• Please be aware we've switched the forums to their own URL. (again) You'll find the new website address to be www.steelernationforum.com Thanks
  • Please clear your private messages. Your inbox is close to being full.

The New York Kangaroo Court Case Against Trump

Steeltime

I miss Apache
Forefather
Contributor
Joined
Apr 9, 2014
Messages
18,688
Reaction score
30,239
Points
113
Location
The middle of a forest
I do not see a separate thread regarding the pending New York criminal case against Donald J. Trump so I thought I would update the status of that litigation. First, we need to understand the current charges against Mr. Trump. Usually understanding a criminal charge is very easy - assault, battery, larceny, rape, robbery, murder ... we all know what those entail.

Not so the charges against Mr. Trump. The case was brought by a morbidly obese Alvin Bragg, hereafter referred to as "Fat Alvin." The charge is that Donald J. Trump misclassified a payment made by Michael Cohen to a hooker/adult film star named Stephanie Clifford, ***** name Stormy Daniels, as a legal expense rather than ... something else. Wait, you say, that purported bookkeeping error is a misdemeanor with a statute of limitations of three years and the payment occurred in 2016? Well, actually 2017 since that is when Trump paid Cohen $180,000 (Cohen routinely overcharged massively for any work done, this included)? You are correct.

But here is where the explaining begins. Under New York Penal Code § 170.10: Falsifying Business Records in the First Degree, a defendant is guilty of a felony for falsifying a business record where with the intent to defraud, the defendant makes or causes a false entry in the business records of an enterprise, or alters, destroys, conceals, or removes any such record. The statute is designed to prevent fraudulent activities that could harm the public. The New York DA's office gives examples of conduct that may be covered under the statute as including falsifying financial statements, tampering with accounting records, or concealing information to misrepresent the true financial or operational condition of a business.

So the accounting error is not the crime being prosecuted - the crime is the alleged use of the accounting error to cover up another crime, which is a felony. Here's where it gets amazing - Bragg's office argued to the judge last week that they do not need to prove an underlying crime actually occurred, only that the defendant believed ... something or other. Why would Bragg take this position? Well, other than to continue a bogus criminal prosecution of a political enemy in the hopes he gets invited to the Nathan's Hot Dog Eating Contest in 2024, I mean.

He argues that position because the other alleged nefarious activities raised during the trial - paying Stephanie Clifford $130,000, getting a non-disclosure agreement (NDA), reimbursing Cohen in 2017 - are not crimes. Those activities were raised over the defense objection that they are irrelevant, because they are. Bragg seems to suggest that the payment and the NDA were illegal because they were done to interfere in the 2016 Presidential election ... the problem being that since Trump reimbursed Cohen the $130,000 in 2017, and that could not possibly have influenced the 2016 election, the prosecution has to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Trump knew of and consented to misclassifying the payment by Cohen as legal fees rather than payment to a lawyer. I mean, payment to a lawyer as reimbursement, like costs, which lawyers never charge to clients.

Okay, lawyers charge clients for costs in basically every case, so I mean misclassified the payment to a lawyer as legal fees or costs when in fact they were costs hush money, known in the legal community as an NDA, payments which are made tens of thousands of times per year and which are legal ... goddammit, stop confusing the issue! The guy paid a ***** for an NDA, which is legal! Dammit, I mean it's legal but he was running for President!

So the prosecution relied on the testimony of Michael Cohen to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that President Trump knew Cohen was making the payment in 2016 and acquiring an NDA and approved of registering that payment by Cohen on Cohen's billing to Trump as a payment for legal services, like costs, when in fact it was a payment for costs incurred by an attorney. DAMMIT, stop it! He reimbursed a guy who made a legal payment and obtained a legal NDA! I mean, he repaid a guy who paid a ***** and where the guy registered the payment as legal costs when in fact it was a legal cost, uhhh, something else and that entry by the lawyer on his bill to President Trump covered up some other crime but we don't have to tell you quislings what the other crime was! So shut up!

And as to the credibility of Cohen's claim that he spoke to Trump about the payment and the two discussed what was paid, why, and how it would be recorded by Cohen in his bill to Trump, well that hit a small pothole. Cohen testified that he actually called Trump's bodyguard, identified the date of the call as October of 2016, but the text messages sent before and immediately after the phone call showed that Cohen spoke to the bodyguard about ... being harassed by a 14-year old boy. No, I am not kidding. Cohen then admitted to discussing the 14-year old harassing him with the bodyguard but said he "might well have" also discussed the entire issue regarding the payment to Stephanie Clifford and the NDA and the accounting entry, all in a phone call that lasted 1:36. No, not an hour and 36 minutes - one minute and 36 seconds.

Oh, and Cohen admitted to stealing up to $70,000 from Trump and acknowledged he said he would do "anything" to get back at Trump and was caught perjuring himself when denying he met with Fat Alvin and admitted he received an immunity agreement as part of his testimony. But other than that, he was a really credible witness.

So that's the criminal case against Trump in New York. And no, nothing I rendered above is made up or overstated for humorous purposes except where obviously made up. Wait, I have literally not made up a single fact about this prosecution. And we still await Fat Alvin's announcement as to the underlying crime the legal fee reimbursement covered up ... I'll let you know if we hear of anything.
 
Lets take the long weekend go home to our families and not talk about the case. cue that will happen
 
Plenty of time to send and receive messages and instructions from the string pullers. It will be ugly and hard to believe. But a rabbit will be pulled from the hat.

