Indictment Monday?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

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.

You have not explained how falsifying records in 2017, after the election, could influence the election that has already happened.

You are slow. The 2016 payments were illegal campaign contributions that influenced the election. The falsified records were an illegal fraud to cover-up the illegal payments that influenced the election. The cover-up is both a new crime and a continuation of the previous crime it is covering up.

Help me understand the difference here......

The Clinton Campaign and the DNC paid for the dossier and listed it as "attorney fees." The FEC investigated, found that they were in violation of campaign finance laws and fined the campaign and the DNC.
https://www.axios.com/2022/03/30/fec-clinton-dnc-steele-dossier-funding

The same FEC investigated the Trump campaign and dropped the investigation.
https://www.nytimes.com/2021/05/06/us/politics/trump-michael-cohen-fec.html

So, now, Trump is being criminally charged for an infraction that he supposedly made when Clinton was simply fined?

Explain this, please.

Clinton didn’t have her business falsify records to cover up the payment.

Her campaign did!!!!!

You don't get it. The crimes with Trump were using his business, not his campaign (a) to pay for campaign expenses and (b) to fraudulently claim that the business was paying Cohen for business-related legal expenses rather than illegally reimbursing him for making illegal campaign contributions.

Clinton's campaign paid legal campaign expenses with campaign money. The FEC was badgered into making a case about the Clinton campaign reporting the payments as campaign legal expenses rather than as opposition research expenses. It is a stupid point that is never prosecuted. The payments were legal, unlike in Trump's case. The Clinton campaign decided that it wasn't worth the cost of fighting over the description, so the they agreed to pay an $8,000 fine.

See..... the payments made by Cohen, if they were paid as hush money WERE NOT CAMPAIGN CONTRIBUTIONS.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

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.

You have not explained how falsifying records in 2017, after the election, could influence the election that has already happened.

You are slow. The 2016 payments were illegal campaign contributions that influenced the election. The falsified records were an illegal fraud to cover-up the illegal payments that influenced the election. The cover-up is both a new crime and a continuation of the previous crime it is covering up.

Help me understand the difference here......

The Clinton Campaign and the DNC paid for the dossier and listed it as "attorney fees." The FEC investigated, found that they were in violation of campaign finance laws and fined the campaign and the DNC.
https://www.axios.com/2022/03/30/fec-clinton-dnc-steele-dossier-funding

The same FEC investigated the Trump campaign and dropped the investigation.
https://www.nytimes.com/2021/05/06/us/politics/trump-michael-cohen-fec.html

So, now, Trump is being criminally charged for an infraction that he supposedly made when Clinton was simply fined?

Explain this, please.

Clinton didn’t have her business falsify records to cover up the payment.

Her campaign did!!!!!

You don't get it. The crimes with Trump were using his business, not his campaign (a) to pay for campaign expenses and (b) to fraudulently claim that the business was paying Cohen for business-related legal expenses rather than illegally reimbursing him for making illegal campaign contributions.

Clinton's campaign paid legal campaign expenses with campaign money. The FEC was badgered into making a case about the Clinton campaign reporting the payments as campaign legal expenses rather than as opposition research expenses. It is a stupid point that is never prosecuted. The payments were legal, unlike in Trump's case. The Clinton campaign decided that it wasn't worth the cost of fighting over the description, so the they agreed to pay an $8,000 fine.

See..... the payments made by Cohen, if they were paid as hush money WERE NOT CAMPAIGN CONTRIBUTIONS.

They were. The whole point of paying Daniels was to silence her until after the election in order to help Trump's campaign. The evidence is overwhelming that is what Pecker and Cohen and Trump were doing. If the payments are coordinated with the candidate, they are campaign contributions that have to be disclosed as such.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

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.

You have not explained how falsifying records in 2017, after the election, could influence the election that has already happened.

You are slow. The 2016 payments were illegal campaign contributions that influenced the election. The falsified records were an illegal fraud to cover-up the illegal payments that influenced the election. The cover-up is both a new crime and a continuation of the previous crime it is covering up.

Help me understand the difference here......

The Clinton Campaign and the DNC paid for the dossier and listed it as "attorney fees." The FEC investigated, found that they were in violation of campaign finance laws and fined the campaign and the DNC.
https://www.axios.com/2022/03/30/fec-clinton-dnc-steele-dossier-funding

The same FEC investigated the Trump campaign and dropped the investigation.
https://www.nytimes.com/2021/05/06/us/politics/trump-michael-cohen-fec.html

So, now, Trump is being criminally charged for an infraction that he supposedly made when Clinton was simply fined?

