Trump indicates he'd testify in hush money trial, says a conviction could 'make me more popular'

Yes it happened, where is this crime other than as an "other crime" listed in the indictment. Simply asserting some other crime does NOT meet the constitutional standard. And Bragg has NO jurisdiction to charge a FEDERAL crime for which Trump has never been even charged let alone prosecuted and found guilty.

You know that stuff you ignore.

 

You keep ignoring the explanation that has been given to you. You literally ignore (don’t respond to) posts that explain why you are wrong.

Bragg has not charged trump with a federal crime.

 

You continue to be unable to list the what is the indicted" other crime". Is it a federal crime?

 

Because the facts are they knew it was fake information when they paid for it and used it to try and influence the election and then get Trump removed, why do YOU keep ignoring the facts.

There is every evidence her campaign did not come up with the entire scheme behind her back and she was the one parading it around knowing it was entirely false.

They got MUCHO in common your denials notwithstanding. So who was charged with a felony?

Hush money payments are NOT illegal unless they are for an illegal act. The sex if it occurred was not illegal. No I will not get over our system of justice being used by one political side to have their opposition jailed or otherwise unable to campaign and even when they win to get them removed on bogus charges.

This entire matter boils down to did the accountant enter the payments in the proper column in the books which even if wrong defrauded no one, had this never gone to court no one would have even known how they were listed nor would it have matter a twit to anything. This is entirely a political persecution in order to influence the election. Even AOC admitted it this week.

 

Oh, Christ. You can lead a horse to water, but you can’t make it drink.

 

I'll go over this with you once again. Here's the law:

A person is guilty of falsifying business records in the first degree when he commits the crime of falsifying business records in the second degree, and when his intent to defraud includes an intent to commit another crime or to aid or conceal the commission thereof.

A person cannot be charged with a crime he hasn't committed but merely"intends" to commit. So the above law is clearly not dependent on the "other" crime being charged.

Bragg has not charged Trump with committing a federal crime, so there's no jurisdictional issue. Furthermore, there is also a state crime that can be considered (as I've previously pointed out) To be found guilty of the felony, jurors can base this on his intent to commit either the state or the federal crime.

 

First NY law the US and NY constitutions require that such charges be specific. Second what fraud was committed and proven in court. What evidence beyond a reasonable doubt was presented at trial that Trump had any involvment in how the payments were arranged and entered unto the books?

What evidence beyond a reasonable doubt was presented that Trump was knowingly intending to commit a crime? Are you now saying that a crime wasn't committed Trump only intended to commit one but didn't. You make no sense here.

How can a court declare you guilty of a crime for which you have never been charged let alone tried and found guilty? Where is that due process? I don't what your misinterpretation of the New York law is the Constitution and Bill of Rights trumps it.

The what is the other crime? Why did the judge say they were federal election crimes?

Where is it listed in the indictment? No this jury cannot adjudicate a federal crime especially jne for which the defendant has not even been charge by the only authority with juridsiction to do so. And the act alledged to be such a violation was NOT under federal law.

 

Thirsty now are yee?

 

The criminal charge IS specific. He's not charged with the second crime, and as I noted - the law clearly doesn't require it. I'll also repeat the fact that the judge accepted this, so the jury verdict will be based on it.

As I previously pointed out, all conspirators are accountable for all crimes committed through the conspiracy. I saw this referred to in this MSNBC article. Some might not consider them credible, so I confirmed it by reading the legal decisions this is based on: (here) and (here).

The judge said that each juror can judge Trump guilty of any one of the crimes. 6 could consider him guilty of one crime, 6 of another crime; all that matters for a guilty verdict is that they all believed he committed "another crime". One of the crimes they can base guilt on is a federal crime (according to the judge).

The other crimes are not listed in the indictment, and that's because he's not charged with these other crimes. As I pointed out, the way the law is written a crime only has to be intended - it needn't even be a committed crime.

To be sure, if Trump is convicted, all these fine legal points will be appealed. But they stand as I described in terms of reaching a jury verdict. Do you still think an acquittal likely? Here's an article that agrees with me:
https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2024/05/24/trump-trial-verdict-00159676

Have you seen an analysis that predicts acquittal?

 

The only specific charge is a misdemeanor civil offense which statute of limitations has long expired. For that to be a felony Bragg relies on "other crimes". That charge is NOT specifically stated in the indictment and Bragg has not proven another crime nor can he charge Trump committed one and declare him guilty of one.

