Update on Trump Legal Cases

[BackInTex]

Probably don’t need to worry your pretty little head about it. All he needs is one person on the jury who doesn’t care what the laws are or the evidence shows to vote for his acquittal.

Chances are pretty good that someone like you in that respect is on the jury.

Course, he’s still going to act like a jackass every day for quite awhile, which won’t help his chances in the election. So, that’ll be good.

Well, the prosecuter doesn't care about the law. It's a sham. You can say it's legit. Lie to yourself and everyone else. It's what you do.

As far as helping or hurting Trump's election chances, this trial is doing nothing but improve his chances. Thinking folks actually understand why this is happenig and that it's not right and that the alternative to Trump is behind it, thus the alternative is no better than the thugs that run Cuba, Russia, Venezuala or other countries liberals think are better than the US.

Yes, I'm thinking wb is getting his legal acumen from the bored's "experts." What they're doing is absolute rot, and most thinking people know it.

And the honest ones admit it.

[wbtravis007]

Well, the prosecuter doesn't care about the law. It's a sham. You can say it's legit. Lie to yourself and everyone else. It's what you do.

As far as helping or hurting Trump's election chances, this trial is doing nothing but improve his chances. Thinking folks actually understand why this is happenig and that it's not right and that the alternative to Trump is behind it, thus the alternative is no better than the thugs that run Cuba, Russia, Venezuala or other countries liberals think are better than the US.

Yes, I'm thinking wb is getting his legal acumen from the bored's "experts." What they're doing is absolute rot, and most thinking people know it.

And the honest ones admit it.

Had to muster up all of my capacity for being non-thinking and dishonest to resist being persuaded by y’all’s analysis, and admitting it, here.

[BackInTex]

Yes, I'm thinking wb is getting his legal acumen from the bored's "experts." What they're doing is absolute rot, and most thinking people know it.

And the honest ones admit it.

Had to muster up all of my capacity for being non-thinking and dishonest to resist being persuaded by y’all’s analysis, and admitting it, here.

Oh, don’t have to sell me on that.

[wbtravis007]

And the honest ones admit it.

Had to muster up all of my capacity for being non-thinking and dishonest to resist being persuaded by y’all’s analysis, and admitting it, here.

Oh, don’t have to sell me on that.

Just saw on the regular board about your evening in the airport club. I guess that explains somewhat your posts here.

Celebrate tonight how much you’re thinking this is going to help Trump’s campaign. I think you’ll see at some point that his behavior during the coming weeks is going to hurt him.

But not with people like you, of course.

We’ll see. That’s what makes the horse races.

[silverscreenselect]

As far as helping or hurting Trump's election chances, this trial is doing nothing but improve his chances. Thinking folks actually understand why this is happenig and that it's not right and that the alternative to Trump is behind it, thus the alternative is no better than the thugs that run Cuba, Russia, Venezuala or other countries liberals think are better than the US.

You're starting to sound like Flock here. From Politico last month:

1. Half of the country believes Trump is guilty in the Manhattan prosecution

Fifty percent of respondents said that they believe Trump is guilty of the alleged crimes charged in Manhattan. There was a predictable and sizable partisan split, with only 14 percent of Republicans reporting that they believe Trump is guilty, while 86 percent of Democrats held that view. Among independents, 54 percent said that Trump is guilty.

2. A conviction in Manhattan would hurt Trump politically, particularly with independents

A plurality of respondents — 44 percent — said that a conviction in Manhattan would have no impact on their likelihood to support Trump for president, but that is far from the whole story. Among those respondents who said that a conviction would influence their decision, the numbers were not good for Trump.By a more than 2-1 margin, respondents said that a conviction would make them less likely to support Trump (32 percent) as opposed to more likely (13 percent). Notably, more than a third of independents said it would reduce their likelihood to support Trump. Not surprisingly, the vast majority of respondents who said that a conviction would bolster their support were Republicans.

https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/ ... s-00147338

I'm not a fan of a lot of the current polls, because I question their sampling methods, but in a close election in swing states, losing independents and soft Republican support could cost Trump dearly.

