| 51. Author: jeebling | Date: Sat, 5/18/2024, 9:56PM EST | |
frankj1 wrote:what I asked Robert and what he answered sort of made me think I was reading the trial correctly...and that almost 98.2% of comments and opinions have nothing to do with the charges he is facing...something like 34 individual fiscal maneuvers used to transfer money to Cohen.
no charges about sex, no charges about buying silence. pretty much just the way the reimbursement was aLLeGedly handled through the business.
am I close, Robert.
Cohen used money from a home equity loan, his own home, to pay Stormy. That’s what Cohen said. He never told is wife because he didn’t want to answer questions and he never told Trump and I don’t know what reason he gave for that. |
| 52. Author: frankj1 | Date: Sat, 5/18/2024, 10:04PM EST | |
but wherever he got the money from is not important per the charges against Trump.
How Trump reimbursed him and accounted for the money is about all that matters...I think. |
| 53. Author: Abrignac | Date: Sat, 5/18/2024, 10:14PM EST | |
frankj1 wrote:what I asked Robert and what he answered sort of made me think I was reading the trial correctly...and that almost 98.2% of comments and opinions have nothing to do with the charges he is facing...something like 34 individual fiscal maneuvers used to transfer money to Cohen.
no charges about sex, no charges about buying silence. pretty much just the way the reimbursement was aLLeGedly handled through the business.
am I close, Robert.
Which begs the question, “If it wasn’t about sex, then why did the prosecutor question her about it?” The trial is about Trump allegedly booking payoffs as business expenses. In essence the prosecution alleges that Trump enlisted Cohen to pay Stormy off to buy her silence. Nothing illegal about that.Trump then took a tax deduction for the payments to Cohen and booked then as legal expenses. Nothing illegal about paying your lawyer and deducting those expenses against income. However the prosecution alleges that Trump knew Cohen was buying her silence to affect the outcome of the election. Doing so should constitute a conspiracy which is what the actual case is about. A conspiracy occurs when two or more people commit one or more crimes in the furtherance of another crime. The reason there are 34 charges is because Cohen broke the invoices up into 34 separate Billings. So one charge for each invoice paid separately. The problem however is proving that to be the case. Because even if Trump did specifically direct Cohen to make the payments but for some reason other than to effect the outcome of the election then their is no conspiracy because the only laws he broke were misdemeanors who when Trump was charged were past the statute of limitations. |
| 54. Author: jeebling | Date: Sat, 5/18/2024, 10:28PM EST | |
This is an excellent summary of takeaways. |
| 55. Author: Mr. Jones | Date: Sun, 5/19/2024, 8:39AM EST | |
#53 abriniac
Silly WABBIT...DONT YOU KNOW THAT THE 150+ YEAR RULING OF THE STAUTE OF LIMITATIONS HAS BEEN WHITTLED DOWN STATE BY STATE, VICTIM BY VICTIM, ( thanks to the catholic church fiasco and the ME TOO MOVEMENT) ...
SOOOOOOO....BADLY THATTTT...
YOU CAN KISS ANY STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS DEFENSE RIGHT OUT THE FREAKIN WINDOW...
I CANT TELL YOU HOW MANY STATES WENT BACK ON ALL PREVIOUS NON REPORTED CRIMES DECADES AGO THEN "SET" RECENT DEADLINES TO BRING CASES AGAINST RICH BASTIDS LIKE AEROSMITH LEAD SINGER, BILL COSBY, HARVEY WEINSTIEN, CHILLIN SEX MASTER ISLAND JEFFERY EPSTEIN, AND DOZENS & DOZEENS MORE... |
| 56. Author: rfenst | Date: Sun, 5/19/2024, 9:30AM EST | |
Abrignac wrote:Which begs the question, “If it wasn’t about sex, then why did the prosecutor question her about it?” Because Trump denied it ever occurred.
The trial is about Trump allegedly booking payoffs as business expenses. In essence the prosecution alleges that Trump enlisted Cohen to pay Stormy off to buy her silence. Nothing illegal about that.Trump then took a tax deduction for the payments to Cohen and booked then as legal expenses. Nothing illegal about paying your lawyer and deducting those expenses against income. Wrong. He should have done it with after-tax dollars, but instead tried to scam it all to geta full tax deduction.... |
| 57. Author: rfenst | Date: Sun, 5/19/2024, 9:30AM EST | |
Abrignac wrote:Which begs the question, “If it wasn’t about sex, then why did the prosecutor question her about it?” Because Trump denied it ever occurred.
