Trump indicted over hush money payments in Stormy Daniels probe

Good list! I hear you about the broken record thing. I guess they just don't want what we're telling them to be true. Trump can have as many NDA(s) as he wants but the anti-Trump brigade won't believe it.

 

The whole thing is ridiculous. People are also not realizing this case is about fraud. Fraud is the crime, business records is the alleged means of fraud. Fraud is not a victimless crime. Let's look at who was potentially defrauded:

1. Stormy Daniels: She got paid and benefited monetarily.
2. Michael Cohen: He got paid extra and benefited monetarily.
3. State of NY: They received more tax revenue by the overpayments to Cohen.
4. Trump: He can't commit fraud against himself.

There is no fraud victim. That's why Bragg won't claim one. And his indictment doesn't identify a victim either. Simply falsifying business records is not a crime. The grand jury indicted a ham sandwich.

 

Looks to me that they know it too. I'm sure they are going to string this latest shitshow out up until the election with one delay and continuance after another, and then the charges will be mysteriously dropped.

 

It's scheduled to end up in court in early January just before the first states open up their primary voting which I'm sure it's just a coincidence...

 

Depends on what is contained in the email.

 

Their timing is spot on, ... uh, for them. smdh

 

I see the Pity Princess has been claiming that court officials were in tears at his arraignment…

I think this is what he saw…

 

Well...it is a misdemeanor. It becomes a felony if the false records are there to hide a crime, and that is what Braggs is alleging.

 

Prior to the Cohen indictment, Cohen had never ever been in trouble with the law. his only mistake was Trusting Trump. The Trump org was indicted, and during the trail, the prosecutor stated in open court his wondering why Trump wasn't being charged, as it is well known that he micromanages his company, and let us be clear, it's a mom and pop operation, there aren't that many employees. 8 of his staff and entourage were indicted and convicted, the man is surrounded by criminals.

His perjury was to lie to protect Trump. Once Trump betrayed his friend, who believed in him for over 10 years, naturally Cohen is going to turn state's witness.

Would you? Cohen is a good man. Unless you are a partisan hack, you should listen to his podcasts. But, if your mind is closed, you won't.

They were three felony charges, their punishment severity is irrelevant to the point that that is all that is needed to enhance the Bragg indictment's 34 charges to 34 felonies.

 

The Guilliar email contains nothing in the way of evidence.

 

References to Joe as the "Big guy" is circumstantial evidence that Joe was involved with Hunter's business arrangements with Russia and China. Having him referred to in an alias manner provided Joe plausible deniability, the thing his brother laughed about when Bobulinski asked him how they expected to get away with these shady deals.

 

No. You're wrong.

 

The ONLY thing Republicans can garner from such an email is to use it as predication for further inquiry. Any claim or suggestive language in an email MUST be corrobrated by other facts, documents/material evidence, and testimony.

That's it. By itself, it proves NOTHING.

 

Vacuous claim. "You're wrong' is not an argument. YOu need ot demonstrate, by, a path of reasoning derived from known facts, or link to something that will make lesser known facts known upon which your path of reasoning relies.

 

Read the statute. I'm not your mother. It's been linked a million times already. This isn't a complex conversation.

 

That email has been verified and corroborated. Bobulinski offered to testify -- under oath (that Holy graille of the left) -- if asked.

 

I repeat' "you're wrong' is not an argument.

No matter how you cop out to that fact, the fact remains.

You're not speaking to one individual, there are casual observers.

A casual observation of your statement, demonstrates the veracity of the above.

A wiser debater will self contain each and every post with a path of reasoning and links to supplement the claim,(or provide substantiation on request) because that is courtesy.

But being discourteous is not against the rules, so, do what you want according to the kind of person you are, but my recommendation stands..

 

The opposite is true. if you disagree, prove it. You are making the claim, the onus is on you to prove it.

But, of course, you're next comment is going to be a cop out.

the reason I know that is because you can't prove it.

You have no choice, but to....

1. Admit i'm right.
2. or make some kind of cop out.

Prove me wrong, let's see watcha got.

And claiming there is proof is NOT proof.

 

Let's follow the conversation. I made a specific claim that "simply falsifying a business record is not a crime." Someone else said it was a misdemeanor. It's not. I can keep repeating my claim over and over again, but that seems silly. A simple "no" should suffice. The person can then provide evidence to refute my claim by providing the statute that disproves "simply falsifying a business record is not a crime." Or they can give up. I don't care either way. I don't know why you feel the need to concern yourself in this, but whatever.

 

AGAIN, your refusing to understand the basic concept of the FEC. They are a group of republican an democrats, and they did NOT investigate any of this as the Chairman (a republican) and the other 3 republicans on the board refuse to let it be investigated by summarily making this decision that it “wasn't a campaign contribution”.

There was NO investigation, which is why you cant show any data on the decision except the chairman making a summary decision based on his own political agenda.

You may want to read what you just posted

The FEC made the decision that since Cohen was adjudicated, there was no reason to look into Trump

FFS, you cannot be serious here

 

They literally said “well Micheal Cohen went to jail so no need to investigate Trump.

The 3 republican members of the commission….hmmmmmm

 

I understand what the FEC is. I think you're confused by the fact that they evaluated the evidence and dismissed it, the same as the Southern District of New York and Alvin Bragg's predecessor. Virtually everyone who has looked at the evidence came to the same conclusion.

What you're failing to comprehend is that this is not the first time this type of incident has occurred. John Edwards very recently went through this. Additionally, we can go all the back to Alexander Hamilton who was blackmailed over an affair.

The courts have ruled on this. The DOJ has prosecuted individuals over this. There is no valid reason to believe paying an NDA to cover up an alleged affair is a campaign violation. You have absolutely nothing to go off of beyond TDS. That's why you are not presenting any evidence to support your claim. The law is VERY clear. In order for something to be a valid campaign expense there cannot be ANY perceived benefit to the individual outside the campaign no matter how small it may be. Trump had his relationship with his wife, his kids, his professional image, etc all impacted by this. That means he doesn't have to pay for the NDA out of his campaign.

In fact, John Edwards DID pay for his NDA out of his campaign funds and the DOJ prosecuted him for it claiming it was a violation because the law says he can only pay an expense out of campaign funds if the benefit was solely to the campaign. And, do you know the outcome? The DoJ lost because the jury said that it was impossible to know all the variables that go into it and they believed the candidate has the sole discretion to make that determination for themselves. So there's two options:
1. It's illegal to pay it out of campaign funds
2. The candidate can determine whether or not it is solely a campaign expense.

There is no option three. We already know this issue created problems with his wife and kids.

Your assertion is baseless. It has absolutely no merit. It's stupid. That's why everyone who reviews the evidence has dismissed your claim outright... including the FEC, who reviewed the evidence of pre-existing investigations and determined there was no point in going further.

 

Oh.....ummmm......roight..........Ima convinced!

 

Cohen went to prison for tax evasion and bank fraud with overwhelming evidence that he couldn't contest. Then he got a really good sentencing deal while also calling Trump racist and pleading guilty to campaign violations. But, you do you and think Cohen donating money to a "campaign" is the same thing as a candidate donating money to their "campaign."

It's a catch 22 with Trump. Either it's a campaign expense and Cohen paid solely paid for it in, which case Trump isn't implicated, or Cohen used Trump's money for it in which case Trump can donate as much as he wants to his campaign. Or, it's not a campaign expense and Trump didn't violate a campaign finance law. In no way does this blow back on Trump... which is why the SDNY declined to press charges.

 

Prove me wrong. Cite the statute that says simply falsifying a business expense is a crime. I can't disprove a negative.