Drudge Retort: The Other Side of the News
Saturday, May 04, 2024

A disbarred, serial perjurer walks into a courtroom and asks to take an oath ... No, seriously, this is not a joke. Michael Cohen will soon appear in a Manhattan courtroom in what is sure to be one of the most bizarre moments in legal history.

More

Alternate links: Google News | Twitter

Cohen nearly comprises the prosecution's entire case against former President Donald Trump under a criminal theory that still has many of us baffled. It is not clear what crime Trump was supposedly trying to conceal by making "hush-money" payments to former porn actress Stormy Daniels.

What is clear is that none of the witnesses called in recent weeks has had any direct involvement with Trump on the payments.

Comments

Admin's note: Participants in this discussion must follow the site's moderation policy. Profanity will be filtered. Abusive conduct is not allowed.

Trump will be convicted. He's guilty as sin.

#1 | Posted by Zed at 2024-05-04 03:36 PM | Reply | Funny: 1

"I have been an outspoken critic of Cohen going back to when he was still representing Trump. His unethical acts were matched only by his unprofessional demeanor."

lmao... this is Turley promoting the idea that the Consiglieri is too crooked to testify against the Mob Boss at the criminal trial.

It's ludicrous on it's face.

#2 | Posted by Corky at 2024-05-04 03:54 PM | Reply

More manure from the Von ------------ lovers

#3 | Posted by LegallyYourDead at 2024-05-04 04:02 PM | Reply

Turley sold out. loser.

#4 | Posted by Alexandrite at 2024-05-04 04:25 PM | Reply

#4. Turley has remained remarkably consistent.

#5 | Posted by BellRinger at 2024-05-04 04:32 PM | Reply

4. Turley has remained remarkably consistent.

#5 | POSTED BY BELLRINGER AT 2024-05-04 04:32 PM | REPLY

Yeah a consistent shills for Trump.

#6 | Posted by LauraMohr at 2024-05-04 04:34 PM | Reply

He hasn't altered his legal analyses depending on political affiliation.

#7 | Posted by BellRinger at 2024-05-04 04:36 PM | Reply

He hasn't altered his legal analyses depending on political affiliation.

#7 | POSTED BY BELLRINGER

His very poor, but consistent analyses.

#8 | Posted by Zed at 2024-05-04 04:38 PM | Reply

POSTED BY HELIUMRAT

Just more crap whining about what a poor widdle victim of life Trump is.

#9 | Posted by Zed at 2024-05-04 04:39 PM | Reply

"...hinges on a disbarred serial perjurer"

See this is a lie.

Cohen's testimony is backed up by a slew of corroborating testimony, paperwork and recordings of ------- (the fraud, sexual predator and convicted criminal) himself.

So, yeah, NOT really hinging on Cohen.

#10 | Posted by truthhurts at 2024-05-04 04:43 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

" His very poor, but consistent analyses.

#8 | POSTED BY ZED AT 2024-05-04 04:38 PM | FLAG: "

You undoubtedly loved his analyses when they were direct at the W administration. His Constitutional philosophy hasn't changed. Dershowitz is a different story.

#11 | Posted by BellRinger at 2024-05-04 05:12 PM | Reply

Ive never liked turley or toobin. theyve both gotten worse, like greenwald.

#12 | Posted by Alexandrite at 2024-05-04 05:43 PM | Reply

our media sucks ass.

#13 | Posted by Alexandrite at 2024-05-04 05:43 PM | Reply

Ballwasher is a ------- ignorant ----.

#14 | Posted by LegallyYourDead at 2024-05-04 11:23 PM | Reply

#12. Who do you like?

Ellie Mystall?

#15 | Posted by BellRinger at 2024-05-04 11:39 PM | Reply

Hope Hicks torpedoed the whole case by saying Trump paid the money bc he didn't want to upset Melania and not the campaign. If Trump is found not guilty this place is going to have heads explode.

#16 | Posted by Bluewaffles at 2024-05-05 12:37 AM | Reply

Did Hope mention that the------------------- was thinking of Ivanka while he was rawdogging Stormy?

#17 | Posted by reinheitsgebot at 2024-05-05 12:40 AM | Reply | Funny: 1 | Newsworthy 1

Hope Hicks torpedoed the whole case by saying Trump paid the money bc he didn't want to upset Melania and not the campaign. If Trump is found not guilty this place is going to have heads explode.

POSTED BY BLUEWAFFLES AT 2024-05-05 12:37 AM | REPLY

You're full of smelly brown stuff as per the usual.

#18 | Posted by LauraMohr at 2024-05-05 12:43 AM | Reply

Two weeks into the case and nothing about what is actually in the indictment itself. That really needs to change very soon.

#19 | Posted by BellRinger at 2024-05-05 12:45 AM | Reply

Trump's hush money trial could last six-to-eight weeks: What to know about the timeline. Donald Trump's hush money trial that begins Monday in Manhattan could last as long as eight weeks.Apr 15, 2024

#20 | Posted by LauraMohr at 2024-05-05 12:55 AM | Reply

"He hasn't altered his legal analyses"

Going from stupid to stupid isn't a win.

This case is particularly idiotic: Cohen went to jail for crimes committed for Trump, including lying FOR TRUMP.

Meanwhile, an outlet (OAN? Newsmax?)which claimed Cohen had been banging Stormy, had to retract, apologize, and admit they'd made it up.

And now Turley is going to summon his entire legal training and declare Trump's co-conspirator isn't believable?!?

#21 | Posted by Danforth at 2024-05-05 01:09 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

" Hope Hicks torpedoed the whole case by saying Trump paid the money bc he didn't want to upset Melania and not the campaign."

And the jury will have to weigh that against the multiple people who've testified it was ONLY for the campaign.

Has Fox mentioned Hicks is currently outnumbered?

#22 | Posted by Danforth at 2024-05-05 01:52 AM | Reply

It's going to be really funny DANFORTH when Stormy is in cross examination and having to explain why she had to sign a legal statement effectively saying the affair didn't happen after Trump sued her for lying and receiving the NDA money (most of you forget she had to pay the money back). That whole thing was a shakedown and again will be funny AF if he's found not guilty.

#23 | Posted by Bluewaffles at 2024-05-05 02:20 AM | Reply

It's funny, so far the case has Dotard going to prison, and Cohen hasn't even testified. He and Stormy might not have to testify, since the documentary evidence and the testimony of ------ and Hicks were so damning. Bragg would never put Cohen on without plenty of evidence to support his testimony. Start with the Access Hollywood transcript, add the recorded conversation between Dotard and Cohen, Cohen's banker, ------, Davidson, and Hicks, then put Cohen on, his story is already confirmed. I mean you seem to believe a POS with well over 30,000 documented lies in his four failed years in office. Next to Sir ------------, Cohen is an alter boy.

#24 | Posted by _Gunslinger_ at 2024-05-05 05:21 AM | Reply

When it comes their turn, who could the Defense possibly put on the stand to support their case that Trump is innocent?

Anybody have any suggestions?

Surely not Donald Trump himself. He'd commit Hari-kari in the first 30 seconds.

#25 | Posted by Twinpac at 2024-05-05 06:05 AM | Reply

The idea of actually having Trump harrumph and waddle himself up to the witness stand is pure nocturnal emission material for a prosecutor. Jayzus, they'd keep his fat arse buried in the hot seat for days.

#26 | Posted by Doc_Sarvis at 2024-05-05 06:10 AM | Reply

Surely not Donald Trump himself. He'd commit Hari-kari in the first 30 seconds.

POSTED BY TWINPAC AT 2024-05-05 06:05 AM | REPLY

He'd soil himself and then the judge would have to evaluate the courtroom post haste. Oh to be a fly on the wall in that courtroom. Too bad cameras aren't allowed in there. That would be awesome sauce to watch.

#27 | Posted by LauraMohr at 2024-05-05 06:28 AM | Reply

DOC

Wadda they gonna do? Call Johnthan Turley, a FOX legal analyst to the stand and say the prosecution has no case. They might.

Here's what Turley said on FOX

www.newsweek.com

As you can see, Turley, a supposed legal scholar, is wrong on a number of points no doubt catering to FOX's underinformed viewers.

#28 | Posted by Twinpac at 2024-05-05 06:41 AM | Reply

DOC

I hope you read the link.

I don't know that Turley, an officer of the court himself, would dare say those same things under oath.