There is no conspiracy charge here. And of course accounting departments "conspire" everyday on doing their jobs, you seem to think conspiring is illegal. The Biden campaign in "conspiring"right now on how they will use any verdict to influence the election in their favor is that illegal? The charge is that a payment for an invoice from the Cohen law firm for legal services should not have been listed under legal expenses. THAT Is the base charge.
First Bragg has not prove that to be criminal nor provided any testimony as to how it should have been entered.

Second Braggs own witnesses testified Trump had no role in how they listed it in the books.

Third they were payments from Trumps PERSONAL accounts not BUSINESSES records as Bragg keeps fallaciously stating. The only person who could have been defraud was TRUMP himself so there was no fraud involved that is necessary to ramp it up to a felony.

Yes this judge keeps totally violating the constitutions and Trumps constitutional rights in these proceeding.

No intent was proved even if that is all that is required. But now you are claiming there was no other crime committed the payments were entered legally and of he NDA was legal so why is Trump in court?

Likely no, a hung jury. Do you think a conviction likely? What is the beyond a reasonable doubt Trump committed a crime?
https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2024/05/24/trump-trial-verdict-00159676
"But that’s not what People v. Trump is ultimately about. The first-ever criminal prosecution of a U.S. president, at least according to the team of prosecutors working under Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg, is about alleged “election interference” during the 2016 campaign committed at the behest of the former and potentially future president."

Bragg has no jurisdiction to charge a crime in a federal election. The crime is a minor misdemeanor record entry violation of which Trump had no role.

"First, Trump had an extramarital sexual encounter with Stormy Daniels, "
No prove but of not matter not illegal even if he did and has nothing to do with how the payments were made and by whom.

" In order to convict Trump on the felony charges brought by prosecutors, it is not enough for them to establish that Trump paid Daniels off to influence the election "

It has been proven it went beyond the election into his personal and business life and therefore not even a federal election violation.

"or even that he falsified his company’s business records. (That would only be a misdemeanor offense under New York law.)"
Falsifying is not fraud as I already cited. They were PERSONAL records. And they were not false, under all the acceptable categories to list for what the the payments were being made OF COURSE they went under "legal expenses". If you disagree then under what column should they have been recorded and state the law that was violated by listing them as "legal expenses"?

"Broadly speaking, the D.A.’s office has provided two logical paths for jurors to use to convict Trump — one that goes through Cohen and one that goes around him."

Cohen is a convicted perjurer and is trying to profit off the trial and a conviction he has ZERO credibility.

"There is plenty of reason, even apart from the direct evidence offered by Cohen of Trump’s participation in approving the deal with Daniels and signing off on the false records regarding the reimbursement, to believe that Trump was in on everything and fully aware of the legal risks and implications of what he had done."

The prosecution's OWN WITNESSES testified Trump had NO role in paying the invoices and how they were recorded. Bragg offered NOT evidence otherwise and NO jurors cannot extrapolate or speculate or postulate they must based their decisions SOLELY on the evidence presented. They can't imagine it, make it up or create it.

Bragg presented NO evidence Trump was ever told his decision to pay Daniels for the NDA was criminal or illegal in any way shape or form, not by his attorney not by his accountant he on Cohen's own despicable secret recordings he tells Trump, no you don't pay her in cash and the HE will take care of it and Trump brushed it off to him.

"If you believe all of this, it is not a terribly difficult leap to conclude that Trump knew all of the key facts — including why the reimbursements were disguised — at every step of the way."

Jurors are not supposed to "leap", it has to be proven BEYOND A REASONABLE doubt based on the evidence presented in court.

No other crime has been proven, oh I know and here comes your circular argument that no other crime has to be proven, and Trump's involvement in the misdemeanor was proven by the prosecution's own witnesses not to have been the case.

 

I agree, the second crime is not specified in the indictment, but it has come out at trial. This article lays out the 3 crimes the jury can choose from.

Was it proven beyond reasonble doubt? You believe no and I believe yes. But the only opinions that matter are those of the jurors. We've each given our predictions, and I stand by mine: a conviction or hung jury (with a majority voting to convict).

It's not necessary. Prosecutors just need to prove there was one. I think they have, largely based on Pecker's testimony: Trump, Cohen, and Pecker conspired to catch-and-kill negative stories about Trump, and publish false stories about his opponents. This entailed campaign finance crimes, so it constitutes a criminal conspiracy. Here's an article discussing it.