[Ritterskoop]

Y'all were right. Jury selection went way faster than I expected.

[Pastor Fireball]

Y'all were right. Jury selection went way faster than I expected.

The problem now is jury tampering by the criminal defendant and by this "Jesse Watters" thing is that I keep hearing about but have no idea what the hell a "Jesse Watters" is. Is jury tampering an actual crime in Manhattan, or is that only in mafia movies?

[tlynn78]

Y'all were right. Jury selection went way faster than I expected.

The problem now is jury tampering by the criminal defendant and by this "Jesse Watters" thing is that I keep hearing about but have no idea what the hell a "Jesse Watters" is. Is jury tampering an actual crime in Manhattan, or is that only in mafia movies?

There is no "actual" crime in Manhattan; there is only whatever the libs in charge can Trump up.

[silverscreenselect]

Somebody set himself on fire in the park across from the courthouse that had been designated as a protest area. He's still alive but in critical condition. Before he did so he spread around some pamphlets that had a lot of conspiracy theories in them. He apparently is from Florida and drove up to New York within the last week.

The full jury plus six alternates have been chosen. They're now holding the Sandoval hearing as to what they can cross-examine Trump on should he testify.

[Bob78164]

Well, the prosecuter doesn't care about the law. It's a sham.

Please provide, with citations, your legal analysis demonstrating that the prosecutor and the judge are wrong about the laws Donny was charged with violating. Because it certainly doesn't seem to me like a stretch to say that it's illegal to falsify corporate records and that it's a felony when you do so in order to hid another crime.

Or do you think Donny should get a free pass on the same obligation the rest of us have to tell the truth? --Bob

[Beebs52]

Well, the prosecuter doesn't care about the law. It's a sham.

Please provide, with citations, your legal analysis demonstrating that the prosecutor and the judge are wrong about the laws Donny was charged with violating. Because it certainly doesn't seem to me like a stretch to say that it's illegal to falsify corporate records and that it's a felony when you do so in order to hid another crime.

Or do you think Donny should get a free pass on the same obligation the rest of us have to tell the truth? --Bob

First, it hasn't been proven what you're alleging. Cause, that's why he's going to trial?
Also, please provide your legal citations for "fill in the blanks forever".

[Bob78164]

Well, the prosecuter doesn't care about the law. It's a sham.

Please provide, with citations, your legal analysis demonstrating that the prosecutor and the judge are wrong about the laws Donny was charged with violating. Because it certainly doesn't seem to me like a stretch to say that it's illegal to falsify corporate records and that it's a felony when you do so in order to hid another crime.

Or do you think Donny should get a free pass on the same obligation the rest of us have to tell the truth? --Bob

First, it hasn't been proven what you're alleging. Cause, that's why he's going to trial?
Also, please provide your legal citations for "fill in the blanks forever".

BiT isn't urging us to await the results of a trial. He's saying there shouldn't even be a trial because the charges are bogus. I want to know what support he has for that contention, other than his membership in the Republican Cult Party. --Bob

[Beebs52]

Please provide, with citations, your legal analysis demonstrating that the prosecutor and the judge are wrong about the laws Donny was charged with violating. Because it certainly doesn't seem to me like a stretch to say that it's illegal to falsify corporate records and that it's a felony when you do so in order to hid another crime.

Or do you think Donny should get a free pass on the same obligation the rest of us have to tell the truth? --Bob

First, it hasn't been proven what you're alleging. Cause, that's why he's going to trial?
Also, please provide your legal citations for "fill in the blanks forever".