Explain this, please.

Clinton didn’t have her business falsify records to cover up the payment.

Her campaign did!!!!!

You don't get it. The crimes with Trump were using his business, not his campaign (a) to pay for campaign expenses and (b) to fraudulently claim that the business was paying Cohen for business-related legal expenses rather than illegally reimbursing him for making illegal campaign contributions.

Clinton's campaign paid legal campaign expenses with campaign money. The FEC was badgered into making a case about the Clinton campaign reporting the payments as campaign legal expenses rather than as opposition research expenses. It is a stupid point that is never prosecuted. The payments were legal, unlike in Trump's case. The Clinton campaign decided that it wasn't worth the cost of fighting over the description, so the they agreed to pay an $8,000 fine.

See..... the payments made by Cohen, if they were paid as hush money WERE NOT CAMPAIGN CONTRIBUTIONS.

They were. The whole point of paying Daniels was to silence her until after the election in order to help Trump's campaign. The evidence is overwhelming that is what Pecker and Cohen and Trump were doing. If the payments are coordinated with the candidate, they are campaign contributions that have to be disclosed as such.

Actually, Pecker's testimony benefited Trump. There is no evidence that it was to help his campaign, except from Cohen - who is a convicted liar.
And, the record keeping in question was in 2017 - after the election.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

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.

You have not explained how falsifying records in 2017, after the election, could influence the election that has already happened.

You are slow. The 2016 payments were illegal campaign contributions that influenced the election. The falsified records were an illegal fraud to cover-up the illegal payments that influenced the election. The cover-up is both a new crime and a continuation of the previous crime it is covering up.

Help me understand the difference here......

The Clinton Campaign and the DNC paid for the dossier and listed it as "attorney fees." The FEC investigated, found that they were in violation of campaign finance laws and fined the campaign and the DNC.
https://www.axios.com/2022/03/30/fec-clinton-dnc-steele-dossier-funding

The same FEC investigated the Trump campaign and dropped the investigation.
https://www.nytimes.com/2021/05/06/us/politics/trump-michael-cohen-fec.html

So, now, Trump is being criminally charged for an infraction that he supposedly made when Clinton was simply fined?

Explain this, please.

Clinton didn’t have her business falsify records to cover up the payment.

Her campaign did!!!!!

You don't get it. The crimes with Trump were using his business, not his campaign (a) to pay for campaign expenses and (b) to fraudulently claim that the business was paying Cohen for business-related legal expenses rather than illegally reimbursing him for making illegal campaign contributions.

Clinton's campaign paid legal campaign expenses with campaign money. The FEC was badgered into making a case about the Clinton campaign reporting the payments as campaign legal expenses rather than as opposition research expenses. It is a stupid point that is never prosecuted. The payments were legal, unlike in Trump's case. The Clinton campaign decided that it wasn't worth the cost of fighting over the description, so the they agreed to pay an $8,000 fine.

See..... the payments made by Cohen, if they were paid as hush money WERE NOT CAMPAIGN CONTRIBUTIONS.

They were. The whole point of paying Daniels was to silence her until after the election in order to help Trump's campaign. The evidence is overwhelming that is what Pecker and Cohen and Trump were doing. If the payments are coordinated with the candidate, they are campaign contributions that have to be disclosed as such.

Actually, Pecker's testimony benefited Trump. There is no evidence that it was to help his campaign, except from Cohen - who is a convicted liar.
And, the record keeping in question was in 2017 - after the election.

I haven’t seen any real takes that say Pecker’s testimony benefited Trump.

Trump is still keeping quiet because who knows what Pecker still has on him.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

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.

You have not explained how falsifying records in 2017, after the election, could influence the election that has already happened.

You are slow. The 2016 payments were illegal campaign contributions that influenced the election. The falsified records were an illegal fraud to cover-up the illegal payments that influenced the election. The cover-up is both a new crime and a continuation of the previous crime it is covering up.

Help me understand the difference here......

The Clinton Campaign and the DNC paid for the dossier and listed it as "attorney fees." The FEC investigated, found that they were in violation of campaign finance laws and fined the campaign and the DNC.
https://www.axios.com/2022/03/30/fec-clinton-dnc-steele-dossier-funding

The same FEC investigated the Trump campaign and dropped the investigation.
https://www.nytimes.com/2021/05/06/us/politics/trump-michael-cohen-fec.html

So, now, Trump is being criminally charged for an infraction that he supposedly made when Clinton was simply fined?

Explain this, please.

Clinton didn’t have her business falsify records to cover up the payment.

Her campaign did!!!!!

