Indictment Monday?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Just a reminder that Trump is being tried for two things: first, for falsifying business records, which he did to cover up the fact that he paid off Stormy Daniels so that she couldn’t tell the world he’d had an affair with her when Melania was home nursing his infant son. Such falsification would normally be a misdemeanor, but because it was in pursuance of a second crime—in this case not reporting campaign expenditures, which are what Alvin Bragg is arguing those payments were—it incurs a second, felony charge.

It’s also why this is election interference.

The key part of your statement is "what Alvin Bragg is arguing" the payments were.
And, that would be a federal crime..... so, not in Alvin Bragg's domain.

I agree it is election interference. By Bragg.

Now, explain why this case was not taken up by the former prosecutor and actually passed over by Bragg himself initially.........

Psssst… there are also state laws against election-related crimes.

Suppressing stories, even to influence an election, is NOT a crime.
Bragg is hoping the jury will not understand this fact.

No, falsifying business records in an attempt to hide an undisclosed campaign contribution is a crime. Even though you do not understand this fact.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Just a reminder that Trump is being tried for two things: first, for falsifying business records, which he did to cover up the fact that he paid off Stormy Daniels so that she couldn’t tell the world he’d had an affair with her when Melania was home nursing his infant son. Such falsification would normally be a misdemeanor, but because it was in pursuance of a second crime—in this case not reporting campaign expenditures, which are what Alvin Bragg is arguing those payments were—it incurs a second, felony charge.

It’s also why this is election interference.

The key part of your statement is "what Alvin Bragg is arguing" the payments were.
And, that would be a federal crime..... so, not in Alvin Bragg's domain.

I agree it is election interference. By Bragg.

Now, explain why this case was not taken up by the former prosecutor and actually passed over by Bragg himself initially.........

Psssst… there are also state laws against election-related crimes.

Suppressing stories, even to influence an election, is NOT a crime.
Bragg is hoping the jury will not understand this fact.

No, falsifying business records in an attempt to hide an undisclosed campaign contribution is a crime. Even though you do not understand this fact.

That did not happen, though.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Just a reminder that Trump is being tried for two things: first, for falsifying business records, which he did to cover up the fact that he paid off Stormy Daniels so that she couldn’t tell the world he’d had an affair with her when Melania was home nursing his infant son. Such falsification would normally be a misdemeanor, but because it was in pursuance of a second crime—in this case not reporting campaign expenditures, which are what Alvin Bragg is arguing those payments were—it incurs a second, felony charge.

It’s also why this is election interference.

The key part of your statement is "what Alvin Bragg is arguing" the payments were.
And, that would be a federal crime..... so, not in Alvin Bragg's domain.

I agree it is election interference. By Bragg.

Now, explain why this case was not taken up by the former prosecutor and actually passed over by Bragg himself initially.........

Psssst… there are also state laws against election-related crimes.

Suppressing stories, even to influence an election, is NOT a crime.
Bragg is hoping the jury will not understand this fact.

No, falsifying business records in an attempt to hide an undisclosed campaign contribution is a crime. Even though you do not understand this fact.

That did not happen, though.

What part of it didn’t happen?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Just a reminder that Trump is being tried for two things: first, for falsifying business records, which he did to cover up the fact that he paid off Stormy Daniels so that she couldn’t tell the world he’d had an affair with her when Melania was home nursing his infant son. Such falsification would normally be a misdemeanor, but because it was in pursuance of a second crime—in this case not reporting campaign expenditures, which are what Alvin Bragg is arguing those payments were—it incurs a second, felony charge.

It’s also why this is election interference.

The key part of your statement is "what Alvin Bragg is arguing" the payments were.
And, that would be a federal crime..... so, not in Alvin Bragg's domain.

I agree it is election interference. By Bragg.

Now, explain why this case was not taken up by the former prosecutor and actually passed over by Bragg himself initially.........

Psssst… there are also state laws against election-related crimes.

