Indictment Monday?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Trump paid $260k to reimburse Cohen for the $130k payment to Daniels because laundering it as legal fees rather than as a reimbursement made it taxable income to Cohen so they doubled it to cover his federal, state, and local taxes. They did the same to reimburse Cohen for paying $50k for “tech services” that for some reason they did not want reported honestly. That got it to $360k then they tacked on a 60k bonus for Cohen. That’s how Trump paid $420k to reimburse $180k that he did not want to be reported correctly.

Yet you have none of this in writing. It's all supposition and hearsay.

Actually it is in writing. McConney, the Trump Org controller, wrote it down as notes from his conversations with Weisselberg on Trump Org stationery. The notes were entered into evidence and McConney testified about them.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The reason it is a felony is because it was done to cover up another crime. What was the other crime?

New York Election Law § 17-152

Thank you. What was the “unlawful means”?

The only plausible 'unlawful means' is a campaign finance violation. Again they are trying to enforce federal election law.

And there is no violation. If Trump had booked a payment as a campaign finance expense, that could be argued is a violation of using campaign funds for personal expenses.

And the NY law is itself another misdemeanor. Misdemeanor with intent to commit another misdemeanor is now 34 felony counts and prison for 100 years.

[Anonymous]

So a state is trying to enforce federal election law?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The prosecutors have stated that their primary crime they are alleging as the 'another crime' is NY law promot[ing] or prevent[ing] the election of any person to a public office by unlawful means.

What are the unlawful means, and how does this crime cause that crime?
Falsification of business records had no impact on the election, as they were booked after the election, as were any FEC reports.

It didn't have to, there just has to be intent

That is pretty vague. How can one intend to steal an election by filing false business expenses the next year?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The prosecutors have stated that their primary crime they are alleging as the 'another crime' is NY law promot[ing] or prevent[ing] the election of any person to a public office by unlawful means.

What are the unlawful means, and how does this crime cause that crime?
Falsification of business records had no impact on the election, as they were booked after the election, as were any FEC reports.

It didn't have to, there just has to be intent

That is pretty vague. How can one intend to steal an election by filing false business expenses the next year?

The coverup is part of the crime. Were you born yesterday?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The prosecutors have stated that their primary crime they are alleging as the 'another crime' is NY law promot[ing] or prevent[ing] the election of any person to a public office by unlawful means.

What are the unlawful means, and how does this crime cause that crime?
Falsification of business records had no impact on the election, as they were booked after the election, as were any FEC reports.

It didn't have to, there just has to be intent

That is pretty vague. How can one intend to steal an election by filing false business expenses the next year?

The coverup is part of the crime. Were you born yesterday?

There is no crime.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:So a state is trying to enforce federal election law?

NY is prosecuting a state law crime that was committed to coverup of state and federal crimes. It’s pretty simple to understand if you aren’t a delusional cult member.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:So a state is trying to enforce federal election law?

I'm forced to conclude you are a complete moron.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:So a state is trying to enforce federal election law?

OMG! Either you are being deliberately obtuse or you are just stupid and I suspect it is the latter!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The reason it is a felony is because it was done to cover up another crime. What was the other crime?

New York Election Law § 17-152

Thank you. What was the “unlawful means”?

The only plausible 'unlawful means' is a campaign finance violation. Again they are trying to enforce federal election law.

And there is no violation. If Trump had booked a payment as a campaign finance expense, that could be argued is a violation of using campaign funds for personal expenses.

If this were true Trump's lawyers would have argued this. They have not, so maybe you with your superior legal knowledge, should contact them, or Trump, and volunteer your legal expertise.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The reason it is a felony is because it was done to cover up another crime. What was the other crime?

New York Election Law § 17-152

Thank you. What was the “unlawful means”?

The only plausible 'unlawful means' is a campaign finance violation. Again they are trying to enforce federal election law.

And there is no violation. If Trump had booked a payment as a campaign finance expense, that could be argued is a violation of using campaign funds for personal expenses.

If this were true Trump's lawyers would have argued this. They have not, so maybe you with your superior legal knowledge, should contact them, or Trump, and volunteer your legal expertise.

They have argued this. The judge keeps ruling against them. He doesn't care about appeals, just getting the conviction for the campaign.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The reason it is a felony is because it was done to cover up another crime. What was the other crime?

New York Election Law § 17-152

Thank you. What was the “unlawful means”?

The only plausible 'unlawful means' is a campaign finance violation. Again they are trying to enforce federal election law.

And there is no violation. If Trump had booked a payment as a campaign finance expense, that could be argued is a violation of using campaign funds for personal expenses.

If this were true Trump's lawyers would have argued this. They have not, so maybe you with your superior legal knowledge, should contact them, or Trump, and volunteer your legal expertise.

They have argued this. The judge keeps ruling against them. He doesn't care about appeals, just getting the conviction for the campaign.

Evidently, they weren't successful so you should contact them and tell them where they went wrong.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:So a state is trying to enforce federal election law?

No, this is a NY court enforcing a NY law. The FEC and Federal law have nothing to do with it. The MAGA PP's asserting otherwise are ill-informed.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So a state is trying to enforce federal election law?

No, this is a NY court enforcing a NY law. The FEC and Federal law have nothing to do with it. The MAGA PP's asserting otherwise are ill-informed.

It's no use trying to explain. Stupid is forever.

[Anonymous]

Can we talk about the defense strategy on Stormy Daniels? It seems a bit bonkers.

First, they denied the meeting ever took place in opening statements, opening the door for her to testify. Legally, it doesn’t really matter to this case if she was telling the truth. So, I also don’t understand the aggressive cross examination of Daniels and the ho-hum cross of the other witnesses with far more damaging testimony.

The mistrial motions are also weird. Not only did they make sure she would testify, they didn’t object to a lot of things that they should have, and then claimed what she said was grounds for a mistrial.

Was all of it a plan to set up the mistrial claims? An ineffective assistance of counsel claim? Other than Trump being angry about Daniels, it doesn’t make sense. If they’re more concerned about the court of public opinion than the actual criminal court, how is that going to be good for the case? These are competent, experienced attorneys, making what seem to be huge strategy missteps.