You don't get it. The crimes with Trump were using his business, not his campaign (a) to pay for campaign expenses and (b) to fraudulently claim that the business was paying Cohen for business-related legal expenses rather than illegally reimbursing him for making illegal campaign contributions.

Clinton's campaign paid legal campaign expenses with campaign money. The FEC was badgered into making a case about the Clinton campaign reporting the payments as campaign legal expenses rather than as opposition research expenses. It is a stupid point that is never prosecuted. The payments were legal, unlike in Trump's case. The Clinton campaign decided that it wasn't worth the cost of fighting over the description, so the they agreed to pay an $8,000 fine.

See..... the payments made by Cohen, if they were paid as hush money WERE NOT CAMPAIGN CONTRIBUTIONS.

They were. The whole point of paying Daniels was to silence her until after the election in order to help Trump's campaign. The evidence is overwhelming that is what Pecker and Cohen and Trump were doing. If the payments are coordinated with the candidate, they are campaign contributions that have to be disclosed as such.

Actually, Pecker's testimony benefited Trump. There is no evidence that it was to help his campaign, except from Cohen - who is a convicted liar.
And, the record keeping in question was in 2017 - after the election.

You are delusional. Pecker admitted it was all for the campaign and Trump was all in on it. Trump is guilty. It’s a slam dunk case.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

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.

You have not explained how falsifying records in 2017, after the election, could influence the election that has already happened.

You are slow. The 2016 payments were illegal campaign contributions that influenced the election. The falsified records were an illegal fraud to cover-up the illegal payments that influenced the election. The cover-up is both a new crime and a continuation of the previous crime it is covering up.

Help me understand the difference here......

The Clinton Campaign and the DNC paid for the dossier and listed it as "attorney fees." The FEC investigated, found that they were in violation of campaign finance laws and fined the campaign and the DNC.
https://www.axios.com/2022/03/30/fec-clinton-dnc-steele-dossier-funding

The same FEC investigated the Trump campaign and dropped the investigation.
https://www.nytimes.com/2021/05/06/us/politics/trump-michael-cohen-fec.html

So, now, Trump is being criminally charged for an infraction that he supposedly made when Clinton was simply fined?

Explain this, please.

Clinton didn’t have her business falsify records to cover up the payment.

Her campaign did!!!!!

You don't get it. The crimes with Trump were using his business, not his campaign (a) to pay for campaign expenses and (b) to fraudulently claim that the business was paying Cohen for business-related legal expenses rather than illegally reimbursing him for making illegal campaign contributions.

Clinton's campaign paid legal campaign expenses with campaign money. The FEC was badgered into making a case about the Clinton campaign reporting the payments as campaign legal expenses rather than as opposition research expenses. It is a stupid point that is never prosecuted. The payments were legal, unlike in Trump's case. The Clinton campaign decided that it wasn't worth the cost of fighting over the description, so the they agreed to pay an $8,000 fine.

See..... the payments made by Cohen, if they were paid as hush money WERE NOT CAMPAIGN CONTRIBUTIONS.

They were. The whole point of paying Daniels was to silence her until after the election in order to help Trump's campaign. The evidence is overwhelming that is what Pecker and Cohen and Trump were doing. If the payments are coordinated with the candidate, they are campaign contributions that have to be disclosed as such.

Actually, Pecker's testimony benefited Trump. There is no evidence that it was to help his campaign, except from Cohen - who is a convicted liar.
And, the record keeping in question was in 2017 - after the election.

You are delusional. Pecker admitted it was all for the campaign and Trump was all in on it. Trump is guilty. It’s a slam dunk case.

No, he didn't. He said he "assumed." That should have been overruled right then, but we have a corrupt judge presiding.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

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.

You have not explained how falsifying records in 2017, after the election, could influence the election that has already happened.

You are slow. The 2016 payments were illegal campaign contributions that influenced the election. The falsified records were an illegal fraud to cover-up the illegal payments that influenced the election. The cover-up is both a new crime and a continuation of the previous crime it is covering up.

Help me understand the difference here......

The Clinton Campaign and the DNC paid for the dossier and listed it as "attorney fees." The FEC investigated, found that they were in violation of campaign finance laws and fined the campaign and the DNC.
https://www.axios.com/2022/03/30/fec-clinton-dnc-steele-dossier-funding

The same FEC investigated the Trump campaign and dropped the investigation.
https://www.nytimes.com/2021/05/06/us/politics/trump-michael-cohen-fec.html

So, now, Trump is being criminally charged for an infraction that he supposedly made when Clinton was simply fined?