If he did, the prosecution would tear him and his license to practice law to ribbons.

#29 | Posted by Twinpac at 2024-05-05 06:48 AM | Reply

" And now Turley is going to summon his entire legal training and declare Trump's co-conspirator isn't believable?!?

#21 | POSTED BY DANFORTH AT 2024-05-05 01:09 AM | FLAG: "

He laid out all of the reasons why Cohen isn't believable. He's a serial perjurer. And it's problematic to Nragg's case that he's the most important witness.

Are you suggesting Cohen is pure as driven snow?

#30 | Posted by BellRinger at 2024-05-05 08:21 AM | Reply

Are you suggesting Cohen is pure as driven snow?

#30 | POSTED BY BELLRINGER

As trustworthy as you are.

#31 | Posted by Zed at 2024-05-05 09:53 AM | Reply

It's going to be really funny DANFORTH when Stormy is in cross examination and having to explain why she had to sign a legal statement effectively saying the affair didn't happen after Trump sued her for lying and receiving the NDA money (most of you forget she had to pay the money back). That whole thing was a shakedown and again will be funny AF if he's found not guilty.

#23 | POSTED BY BLUEWAFFLES

You realize it is immaterial whether the affair actually happened right? He paid to hide a story (true or not) and covered it up to help his campaign. That is the crime.

#32 | Posted by truthhurts at 2024-05-05 10:04 AM | Reply

wo weeks into the case and nothing about what is actually in the indictment itself. That really needs to change very soon.

#19 | POSTED BY BELLRINGER

Except the following:

1 established catch and kill scheme
2 established relationships between conspirators and witnesses
3 established motive to commit the fraud
4 documented involvement of defendant in conspiracy
5 established for campaign benefit and not to keep from his wife

Yeah nothing

The fact ------- cheated on his first 2 wives would make it far less likely he would bother trying to hide it from melania. Him bring a bag of scum and all

#33 | Posted by truthhurts at 2024-05-05 10:09 AM | Reply

Really Truth, what crime is it? Please please please tell me where in the State of NY it's illegal to have someone sign an NDA.

#34 | Posted by Bluewaffles at 2024-05-05 10:39 AM | Reply

The initial crimeS were falsifying business records. Normally a misdemeanor in NY, however, since the falsifying business records was done in furtherance of other crimes, that makes them felonies.

The other crimes being federal and state election laws and tax evasion.

Now, that it has been explained to you I expect you to move on from your ignorance.

Have a nice day.

#35 | Posted by truthhurts at 2024-05-05 10:56 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

The other crimes being VIOLATIONS OF federal and state election laws and tax evasion.

#36 | Posted by truthhurts at 2024-05-05 10:57 AM | Reply

" The other crimes being VIOLATIONS OF federal and state election laws and tax evasion.

#36 | POSTED BY TRUTHHURTS AT 2024-05-05 10:57 AM | FLAG: "

None of which are listed on the indictment and Bragg lacks the authority to prosecute those. AB's that's the problem with the entire case. Furtherance of other crimes is election law violations which are out of Bragg's jurisdiction.

#37 | Posted by BellRinger at 2024-05-05 11:10 AM | Reply

Alvin Bragg doesn't have jurisdiction over NY state election and tax law violations? hmmm you might want to tell him that

#38 | Posted by truthhurts at 2024-05-05 11:12 AM | Reply

" out of Bragg's jurisdiction."

i love how you hump technicalities but dont give a crap that trump is a one man crime spree.

#39 | Posted by Alexandrite at 2024-05-05 11:13 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

BTW whether the crimes that the fraud furthered were state or federal crimes is irrelevant.

#40 | Posted by truthhurts at 2024-05-05 11:16 AM | Reply

hmmmmmm I wasn't aware of this:

Trump stated in an April 2023 Fox News interview with Tucker Carlson that he would not drop his candidacy in the 2024 U.S. presidential election if he is convicted.

en.wikipedia.org

Not that I believe him for a second, he is a lot like jeffj

#41 | Posted by truthhurts at 2024-05-05 11:17 AM | Reply

bellringer- out of 5 trump trials so far you have poo pooed all them. all of them with superficial technical arguments.
maybe youre not as objective as you think you are.

#42 | Posted by Alexandrite at 2024-05-05 11:18 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Really Truth, what crime is it? Please please please tell me where in the State of NY it's illegal to have someone sign an NDA.

#34 | POSTED BY BLUEWAFFLES AT 2024-05-05 10:39 AM | REPLY

whats the NDA for? think carefully.

#43 | Posted by Alexandrite at 2024-05-05 11:27 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

i love how you hump technicalities but dont give a crap that trump is a one man crime spree.

#39 | POSTED BY ALEXANDRITE

Well, there's a reason for that.

#44 | Posted by Zed at 2024-05-05 11:55 AM | Reply

39 | POSTED BY ALEXANDRITE

BELLRINGER'S purpose is just to wear you down. Like the demon in the "Exorcist".

#45 | Posted by Zed at 2024-05-05 11:58 AM | Reply

... Cohen nearly comprises the prosecution's entire case against former President Donald Trump ...

I've stated previously that Mr Cohen was a significant portion of the case, but he is not "nearly the prosecution's entire case."

From what I see, the case has three main parts:

1) falsifying business records (a misdemeanor?)

2) misreporting campaign financing (a felony?)

3) tying what happened in #1 to #2. imo, this is the difficult part.

The audio recording of fmr Pres Trump's instructions to Mr Cohen that was played for the jury (Friday?) is very significant evidence (for #3?). Ms Hick's testimony also reduces the need for Mr Cohen's testimony. As does Mr ------- testimony.


#46 | Posted by LampLighter at 2024-05-05 01:02 PM | Reply

"Donald Trump's Defense Undercut by 'Breathtaking' Bit of Testimony

"What Keith Davidson testified to is that he was engaged in this hush-money payment and covering these things up and then come election night, or the next day when it looks like Donald Trump was going to win the election, Keith Davidson said:

'Oh my God, what did we do?' And the import of that is really twofold. One, they recognized the potentially dramatic damage they had done to the country by engaging in conduct that may have actually facilitated Donald Trump getting elected."

He added: "It's clear that Keith Davidson and the others involved in this scheme knew that these hush-money payments were being made to impact the election, not to try to conceal information from Melania or Donald Trump's family because they would not have woken up on election morning, the day after the election realized Donald Trump won and said, 'Oh my god, what did we do?' if this was all about Donald Trump not wanting Melania to learn about his dalliances."

www.newsweek.com

#47 | Posted by Corky at 2024-05-05 01:12 PM | Reply

If Trump is found not guilty this place is going to have heads explode.

#16 | POSTED BY BLUEWAFFLES

Heads are gonna explode no matter what the finding is. It will be a bloodbath of revenge and retribution if Trumpy loses right? So a few exploding democratic heads would not be such a bad thing in comparison.

That's also why it is the trial of the century even though most magats could currently care less about the facts or the details and even refuse pay attention. (Too complicated and boring)

And then after it's all over we will get to explain to Wiffles and Dingaling and their fellow magats over and over ad naseum why Trumpy lost the case for the next 4 years.

#48 | Posted by donnerboy at 2024-05-05 02:11 PM | Reply

"It's going to be really funny DANFORTH when Stormy is in cross examination and having to explain why she had to sign a legal statement effectively saying the affair didn't happen"

Big surprise: Trump has multiple people lying for him. And some of those folks admit they were lying. For Trump.

"This was another person lying for me" isn't exactly the "own" you're pretending.

#49 | Posted by Danforth at 2024-05-05 02:49 PM | Reply

Not to mention that the idea that using this misdemeanor concerning business records to get to an underlying Felony is somehow novel. They've used it some 10,000 times...

www.youtube.com

less than a minute short

#50 | Posted by Corky at 2024-05-05 03:13 PM | Reply

Bragg should call Jeff Berman as a witness and ask him what happened to the Von ------------ case at SDNY, because he has been very clear, Barr shut it down. Why would Cohen be the only person to go to prison for a scheme coordinated with and benefitting only the fat eliminate diaper dumping piss-haired loser?

#51 | Posted by _Gunslinger_ at 2024-05-05 06:25 PM | Reply

@#51 ... Bragg should call Jeff Berman as a witness ...

That would be interesting testimony.

I'm not yet convinced of the relevance, though.




