There was a FECA violation. The FEC determined that Cohen, Pecker, and AMI all violated the FECA with this arrangement.

*There was an illicit campaign payment. You can't spend money to help your campaign outside of donating it to the campaign. The payment to Daniels was found by the jury to be a campaign payment that would not have been made but for the campaign.

*This is correct - the Daniels payoff could have been perfectly legal, in general, and the prosecution never argued otherwise. Trump, however, chose to implement the payoff in an illegal way so that he could conceal the money flow. Which is a crime.

*It is not the role of witnesses to explain laws to the jury. The judge explains laws to the jury, after hearing the arguments of counsel and ruling on their motions. The defense was in no way entitled to present a "witness" to provide legal analysis.

*The judge did define how the law was to be applied to the jury. Did you read the jury instructions yet?

*The judge did not allow the jury to basically pick something that the state didn't prove. The jury was instructed that the state had to prove that the falsified records were intended to conceal another crime. They were provided three possible crimes, any one of which (or all three) might have been the intended crime to be covered up. Under NY law (and federal law, BTW), there is no requirement that the jury be unanimous on which predicate crime was intended to be concealed - and so the judge properly gave that instruction.

It's sad that you've been so misinformed about this case, especially when a quick perusal of the actual documents would reveal how wrong some of these arguments are. I strongly suggest you read the jury instructions, so that you can see for yourself how inaccurate several of these claims are.

You can't spend money to help your campaign outside of donating it to the campaign.

Replying to my own post - the above should be "You can't spend money to help your campaign through a third party instead of donating it to the campaign." IOW, you can't "wash" your campaign contributions through a middleman, like Cohen here, and conceal that the funds cam from you.

albaby1 It's just not plausible that this wasn't done with ill intent. It's not illegal to pay off a porn star, but it is usually illegal to try to hide the flow of cash. There's tons of laws requiring that there be an honest and accurate record of the source and destination of funds, especially for candidates for public office. There's no innocent explanation for the decision to book these funds as personal income to Cohen, rather than client funds - the only purpose is to conceal something beyond the sexual dalliance.

Thank you albaby1 for your explanations of this trial and verdict.

It is complicated enough that, for those who do not want to see the logic and justice of the verdict, they can just ignore the facts and rage about what they see as an injustice. We are going to see a lot of that from Trump/MAGA world. We're seeing plenty of it right here on this message board.

There was a FECA violation.
According to who? They never prosecuted.

There was an illicit campaign payment.
No. There are many reasons to pay the porn star to keep quiet. It's not up to "the jury" to even make this determination.

Trump, however, chose to implement the payoff in an illegal way so that he could conceal the money flow. Which is a crime.
Incorrect. There was no illegality here.

It is not the role of witnesses to explain laws to the jury.
It's the role of the witness to help explain things to the jury.

The judge did define how the law was to be applied to the jury

The judge is supposed to define terms of the law to the jury. This one didn't. When I've sat on juries we'd ask the judge to define certain legal terms and got written responses.

The judge did not allow the jury to basically pick something that the state didn't prove.

Oh? Then what was the underlying crime that triggered the felonies?

It's sad that you've been so misinformed about this case, especially when a quick perusal of the actual documents would reveal how wrong some of these arguments are. I strongly suggest you read the jury instructions, so that you can see for yourself how inaccurate several of these claims are.

Yep, I think we're done.
You're not even trying to comprehend the damage that the dems just did to the entire country yesterday. Do you think Republicans are going to sit there and just take this?

Replying to my own post - the above should be "You can't spend money to help your campaign through a third party instead of donating it to the campaign." IOW, you can't "wash" your campaign contributions through a middleman, like Cohen here, and conceal that the funds cam from you.


Laughing.
Out.
Loud.

When will Hillary! be charged with a string of felonies for paying Perkins Coie to concoct RUSSIARUSSIARUSSIA?

She won't be.

According to who? They never prosecuted.

Cohen was prosecuted for it - this was one of the things he went to jail for. AMI and Pecker were sanctioned by the FEC for doing this as well. And the jury would have been allowed to determine whether these actions violated FECA for this to be a predicate crime, even if none of that had happened.

No. There are many reasons to pay the porn star to keep quiet. It's not up to "the jury" to even make this determination.