BiT isn't urging us to await the results of a trial. He's saying there shouldn't even be a trial because the charges are bogus. I want to know what support he has for that contention, other than his membership in the Republican Cult Party. --Bob

I don't recall him saying that specifically, but I understand the bogusness of many things. And I'm a registered "cult" member with reservations, that are swaying me more than the Dem,anti normal American party.

[tlynn78]

Well, the prosecuter doesn't care about the law. It's a sham.

Please provide, with citations, your legal analysis demonstrating that the prosecutor and the judge are wrong about the laws Donny was charged with violating. Because it certainly doesn't seem to me like a stretch to say that it's illegal to falsify corporate records and that it's a felony when you do so in order to hid another crime.

Or do you think Donny should get a free pass on the same obligation the rest of us have to tell the truth? --Bob

Gee. Bobbles "I didn't swear to uphold any laws" opinion? Or, say, Alan Dershowitz? Such a quandry.

[wbtravis007]

Well, the prosecuter doesn't care about the law. It's a sham.

Please provide, with citations, your legal analysis demonstrating that the prosecutor and the judge are wrong about the laws Donny was charged with violating. Because it certainly doesn't seem to me like a stretch to say that it's illegal to falsify corporate records and that it's a felony when you do so in order to hid another crime.

Or do you think Donny should get a free pass on the same obligation the rest of us have to tell the truth? --Bob

Gee. Bobbles "I didn't swear to uphold any laws" opinion? Or, say, Alan Dershowitz? Such a quandry.

I’m hoping that you’re not actually naive enough to think that Dershowitz is an objective observer.

[tlynn78]

Please provide, with citations, your legal analysis demonstrating that the prosecutor and the judge are wrong about the laws Donny was charged with violating. Because it certainly doesn't seem to me like a stretch to say that it's illegal to falsify corporate records and that it's a felony when you do so in order to hid another crime.

Or do you think Donny should get a free pass on the same obligation the rest of us have to tell the truth? --Bob

Gee. Bobbles "I didn't swear to uphold any laws" opinion? Or, say, Alan Dershowitz? Such a quandry.

I’m hoping that you’re not actually naive enough to think that Dershowitz is an objective observer.

Nope. Just not stupid enough to think <the supremely unbiased> Bobbles has a better grasp on the legal complexities than the Harvard law prof.

[wbtravis007]

Gee. Bobbles "I didn't swear to uphold any laws" opinion? Or, say, Alan Dershowitz? Such a quandry.

I’m hoping that you’re not actually naive enough to think that Dershowitz is an objective observer.

Nope. Just not stupid enough to think <the supremely unbiased> Bobbles has a better grasp on the legal complexities than the Harvard law prof.

Not really all that complex.

[tlynn78]

I’m hoping that you’re not actually naive enough to think that Dershowitz is an objective observer.

Nope. Just not stupid enough to think <the supremely unbiased> Bobbles has a better grasp on the legal complexities than the Harvard law prof.

Not really all that complex.

Of course not. "Orange Man bad"

[wbtravis007]

Nope. Just not stupid enough to think <the supremely unbiased> Bobbles has a better grasp on the legal complexities than the Harvard law prof.

Not really all that complex.

Of course not. "Orange Man bad"

LOCK HIM UP!

LOCK HIM UP!

LOCK HIM UP!

LOCK HIM UP!

[Weyoun]

It is strange to me how the conspiracy theorist crowd here loves Donald Trump (known Epstein associate) and Alan Dershowitz (known Epstein associate).

[silverscreenselect]

Bad news for Trump as the trial starts. The judge ruled that, if Trump testifies, the prosecution can introduce evidence about the two E. Jean Carroll verdicts, the Trump Foundation's earlier fraud conviction, the $450+ million fraud verdict, and his two contempt citations in the E. Jean Carroll case (total fine for them was $15,000). Of course, it's hard to believe the jury doesn't know at least some of this. Court will adjourn early today and tomorrow because of Passover.