#52 | Posted by LampLighter at 2024-05-05 06:33 PM | Reply

" Alvin Bragg doesn't have jurisdiction over NY state election and tax law violations? hmmm you might want to tell him that

#38 | POSTED BY TRUTHHURTS AT 2024-05-05 11:12 AM | FLAG: "

It was a presidential election - a FEDERAL election.

#53 | Posted by BellRinger at 2024-05-05 08:06 PM | Reply

" bellringer- out of 5 trump trials so far you have poo pooed all them. all of them with superficial technical arguments.
maybe youre not as objective as you think you are.

#42 | POSTED BY ALEXANDRITE AT 2024-05-05 11:18 AM | FLAG: "

Really? How much have I poo pooed the documents case?

#54 | Posted by BellRinger at 2024-05-05 08:08 PM | Reply

" i love how you hump technicalities but dont give a crap that trump is a one man crime spree.

#39 | POSTED BY ALEXANDRITE"

We still have due process now matter how much you personally hate the person who is at trial.

Or are you suggesting all of that should be ---- - canned when it's someone you hate?

#55 | Posted by BellRinger at 2024-05-05 08:10 PM | Reply

" Alvin Bragg doesn't have jurisdiction over NY state election and tax law violations? hmmm you might want to tell him that
#38 | POSTED BY TRUTHHURTS AT 2024-05-05 11:12 AM | FLAG: "
It was a presidential election - a FEDERAL election.

#53 | POSTED BY BELLRINGER

Your high school civics class failed you.

#56 | Posted by truthhurts at 2024-05-05 08:13 PM | Reply

Here is the indictment:

manhattanda.org

It doesn't even specify what crime was furthered by the original crime, which if it was even a crime was a misdemeanor with a statute of limitations of 2 years. How can they even issue an indictment of "furtherance of another crime" without even spelling out what the other crime even was?

I'd love to hear an explanation for that. How does a defense even prepare for trial when they don't even know what crime they are being charged with?

#57 | Posted by BellRinger at 2024-05-05 08:18 PM | Reply

en.wikipedia.org

Trump is accused of falsifying these business records with the intent to violate federal campaign finance limits, unlawfully influence the 2016 U.S. presidential election, and commit tax fraud.

They did know the crimes, you did/do not, because you live to defend -------

#58 | Posted by truthhurts at 2024-05-05 08:22 PM | Reply

apnews.com

Paying hush money isn't illegal on its own, but authorities say the payments made to suppress stories about Trump amounted to illegal campaign contributions. Cohen pleaded guilty in 2018 to a federal campaign violation, among other unrelated crimes. The National Enquirer's parent company, American Media Inc., entered into a nonprosecution agreement in exchange for its cooperation with prosecutors. The Federal Election Commission fined the company $187,500, declaring that the McDougal deal was a "prohibited corporate in-kind contribution."

The charged Edwards for the same crime. He was found not guilty because there was reasonable doubt as to whether the payment was to protect his election or to protect his marriage. There is no such reasonable doubt in -------- case

And, btw, if the payments are NOT a contribution in kind, they are an illegal expense-i.e. tax fraud.

------- filed fraudulent business documents to further this effort.

Thus the misdemeanors become felonies.

Now, you have been educated. Of course, you will ignore this and continue stating that Bragg does not have a case. Despite this type of case being brought 1,000s of times before.

This, of course, is because you are a lying pos.

#59 | Posted by truthhurts at 2024-05-05 08:27 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

@#58 ... Trump is accused of falsifying these business records with the intent to violate federal campaign finance limits, unlawfully influence the 2016 U.S. presidential election, and commit tax fraud. ...

Yup.

As I said back, oh, seven or so hours ago...

drudge.com

...
I've stated previously that Mr Cohen was a significant portion of the case, but he is not "nearly the prosecution's entire case."

From what I see, the case has three main parts:

1) falsifying business records (a misdemeanor?)

2) misreporting campaign financing (a felony?)

3) tying what happened in #1 to #2. imo, this is the difficult part.

The audio recording of fmr Pres Trump's instructions to Mr Cohen that was played for the jury (Friday?) is very significant evidence (for #3?). Ms Hick's testimony also reduces the need for Mr Cohen's testimony. As does Mr ------- testimony.
...




#60 | Posted by LampLighter at 2024-05-05 08:28 PM | Reply

" bellringer- out of 5 trump trials so far you have poo pooed all them"

... without pointing to a single indictment any other citizen could do without fear of legal repercussions. Even though he's been asked over a dozen times.

Is 13 the lucky number, Bellringer?

#61 | Posted by Danforth at 2024-05-05 08:29 PM | Reply

" Trump is accused of falsifying these business records with the intent to violate federal campaign finance limits, unlawfully influence the 2016 U.S. presidential election, and commit tax fraud"

I don't see any of that in the indictment. Can you point out where it is in the indictment for me?

" They did know the crimes, you did/do not, because you live to defend -------"

Are you suggesting that Bragg is infallible simply because he's prosecuting some one you personally despise? One can despise Trump and at the same time look at this case and see it for the corrupt clown show that it is.

Lawfare is how Democracies enter into decline.

#62 | Posted by BellRinger at 2024-05-05 08:29 PM | Reply

@#54 ... How much have I poo pooed the documents case? ...

Probably because your current alias, like fmr Pres Trump admires how the Judge of that case seems to be intentionally slow-walking the case.

Or maybe your current alias has not yet noticed that Judge Cannon seems to be the only Judge of his cases that he has not excoriated on social media.



#63 | Posted by LampLighter at 2024-05-05 08:32 PM | Reply

I am saying ------- committed crimes and is being tried for them.

He was investigated for them.

His coconspirators have been tried and found guilty for them.

A grand jury indicted him for the crimes.

He is being tried for them.

That is not "lawfare"-whatever the ---- that means. When reality would be IGNORING his crimes would be "lawfare"

#64 | Posted by truthhurts at 2024-05-05 08:33 PM | Reply

www.npr.org

Bernstein noted that the election fraud claim being made by Bragg comes from the 34 counts of falsifying business records that Trump is currently charged with.
"[That] is a felony in New York IF it's done to cover up another crime, which does NOT have to be charged," said Bernstein.

#65 | Posted by truthhurts at 2024-05-05 08:36 PM | Reply

"Are you suggesting that Bragg is infallible simply because he's prosecuting some one you personally despise? One can despise Trump and at the same time look at this case and see it for the corrupt clown show that it is."

I am saying I trust the attorney who has been investigating the case, presenting the evidence for the case and trying the case over an ignorant liar on the internet.

#66 | Posted by truthhurts at 2024-05-05 08:37 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

#61. This thread is about this particular case. Not all of the other ones. But if you want, let's play a little game. What is the date that each of these crimes occurred along with the date the indictment was filed. I'll pick one and list the dates. Then you pick one and list the dates. Well keep doing that until we've listed
all of them. I'll start ... .

Alvin Bragg: Crime - February 14, 2017. Indictment date - April 4, 2023.

Your turn. ...

#67 | Posted by BellRinger at 2024-05-05 08:39 PM | Reply

"One can despise Trump and at the same time look at this case and see it for the corrupt clown show that it is."

How is this case a corrupt clown show?

The elements of the crime are:

1. Falsified documents
2. Furthering a crime

The documents are well, documents-he falsified them.

The additional crime-EITHER he made an illegal campaign contribution OR he committed tax fraud by falsely classifying the expenses.

He conspired with the National Enquirer through Michael Cohen to catch and kill stories. The NE plead GUILTY to illegal campaign contributions FOR THOSE PAYMENTS.

No, this is NOT, some minor ----, this is probably why ----ler won in 2016-because of HIS election interference.

#68 | Posted by truthhurts at 2024-05-05 08:40 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Alvin Bragg: Crime - February 14, 2017. Indictment date - April 4, 2023.
Your turn. ...
#67 | POSTED BY BELLRINGER

Your point?

You can't indict a sitting president or so I've been told, now since the ---- happened so long ago we can't charge him.

Disingenuous much?

#69 | Posted by truthhurts at 2024-05-05 08:42 PM | Reply

" Bernstein noted that the election fraud claim being made by Bragg comes from the 34 counts of falsifying business records that Trump is currently charged with.
"[That] is a felony in New York IF it's done to cover up another crime, which does NOT have to be charged," said Bernstein."

So, Bernstein is saying - you committed a misdemeanor in furtherance of another crime which now makes that misdemeanor a felony. We are not required to tell you what that other crime is. You just have to trust us on this."