Yes, it is. It absolutely is. It's exactly the role of the jury to make factual determinations like this. To determine whether, based on the evidence provided, the payment was made for the purpose of aiding the campaign, or whether it would have been made "irrespective" of whether the campaign was going on. That's one of the factual determinations that's left to the jury.

Incorrect. There was no illegality here.

Yes, there is. It is illegal to cause business records to be falsified. By falsely indicating that the $130,000 transfer to Cohen was income earned by Cohen, rather than money being held by Cohen on behalf of Trump and not his own money, that caused false business records to be entered in Trump Org. That's illegal.

It's the role of the witness to help explain things to the jury.

No, it is the role of the witness to provide factual testimony to the jury. It is absolutely not their role to explain the law to the jury.

The judge is supposed to define terms of the law to the jury. This one didn't. When I've sat on juries we'd ask the judge to define certain legal terms and got written responses.

Yes, he did. The instructions to the jury included numerous definitions of legal terms, and explanations of the legal standards the jury was to apply. In New York (as opposed to whatever state you served in), the law does not authorize the judge to provide written instructions. So when the jurors had a question, the judge called them back in and orally answered their questions.

Oh? Then what was the underlying crime that triggered the felonies?

The underlying crime was causing false business records to be generated. That crime became a felony because it was intended to conceal other crimes. Those other crimes were: i) a violation of FECA, by having the money be given to Daniels by Michael Cohen as a personal payment rather than on behalf of Trump and having that money sourced from a corporation (both of which are illegal); ii) a violation of NY State tax law, by falsely representing Michael Cohen's income on his state taxes; and iii) a violation of NY election law, which forbids two or more people to enter into an agreement to support a candidacy by unlawful means.

When will Hillary! be charged with a string of felonies for paying Perkins Coie to concoct RUSSIARUSSIARUSSIA?

She won't be.

As soon as there is admissible evidence demonstrating that she violated a specific criminal statute. What criminal statute do you think she violated?

Another prosecutor weighs in.

https://nymag.com/intelligencer/article/trump-was-...

Publishing in the uber-conservative New York Magazine, no less.

Both of these things can be true at once: The jury did its job, and this case was an ill-conceived, unjustified mess. Sure, victory is the great deodorant, but a guilty verdict doesn’t make it all pure and right. Plenty of prosecutors have won plenty of convictions in cases that shouldn’t have been brought in the first place. “But they won” is no defense to a strained, convoluted reach unless the goal is to “win,” now, by any means necessary and worry about the credibility of the case and the fallout later.

Yup. lefties aren't going to enjoy what comes next. As Jack Reacher famously said...you wanted this.

The charges against Trump are obscure, and nearly entirely unprecedented. In fact, no state prosecutor — in New York, or Wyoming, or anywhere — has ever charged federal election laws as a direct or predicate state crime, against anyone, for anything. None. Ever. Even putting aside the specifics of election law, the Manhattan DA itself almost never brings any case in which falsification of business records is the only charge.

In other words, if it wasn't Trump, they wouldn't have touched this.

“No man is above the law.” It’s become cliché, but it’s an important point, and it’s worth pausing to reflect on the importance of this core principle. But it’s also meaningless pablum if we unquestioningly tolerate (or worse, celebrate) deviations from ordinary process and principle to get there. The jury’s word is indeed sacrosanct, as I learned long ago. But it can’t fix everything that preceded it. Here, prosecutors got their man, for now at least — but they also contorted the law in an unprecedented manner in their quest to snare their prey.

The whole thing smelled. The false piety around Respect For The Rule of Law rings very hollow when one considers a) the timeline b) the janky construction of the charges c) the rank political nature of all this and d) the damage in the amount of trust the people have for the legal system.

Again, I can understate how bad yesterday was for the fabric of the Republic.

What criminal statute do you think she violated?
Been over this. She's untouchable because of the [d] behind her name.

When you have 2 systems of justice, pretty soon you're have zero systems of justice.

You really don't understand the law at all. Even the role of witnesses. Ianal, but even I know that.

Every word you said was wrong. I see albaby already responded to you. You should read his responses carefully, and understand. If you don't even know what a witness does, you can't be expected to know anything else about the process that just concluded.

What criminal statute do you think she violated?
Been over this. She's untouchable because of the [d] behind her name.

No - she's untouchable because she didn't commit any violations of criminal statutes for which there is sufficient admissible evidence to bring a case. Which is why Trump's DOJ didn't prosecute her. Because she her actions didn't constitute the elements of any particular criminal statute.