Only if this conspiracy has resulted in a crime being committed.

He proved it with the Wesselberg paper, that showed how the amount to pay Cohen was worked out- and it included the $130K to Stormy, jacked up to cover Cohen's income taxes.

I already explained why that doesn't matter: conspirators are responsible for all crimes committed.

Yes, but they were booked by his company. It does sound suspicious (in a way that incriminates Trump) that there was this intermingling of company and personal finances.

Maybe, but it's consistent with the text of the law.

Yes, I think a conviction is probable, but I wouldn't be surprised if there's a hung jury. I will be shocked if he's acquitted.

That's backwards. A case has been made, and the question is: what reasonable doubt is there that the elements of the case are not true? My impression is that the primary thrust of the defense is that Cohen is generally untrustwothy. But this is based on his past history, and doesn't imply he's lying about this. His testimony was consistent with all other evidence (E.g. Pecker's testimony, the Weisselberg document, the voice recording, and the checks). A fair circumstantial case could be made without Cohen, but Cohen connects some dots that otherwise would depend on drawing inferences from the circumstantial evidence. If Trump did the things he's accused of, Cohen would know. And to me, it's relevant that Trump pressured Cohen to not "flip", then disparaged him when he did. That reeks of guilt. Finally: why didn't the defense call Weisselberg? The prosecution didn't because he committed pro-Trump perjury in the Engeron trial- so he couldn't be trusted to tell the truth. But he'd have no motivation to lie to get Trump, but he could provide an innocent interpretation of his paper, if there were one.

OK, I read what you wrote, and I've given you my view of many of the points you made. But how strongly do you feel about this? Is an acquittal likely? Do you predict that at least a majority of jurors vote to acquit? That will differentiate our respective predictions if there is a hung jury. The winner gets bragging rights.

Many people have been convicted on circumstantial evidence, and this necessarily entails drawing inferences (making "leaps" that go beyond the evidence). "Beyond a reasonable doubt" does not mean "beyond all doubt". It appears to me that all key elements for conviction have met the burden (hence, my prediction). You disagree. Neither of us will convince the other, but we can see who was better at predicting the verdict. Please confirm your prediction. I think you said acquittal or hung jury, but if hung - do you predict a majority voting to acquit?

If Trump is convicted, then we can debate the liklihood of his success on appeal. Many of your arguments are more pertinent to that.

 

I knew it even before “TheArt of the Deal”

 

Candidate Trump's need to payoff bimbos he schtupped behind the back of a pregnant trophy wife is entirely understandable.

He had already exposed himself as a skanky lowlife by braying that his celebrity licensed him to grab women by their genitals.

The evangelicals upon whom he depended, at the time, could only contort morality so far.

Hiding his sordid antics from the public during the campaign did not require that he break the law in how he concealed his payoffs.

Did he break the law in doing so?

That is for a jury to decide, although anyone can don a powdered wig, bang a gavel, and issue whatever verdict he likes.

 

That kind of misogyny is routine among right wing heartthrobs.

Nancy Reagan was pregnant when she married Ron.

Fox spent millions covering up the sexual predatory behavior of Bill O’Liely, and he spent millions more.

Ditto Roger Ailes.

Limbaugh went through three wives. numbers two and three were affairs.

Trump…..

Jerry Falwell Jr.’s threesomes.

Dennis Hastert and “Gym” Jordan.

Matt Gaetz, who used to share his boasts with colleagues.

Rudy Guliani and his five exes.

The list goes on, and on..

 

The (legally-established) sexual abuser knows his wanton depravity in no way alienates his worshipful lickspittles.

 

He hasn't charged him with a federal crime. Catch up, man.

 

Yes he did in his closing he specifically charged him with violating a federal crime for which he has no jurisdiction, that was investigated by the authority which does and no charge was brought. Catch up, man.

 

Your refusal to read the indictment isn't my fault. Try telling the truth.

 

The Constitution states you will only be charged by a grand jury and those charges MUST be specified in the indictment. The jury doesn't decide what to charge, they decide if there is evidence beyond a reasonable doubt you are guilty for the crimes specified in the indictment.

What evidence beyond a reasonable doubt for what crime? The accountants testified he had NOTHING to do with how the payments were recorded in the books, so WHAT CRIME and the evidence you claim proves it beyond a reasonable doubt?

YES they have to first charge it and then prove it. And we know what it is now and Bragg has no jurisdiction to charge him and this court has no jurisdiction to try him let alone declare him guilty it is a FEDERAL OFFENSE.