The trial is about Trump allegedly booking payoffs as business expenses. In essence the prosecution alleges that Trump enlisted Cohen to pay Stormy off to buy her silence. Nothing illegal about that.Trump then took a tax deduction for the payments to Cohen and booked then as legal expenses. Nothing illegal about paying your lawyer and deducting those expenses against income. Wrong. He should have done it with after-tax dollars, but instead tried to scam it all to geta full tax deduction.... |
| 58. Author: Abrignac | Date: Sun, 5/19/2024, 2:41PM EST | |
wrote:
Because Trump denied it ever occurred.
The charges have NOTHING to do with whether they had sex or not. It doesn’t matter whether they had sex or not. What matters is whether or not he made payments to hide an alleged affair from his wife or to effect the outcome of the election. The case hinges on the reason for the payments.
Wrong. He should have done it with after-tax dollars, but instead tried to scam it all to geta full tax deduction....
Maybe, maybe not. If Trump didn’t direct Cohen to pay her off then it’s perfectly legal to deduct what one believes to be legitimate business expenses such as retainer payments to a lawyer.
But, does that really matter since he isn’t charged with filing a false tax return? If so the indictment would be a single charge since the only crime would have been the filing of one tax return. Instead he’s charged with 34 instances of trying to affect the outcome of an election. One charge for each payment of each invoice sent him.
About those payments. Why didn’t Bragg charge Trump with filing a false tax return?
Because in New York criminal tax fraud is a class A misdemeanor. (https://law.justia.com/codes/new-york/2021/tax/article-37/part-2/1802/).
Class A misdemeanor have a 2 year statute of limitations. (https://www.nysenate.gov/legislation/laws/CPL/30.10)
The last payment was made in December of 2017. Trump was indicted on 3/4/2023 which was well past the statute of limitations for the class A misdemeanors. (https://d3i6fh83elv35t.cloudfront.net/static/2023/04/Donald-J.-Trump-SOF.pdf)
He didn’t charge him with filing a false return because it was well past the statute of limitations.
So then it has to be about influencing the election.
According to the indictment the DA alleges Trump took an active role in the arrangement of payments but the indictment doesn’t offer any facts to back up those allegations. At trial the only evidence offered that such occurred was by a convicted liar. There is nothing to corroborate those claims.
So what we really have is a bunch of smoke and mirrors about what may have happened but no solid evidence that any of it happened.
Then we are left wondering why the case was even brought. Normally in a situation such as this the state would simply disallow the deduction and send the filer and updated tax bill. If the bill went unpaid then the collection process would begin. But this didn’t happen. Instead a candidate who campaigned on putting Trump in jail was elected and he conjured up the most ridiculous case one could think of to charge Trump with.
|
| 59. Author: jeebling | Date: Sun, 5/19/2024, 3:53PM EST | |
Truly!
And doesn’t the court bear some responsibility for not hearing a case that doesn’t have a clear path to justice? Not a particular verdict but enough evidence to present to a jury? And I understand they can call witnesses they think will help make their case…but Cohen doesn’t seem to be a reliable witness based on his recent history. Is Bragg simply trying to deliver on a campaign promise and relying on the court to carry water for him? |
| 60. Author: DrMaddVibe | Date: Tue, 5/21/2024, 11:39AM EST | |
jeebling wrote:Truly!
And doesn’t the court bear some responsibility for not hearing a case that doesn’t have a clear path to justice? Not a particular verdict but enough evidence to present to a jury? And I understand they can call witnesses they think will help make their case…but Cohen doesn’t seem to be a reliable witness based on his recent history. Is Bragg simply trying to deliver on a campaign promise and relying on the court to carry water for him? Wellllll.... What if Justice Merchan has been compromised? Given what we know about what has been going on in Justice Juan Merchan’s Manhattan courtroom, including the preposterous, over-the-top bias of this judge for the prosecution and his overt antipathy for the defendant, Donald Trump, what explains his willing destruction of his own reputation as a judge?
Each and every legal scholar who has weighed in on the course of the trial, from Alan Dershowitz to Jonathan Turley and countless others, (with the exception of those paid by CNN and MSNBC) is gobsmacked by Merchan’s thoroughly unconstitutional rulings, gag orders, contempt charges, exclusion of practically every witness with relevant testimony for the defense, and his allowance of non-relevant witnesses like Stormy Daniels. He allowed her testimony, too, even though she knew nothing about the issue being tried, to spew her pornographic filth that could only come from the mouth of a porn star actress.