Trump was able to be prosecuted and convicted because he actually committed crimes. Clinton can't be prosecuted or convicted, because she didn't actually commit crimes. Even if you think that the prosecutor shouldn't have brought charges against Trump, that doesn't change the fact that Trump actually committed crimes - just that you think he shouldn't have been charged for them.

You keep thinking that this opens up the floodgates for prosecutions against Dems....but it doesn't. As your own article points out, Trump was able to be prosecuted because he actually committed the crimes he was charged with. That doesn't make it any easier for prosecutors to bring charges against Democrats who haven't committed any crimes.

He thinks she violated statutes related to state secrets. It's been explained to him multiple times, but he always goes back to that one.

Yep, I think we're done.
You're not even trying to comprehend the damage that the dems just did to the entire country yesterday. Do you think Republicans are going to sit there and just take this?

You've been making veiled threats for a while now Dope. You seem to be refusing to even consider what Albaby is explaining to you. You keep on insisting that things didn't happen, that actually happened - jurors instructed for one. It's a fact the jurors were instructed, which included the applicable law. You also seem to think some things happened which didn't, and are the stuff of conspiracy theories.

All that happened is a citizen was given fair due process and found criminally guilty by a jury of his peers. Trump is a criminal. He is still a candidate, will continue to do some campaign grifting, and you can vote for him in November.

"In other words, if it wasn't Trump, they wouldn't have touched this."

In other words, if it wasn't Biden's son, they wouldn't have touched this.

Who was it who said 'No man is above the law?'

No. There are many reasons to pay the porn star to keep quiet. It's not up to "the jury" to even make this determination.

You are lost Dope. This is exactly what the trial was all about and we asked the jurors to make that determination, and they did.

If I were a juror and listened to Cohen, etc., talk about the payments, once we got to the "gross up" the payments to cover the accompanying tax payments I would see a huge red flag come out on the play. It's like sending up a rocket launcher to even the simplest of persons.

"I say boy, whatcha mean we grossin up da payments to cover that New Yaark state tax? Why we makin a simple payment so complicated? My granpa never did that. Whyent you just pay da woman directly and be done with it? "

Revisit this again when you aren't so emotional, you are blind right now.

Thank for the input; I'll give it the due it deserves.

No, I've explained to *you people* what Hillary! actually did. A regular person would have been fried for it; just because somebody here can concoct a BS explanation about why she skated doesn't make it true. At all.

Here's an experiment you can run.
Go get a job that requires a TS/SCI clearance and has "air-gapped" material that requires a SCIF.

Go into the SCIF, remove some NO FORN material, and keep it at home. Then put the material someplace that non-cleared people can get at it.

Let us know how big your prison cell is.

You people aren't getting it. You think I'm the only one warning of Pandora's Box?

Hardly.

Here's Megyn Kelly, for example:
https://x.com/VigilantFox/status/17963774307198734...

You just wait, and it won’t be Hunter Biden the next time. It’s going to be Joe Biden. It could potentially still be Barack Obama. It could still potentially be Hillary Clinton. We’re going to have to look at what the statutes of limitations are on the various crimes they surely committed. We’re going to have to look at passing laws to revive those dead crimes, felonies, or misdemeanors so that those cases can be brought out of time.”
...
“Who’s getting indicted next?” she asked. “Joe Biden? Maybe Jill Biden? How low can we go? You may not want to see it. That ship has already left port. That horse has left the barn. That’s where we’re going. So before you celebrate too much over at MSNBC and CNN, who are positively gleeful, gleeful over this absurd conviction, you wait and ask yourself, ask yourself what kind of Pandora’s box has been opened here?”

Here's an experiment you can run.
Go get a job that requires a TS/SCI clearance and has "air-gapped" material that requires a SCIF.

Go into the SCIF, remove some NO FORN material, and keep it at home. Then put the material someplace that non-cleared people can get at it.

Let us know how big your prison cell is.

Sounds like an interesting experiment. Any evidence, say, that Hillary Clinton personally went into a SCIF and removed NO FORN materials herself? My recollection is that the classified information that was on her server was all sent to her by other people - not information that she herself retrieved from a SCIF. But perhaps you could point to it?

We’re going to have to look at what the statutes of limitations are on the various crimes they surely committed.

