Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I assumed the misdemeanor is a slam dunk case, and it fails under trying to extend to a felony.
However, Andy McCarthy explains even the misdemeanor case is nonexistent.

https://www.nationalreview.com/2024/05/trump-should-be-acquitted-in-manhattan/

Submitting false records is not enough. There must be a willful intent to commit fraud in doing so. Bragg had not presented evidence of that.

He actually has, in the form of testimony, particularly of people who worked for Trump directly. The timing also speaks to the motive and...Michael Cohen will be the person who, using the third party testimony and documentary evidence, including Weisselburgs handwritten notes, ties it all together.

If this case hinges on the testimony of Michael Cohen - Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha.
He is a convicted felon and a serial perjurer. And, a federal judge agrees that he cannot be trusted to tell the truth.

https://www.politico.com/news/2024/03/20/judge-michael-cohen-perjury-00148104#:~:text=NEW%20YORK%20—%20A%20federal%20judge,trial%20—%20is%20an%20untrustworthy%20liar.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I assumed the misdemeanor is a slam dunk case, and it fails under trying to extend to a felony.
However, Andy McCarthy explains even the misdemeanor case is nonexistent.

https://www.nationalreview.com/2024/05/trump-should-be-acquitted-in-manhattan/

Submitting false records is not enough. There must be a willful intent to commit fraud in doing so. Bragg had not presented evidence of that.

He actually has, in the form of testimony, particularly of people who worked for Trump directly. The timing also speaks to the motive and...Michael Cohen will be the person who, using the third party testimony and documentary evidence, including Weisselburgs handwritten notes, ties it all together.

Anonymous wrote:I assumed the misdemeanor is a slam dunk case, and it fails under trying to extend to a felony.
However, Andy McCarthy explains even the misdemeanor case is nonexistent.

https://www.nationalreview.com/2024/05/trump-should-be-acquitted-in-manhattan/

Submitting false records is not enough. There must be a willful intent to commit fraud in doing so. Bragg had not presented evidence of that.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I assumed the misdemeanor is a slam dunk case, and it fails under trying to extend to a felony.
However, Andy McCarthy explains even the misdemeanor case is nonexistent.

https://www.nationalreview.com/2024/05/trump-should-be-acquitted-in-manhattan/

Submitting false records is not enough. There must be a willful intent to commit fraud in doing so. Bragg had not presented evidence of that.

He actually has, in the form of testimony, particularly of people who worked for Trump directly. The timing also speaks to the motive and...Michael Cohen will be the person who, using the third party testimony and documentary evidence, including Weisselburgs handwritten notes, ties it all together.

Anonymous wrote:
Bill Maher brings the receipts and blows up Stormy.

https://twitter.com/CitizenFreePres/status/1789260922042650988

Anonymous wrote:I assumed the misdemeanor is a slam dunk case, and it fails under trying to extend to a felony.
However, Andy McCarthy explains even the misdemeanor case is nonexistent.

https://www.nationalreview.com/2024/05/trump-should-be-acquitted-in-manhattan/

Submitting false records is not enough. There must be a willful intent to commit fraud in doing so. Bragg had not presented evidence of that.

Anonymous wrote:I assumed the misdemeanor is a slam dunk case, and it fails under trying to extend to a felony.
However, Andy McCarthy explains even the misdemeanor case is nonexistent.

https://www.nationalreview.com/2024/05/trump-should-be-acquitted-in-manhattan/

Submitting false records is not enough. There must be a willful intent to commit fraud in doing so. Bragg had not presented evidence of that.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Just because Trump says that does not make it true.

It's not just Trump saying it.

What *specifically* is the crime, and what evidence has been presented to prove it?

1. Trump admitted in a California lawsuit that he reimbursed Cohen $130K for hush money
2. Weisselberg’s handwritten notes “X2 for taxes” admits the underlying tax crime that makes these felonies

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Just because Trump says that does not make it true.

It's not just Trump saying it.

What *specifically* is the crime, and what evidence has been presented to prove it?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

Constantly objecting in court makes the defense look bad to the jury. The judge should have been disallowing this testimony to begin with.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

They never denied the meeting took place, there are photos of the two of them together. What they denied in the opening argument was that any sex occurred. THAT is what opened the door for her testimony. As her story unfolded, what became apparent is that TRUMP didn't want those details to come out before the election, otherwise it would have sunk his campaign, as testified by Hope Hicks. In fact, she also affirmed that the GOP, after the Access Hollywood tape surfaced, was considering a different candidate at that late date. So yes, Trump was desperate to keep Stormy under wraps, and hence the deal to pay her off in October 2016. It was the follow on payments to Cohen - not legal fees, but reimbursements, that are the crime.

The prosecution is presenting, and the judge is letting them get away with it, that the above is a crime. NDA is not a crime, nor is 'conspiracy' or 'scheme' to win an election. They are focusing on all these catch and kill stories with National Enquirer participating. The case is about business fraud, which is a misdemeanor for which the statue of limitations has expired, that the judge is letting the prosecutor elevate to a felony, without specifying the other crime needed to elevate to a felony. Even then. they are fosuing on legal actions and letting the jury think they should convict if they prove Trump did these legal things.

Anonymous wrote: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.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

They never denied the meeting took place, there are photos of the two of them together. What they denied in the opening argument was that any sex occurred. THAT is what opened the door for her testimony. As her story unfolded, what became apparent is that TRUMP didn't want those details to come out before the election, otherwise it would have sunk his campaign, as testified by Hope Hicks. In fact, she also affirmed that the GOP, after the Access Hollywood tape surfaced, was considering a different candidate at that late date. So yes, Trump was desperate to keep Stormy under wraps, and hence the deal to pay her off in October 2016. It was the follow on payments to Cohen - not legal fees, but reimbursements, that are the crime.

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: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.

Just because Trump says that does not make it true.

It's not just Trump saying it.

What *specifically* is the crime, and what evidence has been presented to prove it?

Do you eat lead or something?

Are you unable to answer the question?

A number of people have patiently answered your question over the last dozen pages or so, hence my question to you.

PP asked what the *specific* crime was and the answer is that there wasn’t one. The speculation in the article is that the judge may allow members of the jury to select a “crime” and it is all the more confusing because Trump was never charged with any of those possible crimes and certainly never convicted.

The speculation in the article is just that, speculation. There are specific crimes captioned in the legal proceeding. The AG will present the facts of the case (about one week left) and then at closing arguments, they tie the actions of what was presented, to the specific laws captioned in the filings.

So the defense doesn't find out until closing arguments what they are defending against? There is no federal crime, but the defense is not being allowed to argue that. There is no state law crime, the 17.152 because the illegal means could only plausibly refer back to the nonexistent federal crime.