We’ve known for years now that our judicial system has been corrupted, transformed into an extension of the Democrat party by President Obama and Joe Biden, but Justice Merchan has taken their unscrupulousness to a wholly new and shocking level.
To start, he is a campaign donor to Joe Biden, which according to the New York Times, is literally against the law:
Political contributions of any kind are prohibited under state judicial ethics rules.
The Times reported that he got off with a "caution" for his contempt for the law and open willingness to break it.
Now the other conflicts of interest come out which raises this question: Could it be that Merchan has been bought off, paid enough money to sabotoge his own career to take Trump down and out? Crooked judges have always been with us. Merchan’s wife and daughter are doing well working for Democrats like Adam Schiff and Dan Goldman, two of the most ridiculous and partisan members of Congress.
Perhaps Merchan is ready to retire with a big, dark money pay-off. There is certainly plenty of this kind of money floating around; Soros, Arabella, the Tides Foundation, the Sixteen Thirty Fund, Future Forward, China, etc. None of those people or organizations play by the rules nor do they keep transparent financial records like the Trump Organization actually does.
Not even Rachel Maddow, the odious Joy Reid or Anderson Cooper can deny that there are two, distinct systems of justice in America today.
They may try to deny it, but they are smart enough to see what has been taking place since Trump announced his candidacy in 2015.
They, of course, love this two-tiered system that gives their side a huge advantage in all things political. Playing fair is not one of the left’s character traits. They embrace, plot and carry out their subversive plans with glee, driven by the mantra that the ends justify the means. The more popular a conservative, the more determined they are to ruin him or her. And no matter how corrupt one of their own is, the more they rally around to protect him or her, Hillary Clinton being a prime example of extreme malfeasance of which she is guilty and remains free as a bird for.
Judicial breach of trust is nothing new. Consider the 1931 tax evasion trial of Al Capone. The judge in that case, Judge Wilkerson, switched the entire jury after learning that Capone had likely bribed members of the original jury. It is a mystery as to why no federal or SCOTUS judge has called for Merchan’s recusal or dismissal of this case; legitimate attorneys agree it never should have been brought, that there is no crime to validate the charges filed.
Merchan’s conflicts of interest are flashing neon lights! As everyone knows by now, his daughter Loren runs a Democrat consultancy and has been raising upwards of a hundred million dollars because her father is the judge in this case. That fact in itself should be cause for alarm among the legal community. Sure, Republicans have been bringing all this to the attention of the American people for months, but no action has been taken. The Republicans in Congress talk a great deal about the Democrats’ venality but generally do nothing about it.
Merchan has had free rein to desecrate our once-world-class legal system with impunity for all the world to see. The Biden DOJ has shredded the Constitution at every turn, the persecution by lawfare of President Trump being the blatant tip of their beastly iceberg. What has been done to pro-Trump supporters and pro-life protesters by this DOJ is the stuff of third world dictatorships.
Justice Merchan, like Judge Engoron before him, is surely aware of all the legal scholars who have weighed in on his behavior with shock and awe but he seems not to care. He is on a mission to destroy Trump seemingly without concern for the law, the Constitution, or the ruination of his own reputation and career. No prosecutor nor defense lawyer is likely to ever again want to appear before a man so obviously biased for the far left without concern for right or wrong. It feels like he has been bought and paid for like the jury for Al Capone. Donald Trump and the American people deserve so much better than an unprincipled, extreme partisan like Judge Merchan.
https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2024/05/what_if_justice_merchan_has_been_compromised.html
|
| 61. Author: jeebling | Date: Tue, 5/21/2024, 1:05PM EST | |
Mind numbing activism on the part of the judge. He doesn’t need his career from here on out. The book deals and speaking engagements will enrich him and his family. The political favors are already stacked up for his daughter. Mind blowing exposition of lawfare. |
| 62. Author: rfenst | Date: Tue, 5/21/2024, 4:05PM EST | |
jeebling wrote:Mind numbing activism on the part of the judge. He doesn’t need his career from here on out. The book deals and speaking engagements will enrich him and his family. The political favors are already stacked up for his daughter. Mind blowing exposition of lawfare. Activism? How so? |
| 63. Author: HockeyDad | Date: Tue, 5/21/2024, 4:16PM EST | |
rfenst wrote:Activism?