Before the trial resumes tomorrow, the judge will hold a hearing on Donald Trump's possible contempt citation for violation of the gag order in social media posts. The maximum fine for these violations is $1,000 each, baut the judge can also issue a warning to Trump that further violations may result in jail time.

[silverscreenselect]

The hearing on the gag order did not go well for Trump. His attorneys wanted to argue that it wasn't fair for Michael Cohen to say bad things about him when he couldn't reply. The judge wanted to concentrate on the specific posts the prosecution claimed violated the gag order. At one point, the defense said Trump wasn't responsible for posts that he merely retweeted. When the judge asked what caselaw the defense had to support the proposition, the attorney said it was "common sense." That didn't go over well with the judge. At one point, when the defense attorney said that Trump was making every effort to comply with the gag order, the judge said: "Mr. Blanche, you're losing all credibility. I have to tell you right now; you're losing all credibility with this court." (Not a good thing to hear on the second day of a month-long trial.) The judge did not make a ruling today on the gag order.

The only witness today was David Pecker, former CEO of the National Enquirer's parent company. He detailed his long friendship with Trump. (Trump leaked details of who would be the next person "fired" on the Celebrity Apprentice so the Enquirer could prepare stories.) He also described how the Enquirer would publish stories critical of Trump's 2016 primary opponents like Ted Cruz and Ben Carson. (Carson left a surgical tool in a patient.) This information often was supplied by Michael Cohen. Pecker also testified how Trump tried to micro-manage all his business details and was very frugal (anticipating a defense claim that Trump just signed documents people gave him). He referred to an August 2015 meeting with Trump and Michael Cohen how they outlined the scheme whereby the Enquirer would trash Trump's opponents and try to build him up with puff pieces and kill unfavorable stories about Trump. Cohen would also tell Pecker which of Trump's opponents they should concentrate on next. Pecker also testifies how he was approached by the doorman at Trump's apartment building who claimed Trump had fathered an illegitimate child. Pecker then gave the doorman $30,000 not to tell his story and Cohen said "the boss" will be pleased.

The key takeaway from this testimony is that this agreement to trash opponents and puff up Trump took place after Trump was an announced candidate, which establishes the criminal conspiracy the prosecution needs to prove. He's not on trial for conspiracy, but falsification of business records in support of that conspiracy, which is a felony, or here, 34 felonies for 34 different records.

Because of the Passover holiday, there will be no trial until next Thursday. However, the judge may rule on the gag order at any time.

[BackInTex]

The key takeaway from this testimony is that this agreement to trash opponents and puff up Trump took place after Trump was an announced candidate, which establishes the criminal conspiracy the prosecution needs to prove. He's not on trial for conspiracy, but falsification of business records in support of that conspiracy, which is a felony, or here, 34 felonies for 34 different records.

Not withstanding my belief the entire trial is bs, wouldn't there have to be a trial with a guilty verdict to establish there was a criminal conspiracy? For the charges to be considered felony, doesn't the falsification have to be for purposed to cover another crime, to to establish a crime was committed, wouldn't there need to be a formal "guilty" verdict of criminal conspiracy?

[jarnon]

Not withstanding my belief the entire trial is bs, wouldn't there have to be a trial with a guilty verdict to establish there was a criminal conspiracy? For the charges to be considered felony, doesn't the falsification have to be for purposed to cover another crime, to to establish a crime was committed, wouldn't there need to be a formal "guilty" verdict of criminal conspiracy?

The Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971, as amended, Title 52, United States Code, Section 30101, et seq., (the “Election Act”), regulates the influence of money on politics. At all relevant times, the Election Act set certain limitations and prohibitions, among them: (a) individual contributions to any presidential candidate, including expenditures coordinated with a candidate or his political committee, were limited to $2,700 per election, and presidential candidates and their committees were prohibited from accepting contributions from individuals in excess of this limit; and (b) Corporations were prohibited from making contributions directly to presidential candidates, including expenditures coordinated with candidates or their committees, and candidates were prohibited from accepting corporate contributions.