Explain this, please.

Clinton didn’t have her business falsify records to cover up the payment.

Her campaign did!!!!!

You don't get it. The crimes with Trump were using his business, not his campaign (a) to pay for campaign expenses and (b) to fraudulently claim that the business was paying Cohen for business-related legal expenses rather than illegally reimbursing him for making illegal campaign contributions.

Clinton's campaign paid legal campaign expenses with campaign money. The FEC was badgered into making a case about the Clinton campaign reporting the payments as campaign legal expenses rather than as opposition research expenses. It is a stupid point that is never prosecuted. The payments were legal, unlike in Trump's case. The Clinton campaign decided that it wasn't worth the cost of fighting over the description, so the they agreed to pay an $8,000 fine.

See..... the payments made by Cohen, if they were paid as hush money WERE NOT CAMPAIGN CONTRIBUTIONS.

They were. The whole point of paying Daniels was to silence her until after the election in order to help Trump's campaign. The evidence is overwhelming that is what Pecker and Cohen and Trump were doing. If the payments are coordinated with the candidate, they are campaign contributions that have to be disclosed as such.

Actually, Pecker's testimony benefited Trump. There is no evidence that it was to help his campaign, except from Cohen - who is a convicted liar.
And, the record keeping in question was in 2017 - after the election.

You clearly have no idea what Pecker said.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

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.

You have not explained how falsifying records in 2017, after the election, could influence the election that has already happened.

You are slow. The 2016 payments were illegal campaign contributions that influenced the election. The falsified records were an illegal fraud to cover-up the illegal payments that influenced the election. The cover-up is both a new crime and a continuation of the previous crime it is covering up.

Help me understand the difference here......

The Clinton Campaign and the DNC paid for the dossier and listed it as "attorney fees." The FEC investigated, found that they were in violation of campaign finance laws and fined the campaign and the DNC.
https://www.axios.com/2022/03/30/fec-clinton-dnc-steele-dossier-funding

The same FEC investigated the Trump campaign and dropped the investigation.
https://www.nytimes.com/2021/05/06/us/politics/trump-michael-cohen-fec.html

So, now, Trump is being criminally charged for an infraction that he supposedly made when Clinton was simply fined?

Explain this, please.

Clinton didn’t have her business falsify records to cover up the payment.

Her campaign did!!!!!

You don't get it. The crimes with Trump were using his business, not his campaign (a) to pay for campaign expenses and (b) to fraudulently claim that the business was paying Cohen for business-related legal expenses rather than illegally reimbursing him for making illegal campaign contributions.

Clinton's campaign paid legal campaign expenses with campaign money. The FEC was badgered into making a case about the Clinton campaign reporting the payments as campaign legal expenses rather than as opposition research expenses. It is a stupid point that is never prosecuted. The payments were legal, unlike in Trump's case. The Clinton campaign decided that it wasn't worth the cost of fighting over the description, so the they agreed to pay an $8,000 fine.

See..... the payments made by Cohen, if they were paid as hush money WERE NOT CAMPAIGN CONTRIBUTIONS.

They were. The whole point of paying Daniels was to silence her until after the election in order to help Trump's campaign. The evidence is overwhelming that is what Pecker and Cohen and Trump were doing. If the payments are coordinated with the candidate, they are campaign contributions that have to be disclosed as such.

Actually, Pecker's testimony benefited Trump. There is no evidence that it was to help his campaign, except from Cohen - who is a convicted liar.
And, the record keeping in question was in 2017 - after the election.

Obviously, you did not hear the same testimony the rest of us heard!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

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.

You have not explained how falsifying records in 2017, after the election, could influence the election that has already happened.

You are slow. The 2016 payments were illegal campaign contributions that influenced the election. The falsified records were an illegal fraud to cover-up the illegal payments that influenced the election. The cover-up is both a new crime and a continuation of the previous crime it is covering up.

Help me understand the difference here......

The Clinton Campaign and the DNC paid for the dossier and listed it as "attorney fees." The FEC investigated, found that they were in violation of campaign finance laws and fined the campaign and the DNC.
https://www.axios.com/2022/03/30/fec-clinton-dnc-steele-dossier-funding

The same FEC investigated the Trump campaign and dropped the investigation.
https://www.nytimes.com/2021/05/06/us/politics/trump-michael-cohen-fec.html

So, now, Trump is being criminally charged for an infraction that he supposedly made when Clinton was simply fined?

Explain this, please.

Clinton didn’t have her business falsify records to cover up the payment.

Her campaign did!!!!!