Again, that's the false belief right there. Surely all the leading Democratic politicians have committed crimes, right? It can't just be that Trump engaged in criminal behavior - they all must have committed crimes that we can prove in a court of law.

Or....not.

So no, no kind of Pandora's box has been opened here. Prominent politicians are always subject to being prosecuted if they break the law (hi, Bob Menendez!), and being a prominent politician doesn't insulate you from it. But most prominent politicians don't go around breaking the law. So Megyn Kelly's fantasy about Biden or Obama going to jail is just that....a fantasy.

Any evidence, say, that Hillary Clinton personally went into a SCIF and removed NO FORN materials herself? My recollection is that the classified information that was on her server was all sent to her by other people - not information that she herself retrieved from a SCIF. But perhaps you could point to it?

No, I'm not going to re-litigate that here. You constructed a masterful - yet 100% incorrect - defense around "intent" (which 100% doesn't matter since she was the one who set up the server in the first place, and also destroyed evidence on it). That discussion was a prime example of people believing what they wanted to believe and high-fiving each other over having "figured it out".

Everyone I talk to who works in this space to this day is aghast at what she did and how she avoided prison and/or massive fines.

Except that isn't what happened. You're constructing a strawman.

We've been over this ad nauseum. The evidence does not support your thesis.

Surely all the leading Democratic politicians have committed crimes, right?

Welp, let's see.

*Biden, while Vice President and in-between his Vice Presidency and now clearly engaged in influence peddling through his son. Covered that here.
*Hillary! did the same thing that Trump was just convicted for by routing campaign money (not her own) through Perkins Coie. Then there's her illegal server from which she deleted evidence (another crime) as well as allowing access to non-cleared folks (more crimes). She was never charged for any of it.
*Bill Clinton flew on the Lolita Express and likely had inappropriate contact with underage girls. Somehow that series of crimes gets memory holed.

I could go on. That's off the top of my head. An interesting retroactive crime would be to ban Congressional insider trading and then go get Nancy Pelosi.

You might be right when you say no kind of Pandora's box has been opened because the GOP lacks the kind of ruthlessness that the democrats have in terms of willingness to shatter norms to get and maintain power.

We've been over this ad nauseum.

Yes, we have. You folks hid behind the "intent" nonsense and Comey's Bs TV statements and still do to this day.

Everyone I talk to who works in this space to this day is aghast at what she did and how she avoided prison and/or massive fines.

I have no doubt, but I also imagine that none of them have taken the time to look at the actual U.S. Criminal Code to ascertain whether what she did actually constituted a crime. I know lots of people that were aghast that so few "banksters" were prosecuted during the Great Recession for blowing up the economy - because none of them really knew what the criminal laws were.

Just trying to help you stop embarrassing yourself. Which you continue to do arguing the nonsense you're spewing to albaby.

As I said, you didn't even characterize the role of a witness correctly.

*Biden, while Vice President and in-between his Vice Presidency and now clearly engaged in influence peddling through his son. Covered that here.
*Hillary! did the same thing that Trump was just convicted for by routing campaign money (not her own) through Perkins Coie. Then there's her illegal server from which she deleted evidence (another crime) as well as allowing access to non-cleared folks (more crimes). She was never charged for any of it.
*Bill Clinton flew on the Lolita Express and likely had inappropriate contact with underage girls. Somehow that series of crimes gets memory holed.

Any evidence of that? You can't say that Bill Clinton "likely" had inappropriate contact - you have to have evidence. You have to prove that Clinton deleted evidence - which requires being able to show that the materials were evidence within the meaning of a criminal statute and that she was the one that deleted them. Do you have that evidence? You have to prove that Biden engaged in influence peddling through his son - but insufficient evidence exists to prove that, which is why Comer was never able to get his impeachment resolution moving even though the GOP controls the House and was really motivated to impeach if there was a justification to do it.

An interesting retroactive crime would be to ban Congressional insider trading and then go get Nancy Pelosi.

Retroactive crimes are prohibited by the Constitution (no bills of attainder).

I know lots of people that were aghast that so few "banksters" were prosecuted during the Great Recession for blowing up the economy - because none of them really knew what the criminal laws were.

I was among them. In the end, I had to concede that what they did shouldn't have been legal, but thanks to Congress, it was. And mostly still is (e.g. investment banks can comingle their activities and finances with savings banks).