How so? No no, everything about this case is totally on the up and up. I look forward to the sentencing. |
| 64. Author: rfenst | Date: Tue, 5/21/2024, 4:24PM EST | |
HockeyDad wrote:No no, everything about this case is totally on the up and up. I look forward to the sentencing. That's not what judicial activism means. You are referring to due process. "judicial activism"
noun
judicial ac·ti·vism -ˈak-tə-ˌvi-zəm: the practice in the judiciary of protecting or expanding individual rights through decisions that depart from established precedent or are independent of or in opposition to supposed constitutional or legislative intent
Miriam-Webster |
| 65. Author: jeebling | Date: Tue, 5/21/2024, 6:56PM EST | |
rfenst wrote:Activism?
How so? One example is the wide berth the judge has given the prosecution in what they brought to trial and what the material with which they will be allowed to cross examine Trump such as the Carroll defamation verdict or the verdict of the civil fraud trial that Letitia James brought. The judge is giving the prosecutor leeway and support in the courtroom that he is denying the defense. I believe he’s doing this for political reasons. His campaign donations to Biden and Democrats are worthy of discussion for recusal and his daughter suddenly raising $100M for the DNC on the publicity of this trial certainly garners political favor. That’s what I’m thinking. How about you? |
| 66. Author: ZRX1200 | Date: Tue, 5/21/2024, 7:18PM EST | |
Yelling at a witness that wrecked the case and telling him to leave…. |
| 67. Author: DrMaddVibe | Date: Wed, 5/22/2024, 6:00AM EST | |
rfenst wrote:Activism?
How so?
"Judge Merchan flatly told the defense that former President Trump could not make an advice-of-counsel argument.
The judge said the defense was being "disingenuous" by raising it now when Trump was given a deadline months ago to say whether he would invoke the defense that, in his conduct, he was relying on the advice of lawyers.
"It was concerning when notice was not given initially. It was concerning when the term was changed to 'presence of counsel.' I couldn't believe when I saw in your submission, 'involvement of counsel,'" Merchan told the defense regarding their efforts to advance that argument.
"My ruling is the jury will not hear that instruction from the bench, nor are you permitted to make that argument, period," Merchan said."And... "Judge Merchan denied a request from defense lawyers to broaden the scope of testimony from their expert witness Bradley Smith, who is an expert on campaign finance regulations."And... "An expert is not permitted to present or interpret the law," Merchan said.
Merchan also expressed concerns about Smith's testimony prompting a "battle of the experts" between Smith and an expert called by prosecutors, which Merchan said would confuse the jury.
Merchan said that Smith could still testify, as long as he follows the limits imposed in his pretrial ruling on the case's motions in limine.
"The court will monitor this testimony closely to ensure full compliance," Merchan said in a pretrial ruling. "Any deviation from this ruling could result in sanction up to and including striking the expert's entire testimony."https://abcnews.go.com/US/live-updates/trump-hush-money-trial/judge-wont-let-defense-expand-expert-witness-testimony-110397633?id=110388136 What kind of fuckery is going on here? |
| 68. Author: rfenst | Date: Wed, 5/22/2024, 8:33AM EST | |
jeebling wrote:One example is the wide berth the judge has given the prosecution in what they brought to trial and what the material with which they will be allowed to cross examine Trump such as the Carroll defamation verdict or the verdict of the civil fraud trial that Letitia James brought. The judge is giving the prosecutor leeway and support in the courtroom that he is denying the defense. I believe he’s doing this for political reasons. His campaign donations to Biden and Democrats are worthy of discussion for recusal and his daughter suddenly raising $100M for the DNC on the publicity of this trial certainly garners political favor. That’s what I’m thinking. How about you? I bet he is just calling "balls and" strikes and giving Trump more leeway than the state because he is the famous defendant politician. Yesterday, I watched FOX almost all day and its analysis of the very same testimony as MSNBC and CNN, but comes to entirely opposite conclusions. Hmmmmm... I have now first hand knowledge. Do You? |
| 69. Author: rfenst | Date: Wed, 5/22/2024, 8:39AM EST | |
DrMaddVibe wrote:
"Judge Merchan flatly told the defense that former President Trump could not make an advice-of-counsel argument.
The judge said the defense was being "disingenuous" by raising it now when Trump was given a deadline months ago to say whether he would invoke the defense that, in his conduct, he was relying on the advice of lawyers.