That is a ludicrous take and you know it.

#70 | Posted by BellRinger at 2024-05-05 08:42 PM | Reply

" We are not required to tell you what that other crime is."

Why are you assuming it's not one of the other 33? Or any of the other 33?

#71 | Posted by Danforth at 2024-05-05 08:45 PM | Reply

We are not required to tell you what that other crime is. You just have to trust us on this."
That is a ludicrous take and you know it.

#70 | POSTED BY BELLRINGER

You claim to act surprised that you are called a lying pos. No one said they are not required to tell what the crime is. He just need not be CHARGED with that crime.

If you paid attention to the trial, they are laying out the crimes he committed.

#72 | Posted by truthhurts at 2024-05-05 08:46 PM | Reply

" Your point?"

The dates of the alleged crimes are all over the place - years apart. Yet the indictments were all brought within a comparatively short period of time - during this election cycle.

Does that mean all of the charges are completely bogus? No, at least not in the documents case. Having said that, no way the timing of all of these isn't being driven by politics.

#73 | Posted by BellRinger at 2024-05-05 08:47 PM | Reply

You have to love the disingenuous argument that the crime happened so long ago it is not worth charging now, when the reality is ------- was president for 4 years and then spent 3 years delaying the investigation.

Republicans are disingenuous freaks.

#74 | Posted by truthhurts at 2024-05-05 08:48 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

No one said they are not required to tell what the crime is. He just need not be CHARGED with that crime.
- truth

What is the crime?

And if not charged and convicted.

Then what's is the basis of the claim?

#75 | Posted by oneironaut at 2024-05-05 08:51 PM | Reply

" You claim to act surprised that you are called a lying pos. No one said they are not required to tell what the crime is. He just need not be CHARGED with that crime"

Again, that makes no sense. The only way to call the second crime an actual crime is to charge and convict for it.

This crime furthered THAT crime. We are charging you for this AND denying due process for THAT crime and the only way to charge for this crime is because it furthered THAT crime which you've never been charged for, much less convicted for.

#76 | Posted by BellRinger at 2024-05-05 08:51 PM | Reply

Having said that, no way the timing of all of these isn't being driven by politics.

#73 | POSTED BY BELLRINGER

Vance's investigation restarted in August 2019 when the feds decided not to charge. It took Vance, then Bragg years to get -------- tax returns then further investigation.

#77 | Posted by truthhurts at 2024-05-05 08:51 PM | Reply

#74. You didn't address my point.

#78 | Posted by BellRinger at 2024-05-05 08:52 PM | Reply

#75 otherwise logically.

There doesn't need to be another actual crime.

Just "claim" there was.

#79 | Posted by oneironaut at 2024-05-05 08:52 PM | Reply

" You claim to act surprised that you are called a lying pos. No one said they are not required to tell what the crime is. He just need not be CHARGED with that crime"
Again, that makes no sense. The only way to call the second crime an actual crime is to charge and convict for it.
This crime furthered THAT crime. We are charging you for this AND denying due process for THAT crime and the only way to charge for this crime is because it furthered THAT crime which you've never been charged for, much less convicted for.

#76 | POSTED BY BELLRINGER

Take it up with the NY Legislature, apparently this sort of thing has been done 1,000's of times.

#80 | Posted by truthhurts at 2024-05-05 08:52 PM | Reply

Data shows 9,794 cases involving state penal law 175.10, or falsifying business records in the first degree, have been arraigned in both local and superior New York state courts since 2015.

www.law.com

Jeff not being a lawyer doesn't understand how the law works

#81 | Posted by truthhurts at 2024-05-05 08:54 PM | Reply

&NBSP

@#73 ... The dates of the alleged crimes are all over the place - years apart. Yet the indictments were all brought within a comparatively short period of time - during this election cycle. ...

Can you say, "grasping at straws?"

I knew you could.


All the objections your current alias raises, and has raised, will be decided in a Court of Justice, not the court of public opinion that your current alias seems to be working for.


So far, with the exception of the Judge in the Florida case, the Judges holding hearings on these charges have been fair to fmr Pres Trump.

Has your current alias any evidence to the contrary?

#82 | Posted by LampLighter at 2024-05-05 09:15 PM | Reply

# 81. You're not making the point you think you are. All 175.10 does is elevate falsification of falsifying business records from a misdemeanor to a Class E felony if it was done in furtherance of another crime. In our legal system one can only be guilty of a crime if they either admit guilt or are found guilty of a crime in a court of law. 175.10 doesn't change that.

The crime that was furthered is not even named in the indictment.

#83 | Posted by BellRinger at 2024-05-05 09:15 PM | Reply

#82. You are conflating two completely different things.

#84 | Posted by BellRinger at 2024-05-05 09:17 PM | Reply

@#84 ... You are conflating two completely different things. ...

How so?

Assertions are easy.

Substantiations are more difficult.


#85 | Posted by LampLighter at 2024-05-05 09:19 PM | Reply

# 81. You're not making the point you think you are. All 175.10 does is elevate falsification of falsifying business records from a misdemeanor to a Class E felony if it was done in furtherance of another crime. In our legal system one can only be guilty of a crime if they either admit guilt or are found guilty of a crime in a court of law. 175.10 doesn't change that.
The crime that was furthered is not even named in the indictment.

#83 | POSTED BY BELLRINGER

It doesn't have to be named in the indictment. It has to be proven in court.

It doesn't have to be named in the indictment. It has to be proven in court.

It doesn't have to be named in the indictment. It has to be proven in court.

It doesn't have to be named in the indictment. It has to be proven in court.

It doesn't have to be named in the indictment. It has to be proven in court.

It doesn't have to be named in the indictment. It has to be proven in court.

It doesn't have to be named in the indictment. It has to be proven in court.

You understand that, right?

#86 | Posted by truthhurts at 2024-05-05 09:19 PM | Reply

s3.documentcloud.org

Falsifying Business Records in the First Degree, requires that a defendant, have the intent to commit "another crime or to aid or conceal the commission thereof." Thus, the statute does not require & defendant to actually be convicted of the "other crime," but merely that he intend to commit another crime. People r. McCumnikey, 12 A1D3d 1145 [2004]. This element of PL 175.10 is not satisfied so long as the Defendant intended to commit or conceal the "other crime." People 1.
Houghtaling, 79 AD3d 1155 [3d Dept 2010]. The focus here is on the clement of intent.

#87 | Posted by truthhurts at 2024-05-05 09:28 PM | Reply

That was Merchan's ruling BTW

Now, jeff, you have, again, been educated. Of course, you will refuse to acknowledge these facts and will continue to argue that the indictment is somehow incorrect or wrong.

But you would be knowingly LYING.

That would not surprise me one iota.

#88 | Posted by truthhurts at 2024-05-05 09:29 PM | Reply

Obviously JBelle missed #50.

This sort of prosecution has been used 10,000 times, lmao.

#89 | Posted by Corky at 2024-05-05 09:41 PM | Reply

#87. What that is talking about is criminal conspiracy. Example: the Whitmer kidnapping plot. The defendants were not guilty of the crime of kidnapping. They were CHARGED with conspiring to kidnap her and the allegations were clearly laid out in the indictments. They were charged bas3d on intent and STILL went to trial and were afforded due process for that specific crime.

In this case the crime that is discussed in the media is a campaign finance violation which is outside of Bragg's jurisdiction.

It's amazing that you somehow believe 175.10 gives prosecutors the ability to bypass due process.

#90 | Posted by BellRinger at 2024-05-05 10:11 PM | Reply

@#89 ... This sort of prosecution has been used 10,000 times ...

Yeah, but will it be successful in this case with the evidence being presented?

(thanks, btw, for that #50 link)..

The leap, imo, is a big one. And one that requires substantial evidence.

That's why I still think this case against fmr Pres Trump is the weakest of those he faces.

Unfortunately, it is the first to go to trial.

Likely because it is the weakest.


#91 | Posted by LampLighter at 2024-05-05 10:11 PM | Reply

" This sort of prosecution has been used 10,000 times, lmao.

#89 | POSTED BY CORKY AT 2024-05-05 09:41 PM | FLAG: "

175.10 has, sure. Have 10,000 175.10 indictments been issued where the alleged crimes haven't been clearly spelled out?