HRC shouldn't have been allowed to set up a private server, but that was allowed at the time. I think they changed that, do now it wouldn't be allowed.

Nope. She received emails that contained classified information. She had no control over that, any more than you could control me sending you classified information.

HRC's intent was never a factor.

Nope. She received emails that contained classified information. She had no control over that, any more than you could control me sending you classified information.

LOLOLOLOL.
She set up the server in the first place knowing what would be on it.

You would have to prove that. Any evidence? And "I just know it" doesn't qualify.

She set up the server in the first place knowing what would be on it.

You seem to still be missing the point of all this. It matters whether she actually removed the information from a SCIF herself, versus "setting up the server in the first place knowing what would be on it," if we're talking about whether she can be prosecuted. Because there are criminal statutes that apply to actions like removing classified information from a SCIF, and those statutes don't apply to actions like setting up a private server knowing that classified information would land on it.


This is the fundamental disconnect you have. Just because two different actions have just as bad impacts on national security (stipulated for discussion) doesn't mean that they both fit into the same criminal statutes. Removing information from a SCIF is different for the purposes of the U.S. Criminal Code than setting up a server. You might think the latter shouldn't be different, but it is. Which is why Clinton wasn't, and can't, be prosecuted for that.

You would have to prove that. Any evidence? And "I just know it" doesn't qualify.

You guys are using the "you don't have evidence" as a rhetorical shield. That's kinda funny, as if anyone on here has privileged access to Justice Department files.

But let's play along and game this out, logically. Because it gives me an opportunity to force you to label Herself as The Stupidest Woman on The Planet. Or admit she's a lying crook. You pick.

So here we go. Hillary! Clinton:
*Spent 8 years in the White House acting as an advisor to her husband. She either participated in or knew that her husband got loads of classified briefings during that time. She either participated in or knew that people in the White House were NOT PERMITTED to randomly access and share classified info.

*Spent 8 years in the United States Senate, 6 of which featured her on the Senate Armed Services Committee. During this time she Herself had a security clearance, as Armed Services Committee members routinely receive briefings on classified matters from the armed forces.

*Spent 4 years as Secretary of State, presiding over America's entire diplomatic wing and serving as a Cabinet official in the United States Government. As a part of her role she is privy to some of the nation's most sensitive secrets such as trade information, diplomatic strategies and intelligence information.

So I put it to you.

With someone of Herself's background, knowing what she knows, knowing the strict rules that are put in place for handling, disseminating and storing sensitive information - and remember, before you get cleared you are briefed to all the consequences:

Is it in any plausible that she wouldn't know that setting up a closet server at her unsecured house and allowing Huma and God knows who else to have access to it was a bad idea?

Here's your 2 choices.

1. She didn't know, and is therefore the dumbest woman on the planet. She clearly didn't learn anything after YEARS of being exposed to this world.

2. She did know, didn't care, because as Hillary!, First Of Her Name, the laws are for little people and she's a crook.

Which is it?














I'll answer for you: Option 3 - she knew but it doesn't really matter Because Reasons.

It matters whether she actually removed the information from a SCIF herself,

But Your Honor, I know I'm a Fiduciary Officer of This Company, but it really wasn't my job to prevent those accountants who work for me from fleecing the shareholders. Great defense there.

"LOLOLOLOL....She set up the server in the first place knowing what would be on it,"the cultist cackled in his repressed yet maniacal desperation, flush from long hours marinating in the glow of Fox and OANN on the flickering screen in his darkened basement.

Oh jaysys mahria, Trump and his minions, rather than urging calm and letting the process work, are essentially excusing people for following their violent urges.

It's uncanny that the face by Trump side in many of the photos and videos this past month is Boris Epshteyn. Born in Russia, an advisor/attorney/republican/investment banker. (did somebody say russia russia russia)

Setting up the private server was legal. If you go after anyone, it would have to be the people that sent her email with classified material. They are the ones who may have violated the law.

I do agree it was stupid, and should not have been allowed. But, at that time, it was. She broke no laws at that time.

It's not a rhetorical shield. They have to have broken a law, and then you have to prove it.

But Your Honor, I know I'm a Fiduciary Officer of This Company, but it really wasn't my job to prevent those accountants who work for me from fleecing the shareholders. Great defense there.