"It was concerning when notice was not given initially. It was concerning when the term was changed to 'presence of counsel.' I couldn't believe when I saw in your submission, 'involvement of counsel,'" Merchan told the defense regarding their efforts to advance that argument.
"My ruling is the jury will not hear that instruction from the bench, nor are you permitted to make that argument, period," Merchan said."
And...
"Judge Merchan denied a request from defense lawyers to broaden the scope of testimony from their expert witness Bradley Smith, who is an expert on campaign finance regulations."
And...
"An expert is not permitted to present or interpret the law," Merchan said.
Merchan also expressed concerns about Smith's testimony prompting a "battle of the experts" between Smith and an expert called by prosecutors, which Merchan said would confuse the jury.
Merchan said that Smith could still testify, as long as he follows the limits imposed in his pretrial ruling on the case's motions in limine.
"The court will monitor this testimony closely to ensure full compliance," Merchan said in a pretrial ruling. "Any deviation from this ruling could result in sanction up to and including striking the expert's entire testimony."
https://abcnews.go.com/US/live-updates/trump-hush-money-trial/judge-wont-let-defense-expand-expert-witness-testimony-110397633?id=110388136
What kind of fuckery is going on here?
An expert witness on the law is not necessary. The judge determines which law is applicable and how it should be applied. Expert wittnesses on this would essentially be closing arguments from the wittness box- uncalled for. Innapropriate. |
| 70. Author: DrMaddVibe | Date: Wed, 5/22/2024, 9:00AM EST | |
rfenst wrote:An expert witness on the law is not necessary. The judge determines which law is applicable and how it should be applied. Expert wittnesses on this would essentially be closing arguments from the wittness box- uncalled for. Innapropriate. I've heard this witness they wanted to bring in and give testimony (because he helped craft it!) so what laws is the judge claiming Trump broke? Seems like the Judge is doing what the NY DA couldn't do...make charges stick. So, yeah...this judge is meddling but he should've recused himself as NY law dictates. Donating to a candidate, and his daughter's multi-million dollar windfall...THAT'S INAPPROPRIATE! |
| 71. Author: jeebling | Date: Wed, 5/22/2024, 12:49PM EST | |
rfenst wrote:I bet he is just calling "balls and" strikes and giving Trump more leeway than the state because he is the famous defendant politician. Yesterday, I watched FOX almost all day and its analysis of the very same testimony as MSNBC and CNN, but comes to entirely opposite conclusions. Hmmmmm... I have now first hand knowledge. Do You? I haven’t watched FOX or CNN or MSNBC in a very long time. Certainly not this year. I don’t think I understand what you mean by first hand knowledge but I’m guessing if I haven’t watched those channels then I don’t have it. I read magazine length articles, such as the ones often posted here. I generally avoid NYT, WaPo, Atlantic, Rolling Stone and I try to take WSJ and NYP w/a grain of salt. I suppose most of the stuff I read has Conservative bias but I attempt to avoid Ingram, Hannity, etc.. |
| 72. Author: DrafterX | Date: Wed, 5/22/2024, 12:54PM EST | |
Fox News is Fair & Balanced...  |
| 73. Author: jeebling | Date: Wed, 5/22/2024, 1:02PM EST | |
DrafterX wrote:Fox News is Fair & Balanced... 😂 I haven’t watched much FOX for several years, 6 or 7 or thereabouts. The last year I have watched very, very little FOX. I haven’t watched MSNBC or CNN much at all since about 2015. I have no faith in any of them and it is insulting to be lied to. |
| 74. Author: Abrignac | Date: Wed, 5/22/2024, 1:38PM EST | |
jeebling wrote:I haven’t watched FOX or CNN or MSNBC in a very long time. Certainly not this year. I don’t think I understand what you mean by first hand knowledge but I’m guessing if I haven’t watched those channels then I don’t have it. I read magazine length articles, such as the ones often posted here. I generally avoid NYT, WaPo, Atlantic, Rolling Stone and I try to take WSJ and NYP w/a grain of salt. I suppose most of the stuff I read has Conservative bias but I attempt to avoid Ingram, Hannity, etc.. Far too often people substitute propaganda for pragmatic thinking. I’ve read many of the articles posted here as well as the ones that have links shared here. In most of them the author bends the facts to conform to the their political beliefs. Sometimes the slant is subtile other times it’s plain ridiculous. But, nonetheless some people treat them as gospel. The trick is to mine for gems and discard the tailings. |