On June 16, 2015, Individual-1 began his presidential campaign. While COHEN continued to work at the Company and did not have a formal title with the campaign, he had a campaign email address and, at various times, advised the campaign, including on matters of interest to the press, and made televised and media appearances on behalf of the campaign.

In August 2015, the Chairman and Chief Executive of Corporation-1, a media company that owns, among other things, a popular tabloid magazine (“Chairman-1” and “Magazine-1,” respectively”), in coordination with COHEN and one or more members of the campaign, offered to help deal with negative stories about Individual-1’s relationships with women by, among other things, assisting the campaign in identifying such stories so they could be purchased and their publication avoided. Chairman-1 agreed to keep COHEN apprised of any such negative stories.

Consistent with the agreement described above, Corporation-1 advised COHEN of negative stories during the course of the campaign, and COHEN, with the assistance of Corporation-1, was able to arrange for the purchase of two stories so as to suppress them and prevent them from influencing the election.

First, in June 2016, a model and actress (“Woman-1”) began attempting to sell her story of her alleged extramarital affair with Individual-1 that had taken place in 2006 and 2007, knowing the story would be of considerable value because of the election. Woman-1 retained an attorney (“Attorney-1”), who in turn contacted the editor-in-chief of Magazine-1 (“Editor-1”), and offered to sell Woman-1’s story to Magazine-1. Chairman-1 and Editor-1 informed COHEN of the story. At COHEN’s urging and subject to COHEN’s promise that Corporation-1 would be reimbursed, Editor-1 ultimately began negotiating for the purchase of the story.

On August 5, 2016, Corporation-1 entered into an agreement with Woman-1 to acquire her “limited life rights” to the story of her relationship with “any then-married man,” in exchange for $150,000 and a commitment to feature her on two magazine covers and publish more than 100 magazine articles authored by her. Despite the cover and article features to the agreement, its principal purpose, as understood by those involved, including COHEN, was to suppress Woman-1’s story so as to prevent it from influencing the election.

Between late August 2016 and September 2016, COHEN agreed with Chairman-1 to assign the rights to the non-disclosure portion of Corporation-1’s agreement with Woman-1 to COHEN for $125,000. COHEN incorporated a shell entity called “Resolution Consultants LLC” for use in the transaction. Both Chairman-1 and COHEN ultimately signed the agreement, and a consultant for Corporation-1, using his own shell entity, provided COHEN with an invoice for the payment of $125,000. However, in early October 2016, after the assignment agreement was signed but before COHEN had paid the $125,000, Chairman-1 contacted COHEN and told him, in substance, that the deal was off and that COHEN should tear up the assignment agreement.

Second, on October 8, 2016, an agent for an adult film actress (“Woman-2”) informed Editor-1 that Woman-2 was willing to make public statements and confirm on the record her alleged past affair with Individual-1. Chairman-1 and Editor-1 then contacted COHEN and put him in touch with Attorney-1, who was also representing Woman-2. Over the course of the next few days, COHEN negotiated a $130,000 agreement with Attorney-1 to himself purchase Woman-2’s silence, and received a signed confidential settlement agreement and a separate side letter agreement from Attorney-1.

COHEN did not immediately execute the agreement, nor did he pay Woman-2. On the evening of October 25, 2016, with no deal with Woman-2 finalized, Attorney-1 told Editor-1 that Woman-2 was close to completing a deal with another outlet to make her story public. Editor-1, in turn, texted COHEN that “[w]e have to coordinate something on the matter [Attorney-1 is] calling you about or it could look awfully bad for everyone.” Chairman-1 and Editor-1 then called COHEN through an encrypted telephone application. COHEN agreed to make the payment, and then called Attorney-1 to finalize the deal.

