Trump is being charged with 34 counts of falsification of business records.

[Deleted member 559230]

He probably did nothing wrong just like the previous accusations uncovered. If by the small chance he's found guilty lets not pretend this isn't totally political and not about the rule of law.

 

[Xzi]

He probably did nothing wrong just like the previous accusations uncovered. If by the small chance he's found guilty lets not pretend this isn't totally political and not about the rule of law.

Dude straight up admitted guilt for issuing the check on television. Sounds like you're having a hard time trying to keep your own delusions intact more than trying to be convincing to anyone else.

 

[tabzer]

Dude straight up admitted guilt for issuing the check on television. Sounds like you're having a hard time trying to keep your own delusions intact more than trying to be convincing to anyone else.

He issued the check on television?

 

[Xzi]

He issued the check on television?

No, he admitted on TV that he did in fact issue the check to Daniels, supposedly to "protect his family." As if his mail-order bride didn't already know he was a total degenerate. Legally speaking it's an easy slam dunk for the prosecution, on that one specific count at least.

 

[Hanafuda]

No, he admitted on TV that he did in fact issue the check to Daniels, supposedly to "protect his family." As if his mail-order bride didn't already know he was a total degenerate. Legally speaking it's an easy slam dunk for the prosecution, on that one specific count at least.

Paying Stormy Daniels not to disclose isn't what the case is about and isn't illegal. The allegation in the indictment is falsification of business records (x34), for purportedly reimbursing Cohen in installment payments but it being recorded as legal fees. (Also FWIW, I think it was Giuliani who made the admission about the payment to Daniels.) But the falsification of business records offense (x34), even if proven, is only a misdemeanor with a 2 year statute of limitations. Those 2 years have already come and gone. So in order to raise it to a felony charge (x34) and get around the statute of limitations, the indictment alleges falsification of business records in the 1st degree, which requires 1) committing the misdemeanor and 2) that the offense was done to facilitate another crime. This would mean each count of the indictment must also be alleging another crime as an enhancing offense, which must also be proven (x34), and which the alleged misdemeanors made possible. Problem is, the indictment never explains what the additional crime is (x34). There are some heavy hitter legal experts saying the indictment fails on its face for that reason, because it doesn't put the defendant (Trump) on notice of the actual alleged offenses. And when they try to guess what the additional crime is supposed to be, their best guess is interference in the 2016 presidential election (federal offense), which would be problematic because Bragg as a city DA doesn't really have authority to prove a federal offense in his jurisdiction, and the DOJ twice declined to pursue it.

Needless to say, it's not a slam dunk. But it's not a friendly venue for Trump either - the judge's personal contributions to the Biden campaign and the "Stop the Republicans" group have been outed but nobody expects he will recuse himself, and the judge could simply rule in the prosecution's favor on all these problems. All or any of which could eventually be ruled reversible error, but that would be on appeal and long after the 2024 election of course.

Even Fareed Zakaria at CNN said this looks like selecting a person and finding their crime, rather than having a crime and finding the person who committed it. Which would suggest this prosecution is politically motivated to hamper Trump's ability to campaign effectively. Which means it is an actual case of interfering with a Presidential election.

 

[Xzi]

And when they try to guess what the additional crime is supposed to be, their best guess is interference in the 2016 presidential election (federal offense), which would be problematic because Bragg as a city DA doesn't really have authority to prove a federal offense in his jurisdiction, and the DOJ twice declined to pursue it.

Lol, were the payments not still actively ongoing during his presidential campaign? It'd be more difficult to prove they aren't somehow connected. Trump cheated on his previous wife with his current wife, and he didn't care who knew about it. Only one reason to have cared this time around.

AFAIK this "catch and kill" scheme for negative news stories about Trump extended to more than just Daniels, and he paid more than just Cohen to "fix" these issues for him.

the judge could simply rule in the prosecution's favor on all these problems.

As he should if all the evidence is in order, which seems likely. Trump's own signature and voice are all over everything.

 

[Beaukilla]

Lol, the guy who used the chant "lock her up" towards his political opponent is having a sook he got caught doing something illegal, boohoo cry more

 

[Taleweaver]

She's not being tried, lol.

That doesn't mean you should just presume everything Trump claims about it is true.

This is what I'm talking about. Trump's existence brings out this type of hysteria in people. I'm not saying anyone is right. People feeding into his bullshit makes him look right. It looks like America is trying to turn Trump into some sort of god.

...so why are you feeding into his idea that Pelosi is the bad guy here?

?

You started with "we should presume innocence". Then switched 180 degrees to "...but Pelosi's part of the system, and therefore evil."