#92 | Posted by BellRinger at 2024-05-05 10:12 PM | Reply

" That's why I still think this case against fmr Pres Trump is the weakest of those he faces."

Agreed. And I would argue the documents case is the strongest.

#93 | Posted by BellRinger at 2024-05-05 10:13 PM | Reply

"In this case the crime that is discussed in the media is a campaign finance violation which is outside of Bragg's jurisdiction."

Okay, so you admit the action was in furtherance of another crime.

Thanks for proving the prosecution's point!

#94 | Posted by Danforth at 2024-05-05 10:14 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

"Agreed"

In that case, which one of the 34 indictments could you or I do without any fear of legal repercussions?

Asking for the 14th time.

#95 | Posted by Danforth at 2024-05-05 10:15 PM | Reply

#95. Now you are just trolling. Not playing.

#96 | Posted by BellRinger at 2024-05-05 10:16 PM | Reply

That's why I still think this case against fmr Pres Trump is the weakest of those he faces.

They are all weak because there will be at least one rabid MAGA cult member on every jury.

#97 | Posted by REDIAL at 2024-05-05 10:25 PM | Reply

" 971. Sufficiency of Indictment"Generally"

www.justice.gov

#98 | Posted by BellRinger at 2024-05-05 10:25 PM | Reply

#97. Juries comprised of 90% who despise Trump isn't enough?

If I recall, the jurisdiction of the Bragg case went over 80% for Biden. Is THAT really a jury consisting of the defendant's peers?

#99 | Posted by BellRinger at 2024-05-05 10:27 PM | Reply

@#95 ... Now you are just trolling. ...

Nah.

It was a valid question, imo, no trolling involved. I've seen that same, or similar, question asked on this site before.


Does your current alias have an answer to it?


#100 | Posted by LampLighter at 2024-05-05 10:29 PM | Reply

91 felonies but its all a witch hunt to bellringer.

LOL

#101 | Posted by Alexandrite at 2024-05-05 10:30 PM | Reply

@#99 ... Is THAT really a jury consisting of the defendant's peers? ...

The Defense approved the Jury.

#102 | Posted by LampLighter at 2024-05-05 10:30 PM | Reply

Juries comprised of 90% who despise Trump isn't enough?

No.

#103 | Posted by REDIAL at 2024-05-05 10:30 PM | Reply

"New York Penal Code 175.10, which covers falsifying business records, can be considered an underlying crime. The statute states that someone is guilty of falsifying business records in the first degree if they commit the second degree crime and intend to defraud by committing another crime or helping to conceal it."

"So those are the business records. What about the "object crime" - that is, the crime that Trump allegedly intended to commit or conceal in such a way as to transform the underlying misdemeanor offense into a felony?

If you're looking for the clearest statement of Bragg's legal theory, you can find it in a November 2023 court filing opposing Trump's motion to dismiss the case, along with Merchan's ruling on that motion.

Notably, in that ruling, Merchan clarified that 175.10 "does not require that the other crime' actually be committed"""all that is required is that defendant ... acted with a conscious aim and objective to commit another crime."

www.lawfaremedia.org

#104 | Posted by Corky at 2024-05-05 10:36 PM | Reply

" 971. Sufficiency of Indictment"Generally"
www.justice.gov
#98 | POSTED BY BELLRINGER

You do realize you posted a federal guideline and this is a state case. You get that, right?

#105 | Posted by truthhurts at 2024-05-05 10:37 PM | Reply

" If I recall, the CRIMES COMMITTED WERE IN THE jurisdiction (which) went over 80% for Biden."

FTFY.

And why on earth did Trump decide to commit crimes in a jurisdiction like that?

Or are you pretending he was dragged into the jurisdiction against his will?

#106 | Posted by Danforth at 2024-05-05 10:38 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

#105. Are you suggesting NY indictment guideline is vastly different than what I posted?

"

Does your current alias have an answer to it?"

Sure. I wouldn't be concerned because NDA's are legal.

#107 | Posted by BellRinger at 2024-05-05 10:41 PM | Reply

" 971. Sufficiency of Indictment"Generally"
www.justice.gov
#98 | POSTED BY BELLRINGER

You do realize that ------- had a year to argue your point and the Judge denied it right? Read the link in 87, that is Merchan's decision.

Here I'll restate it

Falsifying Business Records in the First Degree, requires that a defendant, have the intent to commit "another crime or to aid or conceal the commission thereof." Thus, the statute does not require & defendant to actually be convicted of the "other crime," but merely that he intend to commit another crime. People r. McCumnikey, 12 A1D3d 1145 [2004]. This element of PL 175.10 is not satisfied so long as the Defendant intended to commit or conceal the "other crime." People 1.
Houghtaling, 79 AD3d 1155 [3d Dept 2010]. The focus here is on the element of intent.

"...merely that he intend to commit another crime."

Therefore, the indictment clearly states the crimes that ------- was charged with.

What you are concerned about is a evidentiary element of the charges and not required for an indictment.

#108 | Posted by truthhurts at 2024-05-05 10:41 PM | Reply

NDAs are legal. paying 130,000 in hush money for prostitution before an election using the wrong funds for it and getting tax write offs for it is not.

#109 | Posted by Alexandrite at 2024-05-05 10:43 PM | Reply

Does your current alias have an answer to it?"
Sure. I wouldn't be concerned because NDA's are legal.

#107 | POSTED BY BELLRINGER

Do you understand that the indictment presents the charges, not the evidence, you get that right?

NDA's are legal.

The NDA's are not the crime.

The crimes are the falsifying documentation to disguise the payments.

You really can't be this thick.

#110 | Posted by truthhurts at 2024-05-05 10:43 PM | Reply

dont worry about it bellringer- lying about the pay off to the press on air force one is still legal.

#111 | Posted by Alexandrite at 2024-05-05 10:44 PM | Reply

Jeff, do you realize that a Grand Jury charged ------- with these crimes?

Do you realize that Grand Jury testimony is sealed?

Do you realize that evidence does not have to be included in an indictment?

Do you realize that the Grand Jury indicted ------- based on evidence?

No one can possibly be this thick.

#112 | Posted by truthhurts at 2024-05-05 10:45 PM | Reply

- You really can't be this thick.

Now, now. Never underestimate a Pole's thickness!

#113 | Posted by Corky at 2024-05-05 10:46 PM | Reply

BTW I told you all that Jeff would continue to lie about this.

Because he is a lying pos.

Because he is a trash person.

#114 | Posted by truthhurts at 2024-05-05 10:46 PM | Reply

Jeff will depart the thread at some point and be back tomorrow with the same lies.

Because that is who he is.

Because he is a lying pos trash person.

#115 | Posted by truthhurts at 2024-05-05 10:47 PM | Reply

"They were charged bas3d on intent and STILL went to trial and were afforded due process for that specific crime."

------- is currently in a trial to see if he broke felony falsifying business records.

The issue of whether these acts were committed by ------- who INTENDED to commit another crime. The jury will hear testimony to that and decide.

That is crystal clear to anyone who is not a ------- cultist-like jeff

#116 | Posted by truthhurts at 2024-05-05 10:50 PM | Reply

"#108 | POSTED BY TRUTHHURTS"

A person cannot be guilty of criminal intent unless guilt is admitted or it's tried and proven in court beyond a reasonable doubt.

Indictments are supposed to spell out the crimes that are to be tried. Bragg's doesn't.

This is how Toothy apparently believes the process works in NY:

-----

Plaintiff: Judge, the defendant intended to commit a crime.

Judge: What crime did the defendant intend to commit.

Plaintiff: We are not at liberty to say.

Judge: Good enough for me. Defendant is guilty of intending to commit an unspecified crime.

-----

If you don't even understand the absolute basics of our legal system you really shouldn't be voting; you should spend that time taking a remedial Civics class.

#117 | Posted by BellRinger at 2024-05-05 11:32 PM | Reply

Are you suggesting Cohen is pure as driven snow?

#30 | POSTED BY comrade Jeffry

Nope ... but ...
You do realize that Cohen will be testifying under oath right? He's said numerous times if he commits perjury on the stand, he knows he's going back to prison. If Trump's defense team catches him lying on the stand, he's going back to prison. Thats why he's told the absolute truth since he flipped on your Orange Fuhrer. Those are the facts, like them or not.

#118 | Posted by a_monson at 2024-05-05 11:33 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

"who INTENDED to commit another crime."

What is the other crime that was intended?