Suppressing stories, even to influence an election, is NOT a crime.
Bragg is hoping the jury will not understand this fact.

No, falsifying business records in an attempt to hide an undisclosed campaign contribution is a crime. Even though you do not understand this fact.

That did not happen, though.

What does it matter? He has immunity. SCOTUS will have the final say. They will find some way to protect Trump.

[Anonymous]

This whole case is built on a house of cards and is a travesty.
This is a case searching for a crime.

How can Trump be charged under a NY State election law when he was never running for a state office? (and, it is a misdemeanor that has expired even if it did apply)
An NDA is totally legal - Bragg is trying to imply that it was illegal.
There has been no evidence of any criminal activity.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Just a reminder that Trump is being tried for two things: first, for falsifying business records, which he did to cover up the fact that he paid off Stormy Daniels so that she couldn’t tell the world he’d had an affair with her when Melania was home nursing his infant son. Such falsification would normally be a misdemeanor, but because it was in pursuance of a second crime—in this case not reporting campaign expenditures, which are what Alvin Bragg is arguing those payments were—it incurs a second, felony charge.

It’s also why this is election interference.

The key part of your statement is "what Alvin Bragg is arguing" the payments were.
And, that would be a federal crime..... so, not in Alvin Bragg's domain.

I agree it is election interference. By Bragg.

Now, explain why this case was not taken up by the former prosecutor and actually passed over by Bragg himself initially.........

Psssst… there are also state laws against election-related crimes.

Suppressing stories, even to influence an election, is NOT a crime.
Bragg is hoping the jury will not understand this fact.

No, falsifying business records in an attempt to hide an undisclosed campaign contribution is a crime. Even though you do not understand this fact.

That did not happen, though.

Stop gaslighting. The money paid by Pecker to shut up “our girl Karen” until after the election was an illegal campaign contribution. Pecker has admitted it and paid fines to the FEC to avoid prosecution. His testimony establishes that Trump and Cohen were complicit in the Pecker scheme. The money paid by Trump to Cohen to reimburse him for paying off Daniels is both business fraud and campaign finance fraud. Cohen served time for it and Trump was unindicted coconspirator #1 in the documents. It’s a slam dunk case.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:This whole case is built on a house of cards and is a travesty.
This is a case searching for a crime.

How can Trump be charged under a NY State election law when he was never running for a state office? (and, it is a misdemeanor that has expired even if it did apply)
An NDA is totally legal - Bragg is trying to imply that it was illegal.
There has been no evidence of any criminal activity.

You know nothing about election law or any other law.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This whole case is built on a house of cards and is a travesty.
This is a case searching for a crime.

How can Trump be charged under a NY State election law when he was never running for a state office? (and, it is a misdemeanor that has expired even if it did apply)
An NDA is totally legal - Bragg is trying to imply that it was illegal.
There has been no evidence of any criminal activity.

You know nothing about election law or any other law.

Democratic attorney and former chief counsel to Democrats on the House Judiciary Committee Julian Epstein joined "Brian Kilmeade Radio" Wednesday to discuss why he believes New York City's case against former President Trump is "outrageous" and an "embarrassment to the legal system."

JULIAN EPSTEIN: This is an outrageous case. It's an embarrassment to the legal system that this case is being brought. The notion, the theory that we heard on Monday from the prosecution, that this is about election interference because the Trump campaign was trying to suppress bad stories. Suppressing bad stories is not election interference. Everyone does it. Nondisclosure agreements are perfectly legal. If suppressing bad news were election interference, then what would one say about the Biden campaign in 2020 that actively used all of its resources to suppress the Hunter Biden laptop case? I mean, that had much more serious implications in terms of the election than the alleged affair with Donald Trump in 2016. You know, everything falls apart, Brian. I mean, the idea that this was election interference, the conduct, the election occurred in November of 2016. The conduct in question here, namely, the recordkeeping, and the failure to disclose this, if there was any obligation as a campaign contribution, all occurred in 2017.

https://www.foxnews.com/media/democratic-lawyer-calls-ny-trump-trial-embarrassment-legal-system

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Just a reminder that Trump is being tried for two things: first, for falsifying business records, which he did to cover up the fact that he paid off Stormy Daniels so that she couldn’t tell the world he’d had an affair with her when Melania was home nursing his infant son. Such falsification would normally be a misdemeanor, but because it was in pursuance of a second crime—in this case not reporting campaign expenditures, which are what Alvin Bragg is arguing those payments were—it incurs a second, felony charge.