Again, you're missing the point. You can't argue this by analogy, because that's not how criminal statutes work. A criminal statute will have an actual, formal definition of a crime. If you don't meet the actual elements of the crime, you can't be convicted of that crime. The specifics always matter.

So if, for example, the crime of embezzlement requires "the fraudulent appropriation of property by a person to whom it has been entrusted," then you would need to actually prove that the Fiduciary Officer of the company actually: i) was entrusted; ii) the property; iii) of another; which was iv) fraudulently; v) appropriated by that person. Five separate elements.

So if the accountants were the ones who appropriated the property, and the Fiduciary Officer did not appropriate the property, the FO can't be charged with embezzlement. It might have been his fiduciary obligation to make sure that measures were in place to prevent embezzlement - but to be charged with embezzlement, you have to actually have been the one to appropriate the property. Only the person who appropriated the property can be convicted of that specific crime.

The same is true of most criminal statutes, including the relevant ones that were talked about with Clinton. There are statutes that make it a crime to remove classified information from where it is supposed to be, or to receive classified information if you're not cleared....but Clinton didn't remove the info, and she was cleared to have it. So she couldn't be charged under those crimes. There isn't a catch-all "misuse of classified information" crime. Nothing she did actually matched up with the elements of any specific crimes, so she couldn't be charged.

Anyway, I'm off for the evening, so everyone enjoy the fulminations about the Trump verdict without me!

*Biden, while Vice President and in-between his Vice Presidency and now clearly engaged in influence peddling through his son. Covered that here.
*Hillary! did the same thing that Trump was just convicted for by routing campaign money (not her own) through Perkins Coie. Then there's her illegal server from which she deleted evidence (another crime) as well as allowing access to non-cleared folks (more crimes). She was never charged for any of it.
*Bill Clinton flew on the Lolita Express and likely had inappropriate contact with underage girls. Somehow that series of crimes gets memory holed.

You live in the right wing conspiracy bubble. You'll never evaluate facts objectively if that is where you're stuck.

Setting up the private server was legal.

So anyone can conduct government business anywhere they want, eh? And store info anyplace they want?

No and no.

“Who’s getting indicted next?” she asked. “Joe Biden? Maybe Jill Biden? How low can we go? You may not want to see it. That ship has already left port. That horse has left the barn. That’s where we’re going.

---------------

Lets warm up on Fauci! Businesses and citizens of every state have standing resulting froma business losses and lockdown harm. Prosecute him for lying to congress. We have learned that Local DA can charge Federal violations so there should be at least one local DA in every state willing to take up the lawfare challenge.

Is it in any plausible that she wouldn't know that setting up a closet server at her unsecured house and allowing Huma and God knows who else to have access to it was a bad idea?

No, it isn’t plausible she wouldn’t know it was a bad idea. It WAS a bad idea. But not illegal.

Speaking of bad ideas, would you think it was a really bad idea if Hillary took boxes and boxes of top secret classified documents and stored them in a closet next to a country club’s swimming pool? Because not only is it a bad idea, it’s illegal.

We have learned that Local DA can charge Federal violations ……

That’s not accurate Mike, and I know that you know it’s not accurate.

Show me ur evidence is 100% a rhetorical shield, as is slyly hiding behind this case as proof of something.

This thread is a classic example of usage of rhetorical shields alongside the real debate between what is Legally Correct vs. Behaviorally Proper.

Let's say I'm a sheriff in Mobile, Alabama. I sit there on the road with my radar gun and I let every speeding car with a Roll Tide bumper sticker on it fly right by. But every time I see Auburn Tiger colors I pull them over and ticket and/or arrest them for reckless driving. When asked for my "Evidence" that Auburn Tigers are unsafe drivers...I can point to my arrest record as "evidence". With a poop-eating grin on my face. That's what we're looking at here with this "evidence" shield.

In this case, partisan democrats contorted the law to bring a bullshit case in a blatant attempt to interfere with the election. It's partisan lawfare, and very Behaviorally Improper no matter what concocted legal foundation they come up with. Much like our Alabama deputy, the goal here is to point to "Evidence" that Republicans are this and that knowing the foundation was sketchy. But hey. A trial was concluded that generated "Evidence". Evidence of what crime no one can say, but hey, we have "Evidence" that Trump is a felon, so he is.

You folks refuse to grant that 1mm of space I mentioned upthread for a very simple reason...because doing so would crack the foundation of this entire thing. You won't like it when it starts happening to democrats.

