Where's the Ham?

It was a joke

 

Ok, communicate to us what the other crime is...lol

 

I did. You don't appear to agree. The best argument you guys have is that the payments occurred in 2017. I am not sure if Bragg has intent to commit the crimes established by documents before the election and if that's good enough for the judge/jury.

 

We have only seen the charges claiming Trump falsified records. We haven't seen the charges listing the crimes Trump was trying to cover up. Bragg's going to have to cough those up mighty soon ..lol

 

If you mean the hush money, that isn't a crime.

 

The issue is that this has to do with shutting Stormy up in order not to have a detrimental effect on the election outcome. If he paid Cohan in 2017 the election already was past. Cohan conceded that neither Trump nor his campaign had anything to do with paying Stormy. He did that on his own dime, possibly thinking it would make him look good to Trump. Trump's payments to Cohan were for legal services rendered. Where's the crime?

 

No I mean the falsified business records.

 

That's the misdemeanor. What crime was covered up that make that charge a felony?

 

Falsifying them how?

 

I know. I'm just playing your straight man.

 

Oh Cohen lied, and the current indictment states there is communication between Trump and Cohen with Trump telling Cohen to try NOT to pay Stormy (woman 2) by delaying until after the election, but ultimately, he did have to pay her before the election to avoid the disclosure. Trump's payments to Cohen were clearly for this service, agreed upon before the election. But does the fact that the actual business fraud documents are after the election break the case? I am not fully sure.

 

Read the indictments. I am sure the jury will get full details. Unsure what we'll get, but certainly more than we have now.

 

Sigh.

175.10 has a five year statute of limitations. The last record/transaction was December 2017. Do the math then let me know who "doesn't want to understand" and "just wants to talk ****."

The crime is a misdemeanor without proving another crime. The underlying charge is a misdemeanor. He needs to prove another crime for the felony statute to work. In either event, the statute of limitations on the charge is expired. The way you prove another crime occurred is you prosecute that crime. You don't say, "hey jury, trust me he broke this law that I'm not providing evidence for or giving him a chance to defend himself against. Ignore that old piece of parchment. The Constitution is so outdated."

Thanks.

 

No, you got the cart before the horse, or the effect causing the cause, as it were.

 

So when did Cohan lie; then or now?

There's no crime to list payments for legal services. Even if it's for a NDA, there's no crime in that.

 

That is all quite true. Now if there was only any promotion of a campaign by illegal means........

 

It's amazing how many people think paying for an NDA is a crime.

 

They have to prove the NDA's sole benefit was for the campaign and there was no business benefit for this to stick. Damage to reputation is a business benefit.

 

I'm just trying to figure out why they think a NDA remains a NDA if it's revealed.

 

How can it benefit an election when the payments were made after the election?

 

I had this same conversation with someone else. "But, but, but, they listed it as a legal expense!!! Oh, the humanity!" That's what an NDA is. It's a legal contract between two entities to keep a matter private. You don't have to put in your books that you "acquired an NDA with a porn star." A general ledger annotion of "legal expense" is sufficient and accurate.

 

What can possibly be wrong with incurring a liability and then paying it off a week or 3 or 4 months later???

 

Falsifying business records in NY is a misdemeanor and requires no grand jury to indict.

 

I'd trust documents, forensically/technologically analyzed documents, if needed, rather than his word.

No, NDA isn't the crime, falsifying business records is. But again yes, I am curious about the potential timing issue. I am just quite sure what I have represented is all of, or a large part of, where Bragg is going. He alluded to some other crimes as well, so he may have backup crimes (secondary crimes, the primary charged crime is explicit already) in addition to what I described.

Not me.

 

By doing it with false business records.