It’s also why this is election interference.

The key part of your statement is "what Alvin Bragg is arguing" the payments were.
And, that would be a federal crime..... so, not in Alvin Bragg's domain.

I agree it is election interference. By Bragg.

Now, explain why this case was not taken up by the former prosecutor and actually passed over by Bragg himself initially.........

Psssst… there are also state laws against election-related crimes.

Suppressing stories, even to influence an election, is NOT a crime.
Bragg is hoping the jury will not understand this fact.

Good thing that's not what he is charged with, then.

He is charged with falsifying business records to conceal hush money paid to porn star Stormy Daniels before the 2016 election.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Just a reminder that Trump is being tried for two things: first, for falsifying business records, which he did to cover up the fact that he paid off Stormy Daniels so that she couldn’t tell the world he’d had an affair with her when Melania was home nursing his infant son. Such falsification would normally be a misdemeanor, but because it was in pursuance of a second crime—in this case not reporting campaign expenditures, which are what Alvin Bragg is arguing those payments were—it incurs a second, felony charge.

It’s also why this is election interference.

The key part of your statement is "what Alvin Bragg is arguing" the payments were.
And, that would be a federal crime..... so, not in Alvin Bragg's domain.

I agree it is election interference. By Bragg.

Now, explain why this case was not taken up by the former prosecutor and actually passed over by Bragg himself initially.........

Psssst… there are also state laws against election-related crimes.

Suppressing stories, even to influence an election, is NOT a crime.
Bragg is hoping the jury will not understand this fact.

Good thing that's not what he is charged with, then.

He is charged with falsifying business records to conceal hush money paid to porn star Stormy Daniels before the 2016 election.

"The conduct in question here, namely, the recordkeeping, and the failure to disclose this, if there was any obligation as a campaign contribution, all occurred in 2017."

The election was already over if indeed he "falsified business records."

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Just a reminder that Trump is being tried for two things: first, for falsifying business records, which he did to cover up the fact that he paid off Stormy Daniels so that she couldn’t tell the world he’d had an affair with her when Melania was home nursing his infant son. Such falsification would normally be a misdemeanor, but because it was in pursuance of a second crime—in this case not reporting campaign expenditures, which are what Alvin Bragg is arguing those payments were—it incurs a second, felony charge.

It’s also why this is election interference.

The key part of your statement is "what Alvin Bragg is arguing" the payments were.
And, that would be a federal crime..... so, not in Alvin Bragg's domain.

I agree it is election interference. By Bragg.

Now, explain why this case was not taken up by the former prosecutor and actually passed over by Bragg himself initially.........

Psssst… there are also state laws against election-related crimes.

Suppressing stories, even to influence an election, is NOT a crime.
Bragg is hoping the jury will not understand this fact.

Good thing that's not what he is charged with, then.

He is charged with falsifying business records to conceal hush money paid to porn star Stormy Daniels before the 2016 election.

"The conduct in question here, namely, the recordkeeping, and the failure to disclose this, if there was any obligation as a campaign contribution, all occurred in 2017."

The election was already over if indeed he "falsified business records."

The payments made by Pecker and Cohen in 2016 were illegal campaign contributions. The falsified business reports in 2017 were fraudulent business records in New York for the purpose of covering up the illegal campaign contributions made in 2016. Also the 2017 reimbursements to Cohen for his 2016 illegal campaign contributions are new illegal campaign contributions. You lose.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This whole case is built on a house of cards and is a travesty.
This is a case searching for a crime.