Trump could have thrown together a legal case that was Legally Correct and tossed Hillary! in prison. But he didn't. Why? Because it wouldn't have been Behaviorally Proper to vindictively fry his political opponent.

Should Trump win in November, we're going to see every liberal on this board flip from Legally Correct to Behaviorally Proper and try to have it both ways. How do I know that? Because all of them will RAIL about how horrible it is that We're Swearing In A Felon As President And This Shall Be Resisted or some such. You all know you will.

Hear that, Mr. Anderson? It's the sound of...inevitability.

Lets warm up on Fauci! Businesses and citizens of every state have standing resulting froma business losses and lockdown harm. Prosecute him for lying to congress. We have learned that Local DA can charge Federal violations so there should be at least one local DA in every state willing to take up the lawfare challenge.

A whole BARGE FULL of democrats routinely lie to Congress and are held in contempt, yet nothing happens. Republicans held in contempt are vigorously prosecuted.

Fauci should be very high on that list, and let's not forget Mayorkas and Eric Holder.

The short memories the libs on the board have is very convenient. (Watch, one of them will ask for "Evidence" that Fauci and the others lied to Congress. No matter how many links to how many hours of testimony it will never be enough "Evidence" to convince them, by the way).

An interesting retroactive crime would be to ban Congressional insider trading and then go get Nancy Pelosi.

Sounds Ex Post Facto and unconstitutional.

The short memories the libs on the board have is very convenient. (Watch, one of them will ask for "Evidence" that Fauci and the others lied to Congress. No matter how many links to how many hours of testimony it will never be enough "Evidence" to convince them, by the way). - Dope

------------------

No need to convince the libs, anyway. All you need to do is form a jury from the reddest, redneck district you can find and let justice run its course.

No need to convince the libs, anyway. All you need to do is form a jury from the reddest, redneck district you can find and let justice run its course.

Have at it. But don't let it interfere with the Classified Documents case and the Georgia case on Trump. I doubt if you will ever get it off the ground. All idle talk.

You folks refuse to grant that 1mm of space I mentioned upthread for a very simple reason...because doing so would crack the foundation of this entire thing.

I would need Alan Turing to decode that.

You won't like it when it starts happening to democrats.

Have at at.

Trump could have thrown together a legal case that was Legally Correct and tossed Hillary! in prison. But he didn't. Why? Because it wouldn't have been Behaviorally Proper to vindictively fry his political opponent.

BS. If Trump could've, he would've, but he didn't, because he couldn't. You are way out there Dope. First, you have a secret that would crack everything wide open, but somehow "you folks" prevented it. Trump didn't go after Clinton cause...behaviorally improper. Come back Dope, there isn't that much air when you are that far out.

HRC shouldn't have been allowed to set up a private server,

Colin Powell had a private server too.

Dope1: Trump could have thrown together a legal case that was Legally Correct and tossed Hillary! in prison. But he didn't. Why? Because it wouldn't have been Behaviorally Proper to vindictively fry his political opponent.

This is a fun thread, reading albaby1 calmly expose how misinformed and factually incorrect the Trump Cult is with respect to the Stormy Daniels election interference trial.

And sorry but they're equally misinformed about Dementia Don's efforts to indict Hillary Clinton.

In fact, then president Trump asked his White House counsel to order the Justice Department to prosecute both Hillary Clinton and the former F.B.I. director James B. Comey.

The lawyer, Donald F. McGahn II, rebuffed the president, saying that he had no authority to order a prosecution. Mr. McGahn said that while he could request an investigation, that too could prompt accusations of abuse of power. To underscore his point, Mr. McGahn had White House lawyers write a memo for Mr. Trump warning that if he asked law enforcement to investigate his rivals, he could face a range of consequences, including possible impeachment.

Trump is a POS; always has been, always will be.

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/11/20/us/politics/pre...

LOLOLOLOL.
She set up the server in the first place knowing what would be on it.

And after all the flap there were three problem emails.

>>HRC shouldn't have been allowed to set up a private server,<<

Colin Powell had a private server too. - Lapsody

-------------------

I seem to remember Powell used a Yahoo e-mail address but didn't actually have his own server.

FWIW, HRC's server was likely more secure than Yahoo.

No need to convince the libs, anyway. All you need to do is form a jury from the reddest, redneck district you can find and let justice run its course.