"One".

You posted one tweet. Hence: one. I know of several dozens if not hundreds of malicious tweets and callouts of Trump. If you want to convince people that Pelosi's somehow equally bad, by all means: start a thread about it.

You sure about this? The career politician is the good guy. The war machine was just fine without Trump. Is that your narrative?

I don't have a narrative. I don't even know what the word means in this context (same with "war machine", btw). I just said I thought she made an honest mistake there, and thus far you're not doing a good job of convincing me otherwise.

 

[tabzer]

That doesn't mean you should just presume everything Trump claims about it is true.

I don't and I haven't. My comment had nothing to do with "Trump's innocence".

...so why are you feeding into his idea that Pelosi is the bad guy here?

Pelosi is a bad guy, and I am against the idea that we have to choose to keep one and get rid of the other, or even that Trump is the greater evil.

You started with "we should presume innocence". Then switched 180 degrees to "...but Pelosi's part of the system, and therefore evil."

I did not. I pointed out how a government official was misrepresenting the spirit of the law just to "get Trump". I don't think anyone should presume Trump is innocent, lol.

You posted one tweet. Hence: one. I know of several dozens if not hundreds of malicious tweets and callouts of Trump. If you want to convince people that Pelosi's somehow equally bad, by all means: start a thread about it.

I know you said "one" to minimize the degree of corruption that is inherent in Pelosi's station. I'm not interested in convincing people. Because of Trump, the rest of DC looks clean seems to be your outlook. I think that's naïve; optimistic to the fault of enabling it (DC).

I don't have a narrative. I don't even know what the word means in this context (same with "war machine", btw). I just said I thought she made an honest mistake there, and thus far you're not doing a good job of convincing me otherwise.

I get that the MSM likes to expose as much dirt as they can on Trump, and that career politicians aren't getting the spotlight that they deserve, but you should at least make an effort. It's easy to parrot MSM headlines and pretend that you belong *somewhere* because of it. Yet, there's no way you can be so intimate in understanding Trump yet seem to think this Pelosi is just some innocent bystander. How do you stay sane?

 

[Chrisssj2]

Okay fine. If he wants to hire women for that, so what?

The cover-up is what's getting him in trouble.

You share with everyone who you go to bed with? i mean wtf

 

[Deleted member 559230]

Dude straight up admitted guilt for issuing the check on television. Sounds like you're having a hard time trying to keep your own delusions intact more than trying to be convincing to anyone else.

It's not my job to convince anyone of Trump's guilt, that's the prosecutors job. I do see similarities between these counts and all of the previous horse shit your side put Trump through, which is what led me to my initial skepticism.

 

[lolcatzuru]

selling this post for when he Teflon's out of it again and they call it racism

 

[Jayro]

selling this post for when he Teflon's out of it again and they call it racism

Funny thing about Teflon... It eventually flakes away, and shit eventually sticks.

 

[tabzer]

Funny thing about Teflon... It eventually flakes away, and shit eventually sticks.

Are you saying that politicians need term limits?

 

[Xzi]

I do see similarities between these counts and all of the previous horse shit your side put Trump through

Trump was already a criminal back when he called himself a Democrat, he's no less a criminal now that he calls himself a Republican. Watching the "tough on crime" crowd try to justify picking a known felon as their presidential candidate should certainly be amusing, in any case.

 

[tabzer]

Trump was already a criminal back when he called himself a Democrat, he's no less a criminal now that he calls himself a Republican. Watching the "tough on crime" crowd try to justify picking a known felon as their presidential candidate should certainly be amusing, in any case.

@Xzi is as much of a criminal as Trump. Watch out.

 

[Xzi]

@Xzi is as much of a criminal as Trump. Watch out.

Yeah I downloaded a car. Criminal mastermind right here.

 

[tabzer]

Yeah I downloaded a car. Criminal mastermind right here.

You see sarcasm, I see confirmation.

 

[Xzi]

You see sarcasm, I see confirmation.

Sorry to disappoint, but I doubt that even the couple speeding tickets I once had on my record show up any more. People like you and I learn accountability for our actions very early on, but that's obviously not the case for people born into ultra-rich families with mob connections.

 

[tabzer]

Sorry to disappoint, but I doubt that even the couple speeding tickets I once had on my record show up any more. People like you and I learn accountability for our actions very early on, but that's obviously not the case for people born into ultra-rich families with mob connections.

I know you don't like Trump, but this is a case where a couple of speeding tickets are being used against him because they don't have a charge for,"attempting to rule the world".

Though, the irony, if they did.