#119 | Posted by BellRinger at 2024-05-05 11:34 PM | Reply

"#118 | POSTED BY A_MONSON"

He may very well go on stand and 100% tell the truth, this time. The problem with Cohen as the prosecution's #1 witness is that his history of lying, including perjury, really harms his credibility as a witness, much less a key witness.

#120 | Posted by BellRinger at 2024-05-05 11:36 PM | Reply

@#117 ... A person cannot be guilty of criminal intent unless guilt is admitted or it's tried and proven in court beyond a reasonable doubt. ...

Yup.

So, what is your current alias' point?

#121 | Posted by LampLighter at 2024-05-05 11:37 PM | Reply

The problem for the defense is all Cohen's lying was for the defendant, something Cohan already went to jail for as a co-conspirator ... with the defendant.

Frankly, he's a GREAT witness.

It's as if Tom Hagan was testifying against Michael Corleone.

#122 | Posted by Danforth at 2024-05-05 11:46 PM | Reply

Speaking of NYC...

Klaatu - Sub-Rosa Subway (1976)
www.youtube.com

Lyrics excerpt...

genius.com

...
Back in 1870
Just beneath the Great White Way
Alfred Beach worked secretly
Risking all to ride a dream
His wind machine
His wind machine

New York City and the morning sun
Were awoken by the strangest sound
Reportedly as far as Washington
The tremors shook the earth as Alfie
Blew underground
Blew underground
He blew underground

Ahh, all aboard sub-rosa subway
Had you wondered who's been digging under Broadway?
It's Alfred
It's Alfred
It's Alfred
Poor Al, oh no, Al

As for America's first subway
The public scoffed, "it's far too rude"
One station filled with Victoria's age
From frescoed walls and goldfish fountains
...


#123 | Posted by LampLighter at 2024-05-05 11:47 PM | Reply

This discussion has grown circular:

Here is a nonpartisan attempt to lay out the legal theory Bragg is using (as hard as she tries she does make a couple of comments that suggest she has serious doubts about the prosecution's case):

www.lawfaremedia.org

#124 | Posted by BellRinger at 2024-05-05 11:48 PM | Reply

If you don't even understand the absolute basics of our legal system you really shouldn't be voting; you should spend that time taking a remedial Civics class.

#117 | POSTED BY BELLRINGER

You're not very bright are you?

------- is charged with 33 (or is it 34) felony counts of fraudulent business documents.

Those are the crimes.

The elements of those crimes are:

1. Falsified business documents
2. in furtherance of another crime (including intent).

All the prosecution has to do is to prove that ------- INTENDED on committing some other crime and voila felony. As an aside, that will be easy because either the payments were an illegal campaign contribution or tax evasion.

------- is cooked (except for the Magat trojan horse)

The judge understands that
The prosecutor understands that
The defense attorneys understand that
All of the renowned lawyers understand that

jeffj doesn't understand that

Now, who should we believe?

#125 | Posted by truthhurts at 2024-05-05 11:48 PM | Reply | Funny: 1

"What is the other crime that was intended?"

Take your pick. You've get at least 33 others to choose from.

You even admitted upthread it was in furtherance of another crime.

#126 | Posted by Danforth at 2024-05-05 11:48 PM | Reply

If you're looking for the clearest statement of Bragg's legal theory, you can find it in a November 2023 court filing opposing Trump's motion to dismiss the case, along with Merchan's ruling on that motion. Notably, in that ruling, Merchan clarified that 175.10 "does not require that the other crime' actually be committed"""all that is required is that defendant ... acted with a conscious aim and objective to commit another crime."

#127 | Posted by truthhurts at 2024-05-05 11:50 PM | Reply

"#122 | POSTED BY DANFORTH"

I understand what you are saying however Cohen still has a big credibility problem as a witness in ANY case.

Regardless, that Trump chose to use him at all is partly why he finds himself embroiled in this mess.

#128 | Posted by BellRinger at 2024-05-05 11:50 PM | Reply

#126 It's the exact same 'crime' repeated 33 times. The verbiage in each one is practically identical. The first time I read the indictment I thought it was something the Babylon Bee produced.

#129 | Posted by BellRinger at 2024-05-05 11:51 PM | Reply

" either the payments were an illegal campaign contribution or tax evasion."

They could be both. It's certainly tax evation, by claiming the hush money payments based on personal actions as business expenses.

BTW, the moment I heard about the hush money I KNEW the crook wouldn't be able to resist cheating on his taxes.

#130 | Posted by Danforth at 2024-05-05 11:52 PM | Reply

What is the other crime that was intended?

#119 | POSTED BY BELLRINGER

Asked and answered

1. Campaign Finance-Illegal campaign contribution.
2. Tax Evasion
3. Defrauding NY Voters

You are a piece of ----

#131 | Posted by truthhurts at 2024-05-05 11:52 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Wow, unexpectedly, the lyrics of the song caught my attention.

Alfred Ely Beach
en.wikipedia.org

... Alfred Ely Beach (September 1, 1826 -- January 1, 1896) was an American inventor, entrepreneur, publisher, and patent lawyer, born in Springfield, Massachusetts.

He is known for his design of the earliest predecessor to the New York City Subway, the Beach Pneumatic Transit, which became the first subway in America.[1]

He was an early owner and cofounder of Scientific American and Munn & Co., the country's leading patent agency, and helped secure patents for Thomas Edison, Alexander Graham Bell, Cornelius Vanderbilt, and other innovators.[2] A member of the Union League of New York, he also invented a typewriter for the blind and a system for heating water with solar power.[3] ...


Wow.


Who knew?

And, would write a song about him...


#132 | Posted by LampLighter at 2024-05-05 11:53 PM | Reply

"All of the renowned lawyers understand that"

Now you are talking out of your arse.

#133 | Posted by BellRinger at 2024-05-05 11:53 PM | Reply

This discussion has grown circular:
Here is a nonpartisan attempt to lay out the legal theory Bragg is using (as hard as she tries she does make a couple of comments that suggest she has serious doubts about the prosecution's case):
www.lawfaremedia.org
#124 | POSTED BY BELLRINGER AT

No jeff you're just too much of a lying pos to admit you're wrong.

because you're a trash person.

A person with zero integrity.

#134 | Posted by truthhurts at 2024-05-05 11:54 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

"#130 | POSTED BY DANFORTH"

The crazy thing is, by reporting some of the payments as income he actually INCREASED his tax liability.

#135 | Posted by BellRinger at 2024-05-05 11:54 PM | Reply

"All of the renowned lawyers understand that"
Now you are talking out of your arse.

#133 | POSTED BY BELLRINGER

jeff, you are not a good person. You should work on that

#136 | Posted by truthhurts at 2024-05-05 11:54 PM | Reply

#134 I'm not wrong. You haven't proven me wrong by any means whatsoever. And you STILL don't know the simple definition of the word "lie".

#137 | Posted by BellRinger at 2024-05-05 11:55 PM | Reply

"#130 | POSTED BY DANFORTH"
The crazy thing is, by reporting some of the payments as income he actually INCREASED his tax liability.

#135 | POSTED BY BELLRINGER

You're drunk, right?

reporting payments as income.

You're a very very stupid person.

#138 | Posted by truthhurts at 2024-05-05 11:56 PM | Reply

"It's the exact same 'crime' repeated 33 times."

Not exact same, but similar. False numbers were used in multiple instances.

Are you pretending once you lie about it, every other lie about the same thing is suddenly legal?!?

#139 | Posted by Danforth at 2024-05-05 11:57 PM | Reply

" The crazy thing is, by reporting some of the payments as income he actually INCREASED his tax liability."

By illegally writing off ALL the hush money, he broke the law.

And no, he did not increase his tax liability, dumfuq. Certainly not overall. He's not that kind of crook.

#140 | Posted by Danforth at 2024-05-05 11:59 PM | Reply

@#133 ... Now you are talking out of your arse. ...

Why?

#141 | Posted by LampLighter at 2024-05-06 12:02 AM | Reply

" It's the exact same 'crime' "

What a riot.

That's like saying you ran 30 red lights, so you should only be charged with one.

#142 | Posted by Danforth at 2024-05-06 12:03 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

#134 I'm not wrong. You haven't proven me wrong by any means whatsoever. And you STILL don't know the simple definition of the word "lie".

#137 | POSTED BY BELLRINGER

You haven't made a correct assertion this entire thread.