Which is not a crime and Trump was not involved in those plans.

Not a crime and what evidence they were going to plant false stories about his opponents. That was the Clinton campaign who was charged with a crime there?

This court and DA has no jurisdiction in federal election to charge such crimes nor was the payment to Daniels a campaigan contribution it was TRUMP's OWN MONEY not campaign donatations.

There is no conspiracy charge in the indictment.

The payment was not a crime.

There is no conspiracy charge and no campaign finance crime.

The accounts ALSO managed his personal checking it was NOT a business record but a personal record.

The law is UNCONSTITUTIONAL doesn't matter what the text says.

Since he committed no crime why would you be shocked?

Yes he is a serial perjurer and nothing he testified to can be believed beyond a reasonable doubt.

He perjured himself on the stand, Weisselberg did not testify, and Pecker's actions did not constitute a crime.

Then make it. The accountants testified Trump had no role in how the payments were entered into the books, so what crime did Trump commit?

I gave up trying to predict what juries will do and along with the totally outrageous jury instructions thie judge gave them all bets are off. If they do the right thing the will acquit and do so rather quickly as there is no evidence Trump was involved in the core issue and this court has no jurisdiction over the federal election alleged violations.

When the circumstantial evidence is beyond a reasonable doubt of a crime.

The NDA was not illegal.
The payments for the NDA were not illegal.
How the payments were listed was not illegal.

Tell me do you think the Biden news conference outside the courtroom yesterday was designed to influence the election?

It comes pretty darn close and you have no shown key elements a crime was even committed you keep claiming perfectly legal acts were illegal and claiming Trump had roles not supported by ANY testimony.

ALL of my arguments a pertinent to the trial and because this judge has so abused the process and made such conflicting rulings and testimony in there is an entire notebook of reversible errors. For instance, early on he was correct in telling Bragg he cannot use Cohen's plea bargain as evidence a crime was committed, that is LONG standing precedent. Then when the prosecution brought it up in closing and the defense objected the judge OVERRULED the objection. He then let the prosecution go on and on claiming it proved a crime occurred. THAT right there should get any conviction tossed.

 

I've addressed this multiple times, so this is the last time I'm going to tell you: Trump has not charged with a predicate crime, so there's no violation of the Constitution, and the text of the law clearly doesn't require that the predicate law be charged because the predicate crime need only be intended, not committed.

I'm not going to waste more of my time by responding to your other points yet again.

What I was referring to as "pertinent" is simply that it's not pertinent to how this jury, in this courtroom, will rule. Thanks for sharing your opinion about the judge, but I don't share it. Nevertheless, I do believe there's a reasonable chance* a guilty verdict will be struck down on appeal - and I believe this, not because I think the judge is corrupt (as Trump told you), but because the case depends on a number of legal nuances that provide multiple opportunities for the appellate court to rule upon.

* I have no opinion as to whether an overturning is probable or improbable. I'm not a legal expert, so I rely on analyses by those who are. We'll see a lot more of these analyses if and when there's a guilty verdict.

 

I did, too. I used to live in NYC.

 

As you have been told a zillion times, there is no requirement that the 'other crime' be listed in the indictment. Further, the other crime need not be an 'indicted one.

If you are still ignorant of the three crimes the Prosecution say Humpty**** had an unlawful intent to commit, read the Judge's summation to the Jury. He lists them. They are the same as have been posted at PF, so none of it is a surprise to those who do bother reading.

 

David Pecker is an extremely problematic witness for Trump, and the jury has asked for statements by Pecker (and Cohen). Trump's Pecker problem is that Pecker corroborates the Trump Tower meeting where Pecker, Cohen, and Trump met to discuss the "Catch-and-Kill" scheme. With two witnesses discussing this meeting, and , Trump's lawyer claiming that there was no Catch-and-Kill scheme, somebody is lying. Two witnesses or Trump? Once it's established that Trump's lawyer is presenting Trump lies, the jury will more than likely start not believing other Trump claims.

Once the jury establishes one Trump lie, then all the other Trump involvement that you allude to will be thought of as more Trump lies. I think the defense should have been more careful with denying everything (the affair, the catch-and-kill scheme, hush money, etc), because it destroys their credibility.

 

Of course it is, they want to call Trump a convicted felon.

 

No he hasn’t. Bragg gave the jury three felony crimes and want them to pick the one the evidence fits.