A friend of mine has said for a whole that if Trump is convicted he will win over 85% of the black vote.
 
Let me quickly add that the kangaroos in the NY zoo would do a better job and display more qualifications than what we are seeing.
 
Would DT be eligible to sue the State for recouping monies lost for his defense when he wins?
 
Plenty of time to send and receive messages and instructions from the string pullers. It will be ugly and hard to believe. But a rabbit will be pulled from the hat.

A friend of mine has said for a whole that if Trump is convicted he will win over 85% of the black vote.

Will his name be on the ballot if he's jail?
 
This is clearly beyond a reasonable doubt a case of selective prosecution by which a political opponent is targeted in order to take him down
It is election interference as well. As Alan Dershowitz said, " it's campaign season, bringing a case against a popular candidate is the reason you don't. You wait until after the election".

Apparently The Founders, as perfect as they were didn't think about such things,
You would think that somewhere along the way the Supreme Court would have taken up this case and thrown it out..
 
This is clearly beyond a reasonable doubt a case of selective prosecution by which a political opponent is targeted in order to take him down
It is election interference as well. As Alan Dershowitz said, " it's campaign season, bringing a case against a popular candidate is the reason you don't. You wait until after the election".

Apparently The Founders, as perfect as they were didn't think about such things,
You would think that somewhere along the way the Supreme Court would have taken up this case and thrown it out..
Agree, but it doesn't matter, they don't care. The jury pool is from one of the most liberal places in the country, add to that the bribe money they will all be receiving this weekend, and there can only be one outcome. Don't be surprise when that happens.
 
Would DT be eligible to sue the State for recouping monies lost for his defense when he wins?

He could sue for malicious prosecution if he wins, but ...

Agree, but it doesn't matter, they don't care. The jury pool is from one of the most liberal places in the country, add to that the bribe money they will all be receiving this weekend, and there can only be one outcome. Don't be surprise when that happens.

There is almost no chance this jury acquits Trump. In fact, no legitimate judge would let this go to a jury but Fat Albert and Letitia "Second Helping" James know their judges and juries are as corrupt as a Ukrainian president.
 
Agree, but it doesn't matter, they don't care. The jury pool is from one of the most liberal places in the country, add to that the bribe money they will all be receiving this weekend, and there can only be one outcome. Don't be surprise when that happens.
Absolutely. Thats a given.
The comment made was if (when) Trump gets convicted he will get 75% of the black vote...(and perhaps more from other demographics)
My question was how could that be? Wouldn't his conviction remove him from the ballot?
 
He could sue for malicious prosecution if he wins, but ...



There is almost no chance this jury acquits Trump. In fact, no legitimate judge would let this go to a jury but Fat Albert and Letitia "Second Helping" James know their judges and juries are as corrupt as a Ukrainian president.
Cool. I didn’t know if the laws were similar when osha is being over zealous and force me to spend. We actually one our money back on one big case back in the day. Felt good.
 
This is clearly beyond a reasonable doubt a case of selective prosecution by which a political opponent is targeted in order to take him down
It is election interference as well. As Alan Dershowitz said, " it's campaign season, bringing a case against a popular candidate is the reason you don't. You wait until after the election".

Apparently The Founders, as perfect as they were didn't think about such things,
You would think that somewhere along the way the Supreme Court would have taken up this case and thrown it out..
They cannot without an appeal to them as last resort. Trump hasn't been convicted or appealed yet. This was timed to be part of the election campaign.
 
Absolutely. Thats a given.
The comment made was if (when) Trump gets convicted he will get 75% of the black vote...(and perhaps more from other demographics)
My question was how could that be? Wouldn't his conviction remove him from the ballot?

No. The Constitution has three and only three requirements to run for President: be at least 35 years old, be a natural-born citizen of the United States, and have been a resident of the country for at least 14 years. That's it. You meet those three, you are eligible.

Eugene V. Debs ran for President as a socialist in 1920 while serving time in jail for opposing the United States' entry in WWI.
 
And that's all it is. Trump doesn't run, no charges, no trial.

Truth. But we all know that Orange Man a threat to democracy, not the dementia-ridden puppet prosecuting political opponents! He led an unarmed insurrection where people walked into the Capital after cops opened the doors!
 
Agree, but it doesn't matter, they don't care. The jury pool is from one of the most liberal places in the country, add to that the bribe money they will all be receiving this weekend, and there can only be one outcome. Don't be surprise when that happens.
I've heard that three of the jurors are lawyers though so maybe there is a chance.
 
I've heard that three of the jurors are lawyers though so maybe there is a chance.

God bless your faith in the legal system.

Let's see how that optimism plays out when Merchan rules on the defense motion to dismiss for failure to prove beyond reasonable doubt the elements of the crime, where as I referenced the prosecution claims the bookkeeping entry for reimbursement of costs money expenses hush money paid by Michael Cohen on behalf of Donald Trump to Stephanie Clifford Stormy Daniels covered up another crime and where the prosecution never referred to this mystery "other crime."
 
A Stalinist Show Trial. Remember the line from Beriya the Soviet Secret Police Chief: "Show me the man, and I'll show you the crime. That's all this is.
 
Biden is so ******* clueless he will probably pardon Trump before the election. I can see it now every liberal in America head will assplode. It would be epic.
 
Top