The next day, on October 26, 2016, COHEN emailed an incorporating service to obtain the corporate formation documents for another shell corporation, Essential Consultants LLC, which COHEN had incorporated a few days prior. Later that afternoon, COHEN drew down $131,000 from the fraudulently obtained HELOC and requested that it be deposited into a bank account COHEN had just opened in the name of Essential Consultants. The next morning, on October 27, 2016, COHEN went to Bank-3 and wired approximately $130,000 from Essential Consultants to Attorney-1. On the bank form to complete the wire, COHEN falsely indicated that the “purpose of wire being sent” was “retainer.” On November 1, 2016, COHEN received from Attorney-1 copies of the final, signed confidential settlement agreement and side letter agreement.

COHEN caused and made the payments described herein in order to influence the 2016 presidential election. In so doing, he coordinated with one or more members of the campaign, including through meetings and phone calls, about the fact, nature, and timing of the payments. As a result of the payments solicited and made by COHEN, neither Woman-1 nor Woman-2 spoke to the press prior to the election.

In January 2017, COHEN in seeking reimbursement for election-related expenses, presented executives of the Company with a copy of a bank statement from the Essential Consultants bank account, which reflected the $130,000 payment COHEN had made to the bank account of Attorney-1 in order to keep Woman-2 silent in advance of the election, plus a $35 wire fee, adding, in handwriting, an additional “$50,000.” The $50,000 represented a claimed payment for “tech services,” which in fact related to work COHEN had solicited from a technology company during and in connection with the campaign. COHEN added these amounts to a sum of $180,035. After receiving this document, executives of the Company “grossed up” for tax purposes COHEN’s requested reimbursement of $180,000 to $360,000, and then added a bonus of $60,000 so that COHEN would be paid $420,000 in total. Executives of the Company also determined that the $420,000 would be paid to COHEN in monthly amounts of $35,000 over the course of 12 months, and that COHEN should send invoices for these payments.

On February 14, 2017, COHEN sent an executive of the Company (“Executive-1”) the first of his monthly invoices, requesting “[p]ursuant to [a] retainer agreement, . . . payment for services rendered for the months of January and February, 2017.” The invoice listed $35,000 for each of those two months. Executive-1 forwarded the invoice to another executive of the Company (“Executive-2”) the same day by email, and it was approved. Executive-1 forwarded that email to another employee at the Company, stating: “Please pay from the Trust. Post to legal expenses. Put ‘retainer for the months of January and February 2017’ in the description.”

Throughout 2017, COHEN sent to one or more representatives of the Company monthly invoices, which stated, “Pursuant to the retainer agreement, kindly remit payment for services rendered for” the relevant month in 2017, and sought $35,000 per month. The Company accounted for these payments as legal expenses. In truth and in fact, there was no such retainer agreement, and the monthly invoices COHEN submitted were not in connection with any legal services he had provided in 2017.

During 2017, pursuant to the invoices described above, COHEN received monthly $35,000 reimbursement checks, totaling $420,000.

Cohen did time, and Chairman-1 got immunity and agreed to testify against Individual-1. If the jury believes the witnesses, they can decide that there was a conspiracy to violate the Election Act, and the checks that Individual-1 wrote were part of it.

[wbtravis007]

The key takeaway from this testimony is that this agreement to trash opponents and puff up Trump took place after Trump was an announced candidate, which establishes the criminal conspiracy the prosecution needs to prove. He's not on trial for conspiracy, but falsification of business records in support of that conspiracy, which is a felony, or here, 34 felonies for 34 different records.

Not withstanding my belief the entire trial is bs, wouldn't there have to be a trial with a guilty verdict to establish there was a criminal conspiracy? For the charges to be considered felony, doesn't the falsification have to be for purposed to cover another crime, to to establish a crime was committed, wouldn't there need to be a formal "guilty" verdict of criminal conspiracy?

Maybe we’ll get lucky here and have a Harvard Law School professor weigh in on this.

It’s just sooooo complex!