1. Claiming the "other crimes" had to be listed on the indictment
2. Claiming Braggs didn't have the authority to charge "other crimes"
3. Implying since it was a federal election Bragg didn't have a case
4. Claiming that the "other crimes" is a due process issue
5. Implying the length of time since the crimes is somehow political despite a. ------- being president and thus not able to be indicted for 4 years, b. ------- delaying tactics and the charge having been filed last year
6. Implying the legality of NDAs has anything to do with this case.

to name just a few

#143 | Posted by truthhurts at 2024-05-06 12:03 AM | Reply

@#139 ... Not exact same, but similar. False numbers were used in multiple instances.

Are you pretending once you lie about it, every other lie about the same thing is suddenly legal?!? ...

My guess is that that current alias is trying to argue that anything fmr Pres Trump does is legal, damn the legal details.

I may be wrong on that, though.

#144 | Posted by LampLighter at 2024-05-06 12:05 AM | Reply

"I'm not wrong."

Sure, Fredo.

#145 | Posted by Danforth at 2024-05-06 12:17 AM | Reply

Sure, Fredo.

He's smart. Not like everybody says... dumb.

#146 | Posted by REDIAL at 2024-05-06 12:22 AM | Reply

This is how Vox summarized the indictment at the time it was made public:

www.vox.com

#147 | Posted by BellRinger at 2024-05-06 12:28 AM | Reply

@#147 ... This is how Vox summarized the indictment at the time it was made public: ...

... and now that under-oath evidence has been presented, how has that changed.

Let me also say, back when I first saw this indictment (circa, a month ago when that Vox article was published), I thought the case was weak, and I have said so here on this most august site.

But, my view has changed as I have seen and read the under-oath testimony.

Do I still think the case is weak? Not as much as I had thought. But I'm still 50-50 on the jury's decision.

But, as an aside, thanks for the link. Your current alias should provide links more often.

:)


#148 | Posted by LampLighter at 2024-05-06 12:55 AM | Reply

"1. Claiming the "other crimes" had to be listed on the indictment"

I provided a government link that says pretty much that. And the guideline/clarification is tied to 6A.

"2. Claiming Braggs didn't have the authority to charge "other crimes""

He doesn't have the authority to charge FEDERAL crimes.

"3. Implying since it was a federal election Bragg didn't have a case"

IF the furtherance of the "other crime" was a federal election violation than Bragg absolutely doesn't have a case.

"4. Claiming that the "other crimes" is a due process issue"

It absolutely is. Whether the "other crime" was committed or intended to be committed, it has to be proven beyond reasonable doubt in a court of law.

"5. Implying the length of time since the crimes is somehow political despite a. ------- being president and thus not able to be indicted for 4 years, b. ------- delaying tactics and the charge having been filed last year"

What I believe, based upon what I've watched unfold, is that the timing of when these cases are being brought is political and coordinated. I ALSO said, that while the timing sure as hell looks political, that doesn't mean the cases themselves, this particular one notwithstanding, are bogus based on legal merits.

"6. Implying the legality of NDAs has anything to do with this case."

I pointed out that NDA's are legal. That's it.

Your reading comprehension is terrible. I guess your abject hatred of me clouds your ability to accurately read what is actually written and what is being conveyed.

#149 | Posted by BellRinger at 2024-05-06 12:58 AM | Reply

"But, as an aside, thanks for the link."

You're welcome.

"Your current alias should provide links more often."

Honestly, I'd like to provide more links and could easily do so regarding this case. The problem is, the immediate reaction when I supply any link is to reflexively slaughter the source like a Pavlovian dog. At NRO, Andrew McCarthy, who is a distinguished prosecutor and provides sound and logical (albeit somewhat long-winded) legal analyses, has published a number of pieces breaking down this case. But, why bother even linking those, no matter how insightfully written, when the response will be to immediately attack the source and follow with personal attacks against me?

So, when I do provide links I try to stick with left-wing sources and even then, those get attacked if they dare counter a preferred narrative.

#150 | Posted by BellRinger at 2024-05-06 01:09 AM | Reply

@#149

Nice to see your current alias alias kicking up a lot of dust.

But, I have to ask, ... why have not fmr Pres Trump's lawyers raised those issues, if they are as valid as your current seems to assert they are?

Or is your current alias just venting methane out of its analpore?

Or, maybe ...

Your current alias should take the job of being the lawyer representing fmr Pres Trump?


#151 | Posted by LampLighter at 2024-05-06 01:10 AM | Reply

#151 My current alias is a black belt and venting methane.

Some of those objections have been raised and Merchan has shot them down without explanation. I don't know how to explain that.

#152 | Posted by BellRinger at 2024-05-06 01:13 AM | Reply

@#150 ... could easily do so regarding this case. The problem is, the immediate reaction when I supply any link is to reflexively slaughter the source ...

Then maybe, just maybe, provide better links?

For me, it is not the provided link, but what the provided link asserts.

If the link is just an echo of the usual garbage your current alias posts, well, what do you expect the reaction to be?

That aside, do try to continue posting links to substantiate what your current alias asserts here on this most august site.

Those links help me to understand your views.



#153 | Posted by LampLighter at 2024-05-06 01:16 AM | Reply

Lamplighter,

Chunking WAY up this is my overall view of this particular case:

1. I don't think prosecutor's should stretch and pretzel legal language to bring a case of this nature against anyone. Essentially 1 alleged crime broken down into 34 counts that could result in a maximum cumulative penalty of 134 years in prison.

2. The threshold for prosecuting a former or current president should be very high. The case should absolutely be rock-solid and introducing novel legal theories and engaging in the linguistic legal twisting that Bragg has been engaged in is the opposite of that.

3. #2 should be amped up on steroids if the person being prosecuted is the primary challenger to the incumbent president in an election year.

----

In my very strong opinion - this case NEVER should have been brought.

#154 | Posted by BellRinger at 2024-05-06 01:22 AM | Reply

"For me, it is not the provided link, but what the provided link asserts."

Same here. I make a point of reading first and if I think the source is FOS I lay out WHY, based upon the argument being made.

#155 | Posted by BellRinger at 2024-05-06 01:24 AM | Reply

Lamplighter,

This is tangentially related to this thread. Please give me your honest assessment if you have the time (it is getting a bit late).

www.nationalreview.com

#156 | Posted by BellRinger at 2024-05-06 01:28 AM | Reply

/

@#156 ... Please give me your honest assessment ...

Well, for starters, the very first paragraph of that OpEd says...

... I argued that the gag order Trump violated multiple times is unwarranted because there are reasons of law and self-interest that should induce the de facto 2024 Republican presidential nominee to rein it in. In making that point, I stressed: "Trump's diatribes remind the majority of voters in the country who oppose him why they oppose him." ...

If that is a correct assertion, then it should have been appealed at this point.

But, it was not.

More from that OpEd...

... I said "the majority of voters" oppose Trump because it is true. It's not credibly contestable. It has been true for almost a decade that a majority ...

At that point, the paywall kicked in and I could not read further.


But, I would say that my concern is the statement at the start of the OpEd...

... I argued that the gag order Trump violated multiple times is unwarranted because there are reasons of law and self-interest that should induce the de facto 2024 Republican presidential nominee to rein it in. In making that point, I stressed: "Trump's diatribes remind the majority of voters in the country who oppose him why they oppose him." ...

My honest assessment, based upon what I could read of the OpEd: ...

The author of that OpEd seems to want to try fmr Pres Trump in the court of public opinion instead of the Court of Justice.



#157 | Posted by LampLighter at 2024-05-06 01:41 AM | Reply

"At that point, the paywall kicked in and I could not read further."

Damn. Normally NRO allows limited access (3 per month) to premium content. I'm surprised a paywall kicked in unless it's a site that you frequent.

"The author of that OpEd seems to want to try fmr Pres Trump in the court of public opinion instead of the Court of Justice."

He was talking about that issue from a voter perspective standpoint. The subject of the piece is how all of these legal cases are and will possibly impact his electoral chances come November.
He elaborates on it throughout the piece. I apologize for linking paywalled content. It was a waste of your time given you couldn't read the entire thing.

#158 | Posted by BellRinger at 2024-05-06 01:47 AM | Reply

This is tangentially related to this thread. Please give me your honest assessment if you have the time (it is getting a bit late).
www.nationalreview.com
POSTED BY BELLRINGER AT 2024-05-06 01:28 AM | REPLY

Lawfare squawk lawfare squawk lawfare squawk. It's Andrew C McCarthy. Typical Jeff right wing source. I'm not surprised in the least.