Always about revenge.

You’ve been trying to convict Biden for years, but now you’re the victim.

You’ve screamed “Lock her up” about your political enemies. But that was OK.

What did you expect? You laid down with a dog and you woke up with fleas.

No problem, the SCOTUS fix is in place as you carry on about the legal system being corrupt.

What is it called when a Republican accuses you of something?

A confession.

Welcome back! Looks like the firmware upgrade took longer than expected, huh?

I seem to remember Powell used a Yahoo e-mail address but didn't actually have his own server.

FWIW, HRC's server was likely more secure than Yahoo.

Ya, looked it up and it was AOL.

I didn't know that. I suspect the private server was more secure, but still a bad idea.

How could anyone think using AOL, Yahoo, Gmail, or a server in your home was a good idea for secure communications? Hopefully it actually is illegal now.

I have wondered what Trump did with his private phone, other than use Twitter on the john in the morning. He refused to surrender the phone and use the secure one the Secret Service tried to give him. Did he use it for anything that required security? Would that be actionable?

In future, a POTUS should not have the option not to surrender the personal phone. Even if they have to pin the POTUS down and pry it from their hands. T-Mobile or Verizon are not sufficiently secure.

It was a bad idea, but it was legal at the time. No laws broken.

So, at that time, it would be "yes and no". Evidently it was common practice.

The law is not concerned about "behaviorally proper". You can't prosecute someone to conviction for improper behavior if it wasn't actually illegal.

Voters can judge someone based on that, but not the courts. It had to be codified into law for courts to act.

That's not a rhetorical shield, it's the simple fact of our judicial system.

Trump could have thrown together a legal case that was Legally Correct and tossed Hillary! in prison. But he didn't. Why? Because it wouldn't have been Behaviorally Proper to vindictively fry his political opponent.

Oh, Dope, this is so patently ridiculous and false, but then since you've kind of lost it over Trump being a convicted felon, I'm not surprised.

And I know the RW media rage machine is filling all you MAGAs with frothing-at-the-mouth hatred. It's stupid and it's sad, but hey it may help Trump get elected. Then you can live in the glorious fascist country you seem to yearn for.

It’s not common practice to store classified material on a closet server, no.

You’ll be singing a different tune should Trump win in November.

I can differentiate between aberrant behavior and illegality. I have always flagged his atrocious behavior, but most of it wasn't illegal.

If he wins, I'll still be able to differentiate between the two.

If he wins there will be riots in the streets and the democrats will scream RESISTANCE. The democrats will do what they always do and that is to try to block the election (look it up, they always object when they lose).

This board will go nuts and claim it’s illegal to put a felon in the White House.

Inevitable.

If he wins there will be riots in the streets and the democrats will scream RESISTANCE. The democrats will do what they always do and that is to try to block the election (look it up, they always object when they lose).

Riots means multiple. I expect protests with some violence in a couple. Since he wants to be a dictator, we will resist that. We'll see how Project 2025 ans the ilk fare.


This board will go nuts and claim it’s illegal to put a felon in the White House.

I doubt it, seriously. It isn't illegal, so I'll doubt we'll claim that.

Inevitable.

Here's my off the scale projection:

Biden wins. Texas secedes. Trump fires all top people in the DOJ, State Dept, and Immigration and installs incompetent lackeys. Borders are closed. Trump withdraws from NATO and the Geneva Convention. The Army is deployed to the border on emergency status. All aid stops to Ukraine. Drilling and mining permits are issued prior to any analysis. Trump hikes tariffs on anything Chinese and halts Chinese and Muslims coming into the country. DOJ files charges against Nancy Pelosi, Fanni Willis, Bragg, Fauci, Clinton - Hunter Biden is jailed on trumped up charges, Stormy Daniels hides in the Netherlands, Cohen disappears.

Inevitable.

If he wins there will be riots in the streets and the democrats will scream RESISTANCE. The democrats will do what they always do and that is to try to block the election (look it up, they always object when they lose).

The only response I can come up with to that absurd statement is 'WTF have you been smoking?'

You are living in an inverted world.

look it up, they always object when they lose

Bullshit. Ever since Trump told the big lie it is standard for most Republicans who lose to claim the election was stolen.

Post New

Berkshire Hathaway FAQ

---

Contact Shrewd'm
Contact the developer of these message boards.