How can Trump be charged under a NY State election law when he was never running for a state office? (and, it is a misdemeanor that has expired even if it did apply)
An NDA is totally legal - Bragg is trying to imply that it was illegal.
There has been no evidence of any criminal activity.

You know nothing about election law or any other law.

Democratic attorney and former chief counsel to Democrats on the House Judiciary Committee Julian Epstein joined "Brian Kilmeade Radio" Wednesday to discuss why he believes New York City's case against former President Trump is "outrageous" and an "embarrassment to the legal system."

JULIAN EPSTEIN: This is an outrageous case. It's an embarrassment to the legal system that this case is being brought. The notion, the theory that we heard on Monday from the prosecution, that this is about election interference because the Trump campaign was trying to suppress bad stories. Suppressing bad stories is not election interference. Everyone does it. Nondisclosure agreements are perfectly legal. If suppressing bad news were election interference, then what would one say about the Biden campaign in 2020 that actively used all of its resources to suppress the Hunter Biden laptop case? I mean, that had much more serious implications in terms of the election than the alleged affair with Donald Trump in 2016. You know, everything falls apart, Brian. I mean, the idea that this was election interference, the conduct, the election occurred in November of 2016. The conduct in question here, namely, the recordkeeping, and the failure to disclose this, if there was any obligation as a campaign contribution, all occurred in 2017.

https://www.foxnews.com/media/democratic-lawyer-calls-ny-trump-trial-embarrassment-legal-system

Wonder how much Fox charged Trump for this? The national enquirer has more credibility vs fox.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Just a reminder that Trump is being tried for two things: first, for falsifying business records, which he did to cover up the fact that he paid off Stormy Daniels so that she couldn’t tell the world he’d had an affair with her when Melania was home nursing his infant son. Such falsification would normally be a misdemeanor, but because it was in pursuance of a second crime—in this case not reporting campaign expenditures, which are what Alvin Bragg is arguing those payments were—it incurs a second, felony charge.

It’s also why this is election interference.

The key part of your statement is "what Alvin Bragg is arguing" the payments were.
And, that would be a federal crime..... so, not in Alvin Bragg's domain.

I agree it is election interference. By Bragg.

Now, explain why this case was not taken up by the former prosecutor and actually passed over by Bragg himself initially.........

Psssst… there are also state laws against election-related crimes.

Suppressing stories, even to influence an election, is NOT a crime.
Bragg is hoping the jury will not understand this fact.

No, falsifying business records in an attempt to hide an undisclosed campaign contribution is a crime. Even though you do not understand this fact.

That did not happen, though.

Have you been in a coma?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Just a reminder that Trump is being tried for two things: first, for falsifying business records, which he did to cover up the fact that he paid off Stormy Daniels so that she couldn’t tell the world he’d had an affair with her when Melania was home nursing his infant son. Such falsification would normally be a misdemeanor, but because it was in pursuance of a second crime—in this case not reporting campaign expenditures, which are what Alvin Bragg is arguing those payments were—it incurs a second, felony charge.

It’s also why this is election interference.

The key part of your statement is "what Alvin Bragg is arguing" the payments were.
And, that would be a federal crime..... so, not in Alvin Bragg's domain.

I agree it is election interference. By Bragg.

Now, explain why this case was not taken up by the former prosecutor and actually passed over by Bragg himself initially.........

Psssst… there are also state laws against election-related crimes.

Suppressing stories, even to influence an election, is NOT a crime.
Bragg is hoping the jury will not understand this fact.

No, falsifying business records in an attempt to hide an undisclosed campaign contribution is a crime. Even though you do not understand this fact.

That did not happen, though.

What does it matter? He has immunity. SCOTUS will have the final say. They will find some way to protect Trump.

He doesn't have immunity in New York.

[Anonymous]