#159 | Posted by LauraMohr at 2024-05-06 01:49 AM | Reply

Lamplighter,

Please see Laura Mohr's #159 as Exhibit A.

Perfectly illustrates my point and the timing couldn't have been better.

#160 | Posted by BellRinger at 2024-05-06 02:03 AM | Reply

@#158 ... He was talking about that issue from a voter perspective standpoint. ...

So... as I noticed from that first paragraph.

Appealing to the court of public opinion instead of the Court of Justice.


Quite frankly, I've little concern about how these various trials affect fmr Pres Trump from a voter perspective.

My concern here is, and has been, that someone who runs afoul of the law needs to be held accountable. Not by voters, but by the Justice system.


Back in the summer of 2016 I stated my view of then candidate Trump. It was not a good view. But did the Republicans listen?

No.

And now, look at what the Republican party is dealing with. Having to suck up to a person who seems to be less than honorable (I'm being kind).

#161 | Posted by LampLighter at 2024-05-06 02:14 AM | Reply

(I'm being kind).

That's an understatement. I'd say you are being philanthropist :-)

#162 | Posted by BellRinger at 2024-05-06 02:24 AM | Reply

"Appealing to the court of public opinion instead of the Court of Justice.

Quite frankly, I've little concern about how these various trials affect fmr Pres Trump from a voter perspective.

My concern here is, and has been, that someone who runs afoul of the law needs to be held accountable. Not by voters, but by the Justice system."
----

Here is the thing, Mr. Lighter of Lamps, both are happening simultaneously. The lines between legal and public opinion are being blurred. It's an election year.

#163 | Posted by BellRinger at 2024-05-06 02:28 AM | Reply

@#163 ... Quite frankly, I've little concern about how these various trials affect fmr Pres Trump from a voter perspective. ...

Yet, the articles your current alias seems post to substantiate its opinion have that "public opinion" slant to them.

... The lines between legal and public opinion are being blurred. It's an election year. ...

I do not disagree.

But Law and Order has to be the rule in this case.

Otherwise, what is the result?

An occupant of the Oval Office who says that he can direct the head of the DoJ to prosecute anyone he wants to prosecute?

Trump pledges to direct completely overhauled DOJ' to probe DAs and AGs (October 2023)
thehill.com

... Former President Trump pledged Sunday to direct the Department of Justice (DOJ), should he be elected president in 2024, to probe "radical" attorneys general (AG) and district attorneys (DA) and stressed his plan to "completely overhaul" the department.

In a speech to supporters in Iowa, Trump said he would specifically target officials who are practicing "reverse" racism.

"To stop the Marxist prosecutors who release rapists and murderers while persecuting Republicans, conservatives and people of faith like you," he said, "I will direct a completely overhauled DOJ to investigate every radical DA and AG in America for their illegal, racist-in-reverse, enforcement of the law."

Trump also pledged to create a "Truth and Reconciliation Commission," which he said will "shed some light on every dark and rotten corner of Washington, D.C., starting with crooked Joe Biden," adding, "and now we could really do that because they've led the path, what they're doing is so bad to this country."

Trump has frequently threatened to investigate officials whom he claims are corrupt or whom he claims are targeting him for political purposes. He has also outlined plans to limit the bureaucratic guardrails and increase the president's authority and power to direct independent agencies as he sees fit. ...



#164 | Posted by LampLighter at 2024-05-06 02:59 AM | Reply

@#163 ... Quite frankly, I've little concern about how these various trials affect fmr Pres Trump from a voter perspective. ...
---
Yet, the articles your current alias seems post to substantiate its opinion have that "public opinion" slant to them.

I was quoting you in #163 and you then responded to your own comment as if I made it. Hilarious.

Take a closer look....you will probably chuckle.

#165 | Posted by BellRinger at 2024-05-06 03:14 AM | Reply

@#165 ... I was quoting you in #163 and you then responded to your own comment as if I made it. Hilarious. ...

Yeah, I blew it in misreading the quotation in that reply. Thanks for pointing it out.

So, what has your current alias to say about the question(s) I ask in #164?

Or is it too busy doing a happy dance to read further?


:)


#166 | Posted by LampLighter at 2024-05-06 03:51 AM | Reply

"So, what has your current alias to say about the question(s) I ask in #164?

Or is it too busy doing a happy dance to read further?"

My alias is tired. Time for some sleep. Take care.

#167 | Posted by BellRinger at 2024-05-06 03:53 AM | Reply

Good night.

#168 | Posted by LampLighter at 2024-05-06 03:57 AM | Reply

Vonsh*tzenpants is guilty. Period.

Remember when the GOP used to avoid criminals and adulterers. I do.

#169 | Posted by Nixon at 2024-05-06 08:02 AM | Reply

"1. Claiming the "other crimes" had to be listed on the indictment"
I provided a government link that says pretty much that. And the guideline/clarification is tied to 6A.
"2. Claiming Braggs didn't have the authority to charge "other crimes""
He doesn't have the authority to charge FEDERAL crimes.
"3. Implying since it was a federal election Bragg didn't have a case"
IF the furtherance of the "other crime" was a federal election violation than Bragg absolutely doesn't have a case.
"4. Claiming that the "other crimes" is a due process issue"
It absolutely is. Whether the "other crime" was committed or intended to be committed, it has to be proven beyond reasonable doubt in a court of law.
"5. Implying the length of time since the crimes is somehow political despite a. ------- being president and thus not able to be indicted for 4 years, b. ------- delaying tactics and the charge having been filed last year"
What I believe, based upon what I've watched unfold, is that the timing of when these cases are being brought is political and coordinated. I ALSO said, that while the timing sure as hell looks political, that doesn't mean the cases themselves, this particular one notwithstanding, are bogus based on legal merits.
"6. Implying the legality of NDAs has anything to do with this case."
I pointed out that NDA's are legal. That's it.
Your reading comprehension is terrible. I guess your abject hatred of me clouds your ability to accurately read what is actually written and what is being conveyed.

#149 | POSTED BY BELLRINGER A

1. For the 100th time, ------- IS NOT BEING TRIED FOR THOSE OTHER CRIMES! They do not therefore have to be listed on the indictment. That is a ------- basic ------- legal issue you fail to be able to grasp. the other crime is EVIDENTIARY, thus NOT required to be on the indictment.
2. He ISN'T prosecuting federal charges dumbass
3. Wrong, wrong, wrong, it is unsettled law, but certainly follows logically. And of course, there is the pesky matter of state law.
4. Yes dumbass, that is the point of this trial, you really are a dumbass, dumbass
5. Blah blah blah
6. Then you made at best an irrelevant point, gee I wonder why that is, could be you are obfuscating?

You are not a good person.

#170 | Posted by truthhurts at 2024-05-06 01:59 PM | Reply

1. I don't think prosecutor's should stretch and pretzel legal language to bring a case of this nature against anyone. Essentially 1 alleged crime broken down into 34 counts that could result in a maximum cumulative penalty of 134 years in prison.
2. The threshold for prosecuting a former or current president should be very high. The case should absolutely be rock-solid and introducing novel legal theories and engaging in the linguistic legal twisting that Bragg has been engaged in is the opposite of that.
3. #2 should be amped up on steroids if the person being prosecuted is the primary challenger to the incumbent president in an election year.
----
In my very strong opinion - this case NEVER should have been brought.

#154 | POSTED BY BELLRINGER

OFFS

1. If Bragg charged 1 or 2 crimes, you would say it's a nothing burger. One can't win with you, because you are a disingenuous hack
2. The case is absolutely rock solid. If have been paying attention the case Bragg is presenting is a tidal wave of documentary and testimony including by allies of ----------- Hope Hicks. There is NO novel legal theories that is made up BS by people trying to obfuscate the facts. the felony arises from the intent to commit a crime, that is being established. It is NOT novel.
3. So, you are advocating for 2 tiers of justice. I can't imagine why.

#171 | Posted by truthhurts at 2024-05-06 02:04 PM | Reply

Comments are closed for this entry.

Home | Breaking News | Comments | User Blogs | Stats | Back Page | RSS Feed | RSS Spec | DMCA Compliance | Privacy | Copyright 2024 World Readable

Drudge Retort