You don't get it. The crimes with Trump were using his business, not his campaign (a) to pay for campaign expenses and (b) to fraudulently claim that the business was paying Cohen for business-related legal expenses rather than illegally reimbursing him for making illegal campaign contributions.

Clinton's campaign paid legal campaign expenses with campaign money. The FEC was badgered into making a case about the Clinton campaign reporting the payments as campaign legal expenses rather than as opposition research expenses. It is a stupid point that is never prosecuted. The payments were legal, unlike in Trump's case. The Clinton campaign decided that it wasn't worth the cost of fighting over the description, so the they agreed to pay an $8,000 fine.

See..... the payments made by Cohen, if they were paid as hush money WERE NOT CAMPAIGN CONTRIBUTIONS.

They were. The whole point of paying Daniels was to silence her until after the election in order to help Trump's campaign. The evidence is overwhelming that is what Pecker and Cohen and Trump were doing. If the payments are coordinated with the candidate, they are campaign contributions that have to be disclosed as such.

Actually, Pecker's testimony benefited Trump. There is no evidence that it was to help his campaign, except from Cohen - who is a convicted liar.
And, the record keeping in question was in 2017 - after the election.

You are delusional. Pecker admitted it was all for the campaign and Trump was all in on it. Trump is guilty. It’s a slam dunk case.

No, he didn't. He said he "assumed." That should have been overruled right then, but we have a corrupt judge presiding.

You need a tranquilizer as well an appointment with an ENT M.D. to check your hearing and an opthalmologist to prescribe reading glasses and then you need some specialist to find out why you have no reading or hearing comprehension!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

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.

You have not explained how falsifying records in 2017, after the election, could influence the election that has already happened.

You are slow. The 2016 payments were illegal campaign contributions that influenced the election. The falsified records were an illegal fraud to cover-up the illegal payments that influenced the election. The cover-up is both a new crime and a continuation of the previous crime it is covering up.

Help me understand the difference here......

The Clinton Campaign and the DNC paid for the dossier and listed it as "attorney fees." The FEC investigated, found that they were in violation of campaign finance laws and fined the campaign and the DNC.
https://www.axios.com/2022/03/30/fec-clinton-dnc-steele-dossier-funding

The same FEC investigated the Trump campaign and dropped the investigation.
https://www.nytimes.com/2021/05/06/us/politics/trump-michael-cohen-fec.html

So, now, Trump is being criminally charged for an infraction that he supposedly made when Clinton was simply fined?

Explain this, please.

Clinton didn’t have her business falsify records to cover up the payment.

Her campaign did!!!!!

You don't get it. The crimes with Trump were using his business, not his campaign (a) to pay for campaign expenses and (b) to fraudulently claim that the business was paying Cohen for business-related legal expenses rather than illegally reimbursing him for making illegal campaign contributions.

Clinton's campaign paid legal campaign expenses with campaign money. The FEC was badgered into making a case about the Clinton campaign reporting the payments as campaign legal expenses rather than as opposition research expenses. It is a stupid point that is never prosecuted. The payments were legal, unlike in Trump's case. The Clinton campaign decided that it wasn't worth the cost of fighting over the description, so the they agreed to pay an $8,000 fine.

See..... the payments made by Cohen, if they were paid as hush money WERE NOT CAMPAIGN CONTRIBUTIONS.

They were. The whole point of paying Daniels was to silence her until after the election in order to help Trump's campaign. The evidence is overwhelming that is what Pecker and Cohen and Trump were doing. If the payments are coordinated with the candidate, they are campaign contributions that have to be disclosed as such.

Actually, Pecker's testimony benefited Trump. There is no evidence that it was to help his campaign, except from Cohen - who is a convicted liar.
And, the record keeping in question was in 2017 - after the election.

To quote Judge Judy, "Stupid is forever."

,"

[Anonymous]

[Anonymous]

Michael Cohen just gave trump a perfect name. I hope it catches on with everyone!

"Hey Von ShitzInPantz...your attacks of me stink of desperation. We are all hoping that you take the stand in your defense," Cohen wrote on X.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Michael Cohen just gave trump a perfect name. I hope it catches on with everyone!

"Hey Von ShitzInPantz...your attacks of me stink of desperation. We are all hoping that you take the stand in your defense," Cohen wrote on X.

Aren’t we all? He’ll brag about how and why he committed the crime he’s accused of.

[Anonymous]

Is pecker still on the stand today?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Is pecker still on the stand today?

The trial is not in session today. The courts have a day off from trials. I can't seem to find any explanation of why they are having this day off, just comments about the trial resuming on Tuesday.