Donald Trump indicted by Manhattan grand jury

[essentialsaltes]

You said that’s why there is a trial, Cohen’s plea doesn’t make Trump guilty

Cohen's established crime makes the falsified documents crime a felony.

Bragg doesn't have to do any work to establish Cohen's crime. It's already a matter of fact and record.

 

[BPPLEE]

Cohen's established crime makes the falsified documents crime a felony.

Bragg doesn't have to do any work to establish Cohen's crime. It's already a matter of fact and record.

Contrary to what Eisen says, there is a serious dispute about whether Trump "knowingly and willfully" violated federal election law.

In any case, it is too late to prosecute that alleged crime. And even if it weren't, Bragg would have no authority to enforce federal law.

Falsification of business records can be treated as a felony only if the defendant's "intent to defraud includes an intent to commit another crime or to aid or conceal the commission thereof."

 

[essentialsaltes]

Contrary to what Eisen says, there is a serious dispute about whether Trump "knowingly and willfully" violated federal election law.

Nobody cares, since Trump is not being tried for violating federal election law.

He's being accused of falsifying business documents to conceal the commission of a crime.

"Everyone knows he paid her off." And we know that was a crime.

Did Trump falsify documents to conceal that crime? That's for the jury to decide.

 

[BPPLEE]

Nobody cares, since Trump is not being tried for violating federal election law.

He's being accused of falsifying business documents to conceal the commission of a crime.

"Everyone knows he paid her off." And we know that was a crime.

Did Trump falsify documents to conceal that crime? That's for the jury to decide.

They will find him guilty

 

[Arcangl86]

Contrary to what Eisen says, there is a serious dispute about whether Trump "knowingly and willfully" violated federal election law.

In any case, it is too late to prosecute that alleged crime. And even if it weren't, Bragg would have no authority to enforce federal law.

Falsification of business records can be treated as a felony only if the defendant's "intent to defraud includes an intent to commit another crime or to aid or conceal the commission thereof."

And the People's case is that he falsified the records to hide Cohen's violation of campaign finance law. Arguably it also involved tax fraud, but I don't know if that's a factor here.

 

[BPPLEE]

Alvin Bragg says Trump tried to conceal "another crime." What crime?

Each of the four possibilities suggested by Manhattan D.A. Alvin Bragg has its own share of legal complications and faulty reasoning.

reason.com

 

[BPPLEE]

And the People's case is that he falsified the records to hide Cohen's violation of campaign finance law. Arguably it also involved tax fraud, but I don't know if that's a factor here.

Has it been specified?

 

[essentialsaltes]

Has it been specified?

The opening statement certainly refers to Cohen's illegal payment, and that this is what the falsified records were disguising/concealing.

 

[BPPLEE]

The opening statement certainly refers to Cohen's illegal payment, and that this is what the falsified records were disguising/concealing.

View attachment 346600

That’s interesting but Pecker testified that he told Cohen someone should move on the Stormy Daniels situation and Cohen did. He met with Trump later in 2017. Pecker and Cohen discussed this Pecker didn’t say Trump was involved other than saying he wouldn’t be pleased If the story got out.
I think Trump was in on the McDougal payment but what you’ve got here specifically mentions Daniels.
”

“We didn’t want this story to embarrass Mr Trump or embarrass or hurt the campaign,” Pecker said, referring to himself and Cohen, Trump’s former fixer.

 

[perplexed]

Here is the Judges reasons not to dismiss the case

https://www.nycourts.gov/LegacyPDFS/press/PDFs/People-v-DonaldTrump2-15-24Decision.pdf

I really struggled to understand it , in particular seems to suggest trying to conceal information from the public to get elected is a crime, surely the vast majority of politicians are guilty of this.

 

[Hans Blaster]

Here is the Judges reasons not to dismiss the case

https://www.nycourts.gov/LegacyPDFS/press/PDFs/People-v-DonaldTrump2-15-24Decision.pdf

I really struggled to understand it , in particular seems to suggest trying to conceal information from the public to get elected is a crime, surely the vast majority of politicians are guilty of this.

Trump is charged with falsifying business records in the first degree which requires that the falsification be made as part of a different crime. From the ruling:

As is clear from the plain reading of PL \ 17-5.10, it is not necessary for a defendant to be
convicted of the "other crime," it is his inent to commit those other crimes that carries the day.

The judge accepted three theories of the other crime as supported by evidence:

(1) he People allege that Defendant "violated federal election Iaws because the payoffs
to both McDougal and Danieis violated FECA's restrictions on corporate and
individual contributions."
(2) Under the second theory, the People allege that Defendant intended to violate N.Y.
Election Law by conspiring to promote the election of any person to a public
office... by entering a scheme specifically for purposes of influencing the 2016
presidential election; and that they did so by 'unlawful' means,' including by violating
FECCA through the unlaw individual and corporate contributions by Cohen, Pecker,
and AMI...
(3) Under the third theoy, the People allege that the Defendant intended to violate New
York Tax Law ...

It will be up to the jury to determine if the DA has proved intent to commit crime under any of these theories.

 

[Gene2memE]

Here is the Judges reasons not to dismiss the case

https://www.nycourts.gov/LegacyPDFS/press/PDFs/People-v-DonaldTrump2-15-24Decision.pdf

I really struggled to understand it , in particular seems to suggest trying to conceal information from the public to get elected is a crime, surely the vast majority of politicians are guilty of this.

No it doesn't. At least, not alone.

The judge ruled that the law shows that falsifying business records is illegal, and as there was sufficient evidence of such presented to the grand jury, there wasn't grounds for the dismissal of those charges. He also ruled that using false records to violate other laws (including New York election and tax law, and US Federal election law) is also illegal. For these counts, it's not the attempted concealment that's illegal. It's the way they went about creating a false paper trail in order to conceal it that's illegal.

Where the concealment comes in is the "attempt to defraud" argument. Again, the judge found that there is sufficient evidence that there was indeed an attempt to conceal information to better the defendant's position. In this case specifically that "the Defendant starting in 2015, intended to pay Daniels and McDougal a sum of money to prevent the publication of information that could have adversely affected his presidential aspirations."

 

[essentialsaltes]

That’s interesting but Pecker testified that he told Cohen someone should move on the Stormy Daniels situation and Cohen did. He met with Trump later in 2017. Pecker and Cohen discussed this Pecker didn’t say Trump was involved other than saying he wouldn’t be pleased If the story got out.
I think Trump was in on the McDougal payment but what you’ve got here specifically mentions Daniels.

See?

What is devastating about that? Everyone knows [Trump] paid her off.

I don't know if it has changed, but the Trump camp's story used to be that Michael Cohen paid her off out of the goodness of his heart.

Glad I could get you back on the party line for defending Trump. He knew nothing about the payment. Cohen paid her out of the goodness of his heart. Trump paid Cohen for something or other.

 

[BPPLEE]

See?



Glad I could get you back on the party line for defending Trump. He knew nothing about the payment. Cohen paid her out of the goodness of his heart. Trump paid Cohen for something or other.

I’m just talking about Pecker’s testimony . Did I get that wrong? And when I said everyone knows Trump paid her off I was talking about McDougal. You know that. You usually don’t take things out of context like that.

 

[Pommer]

I’m just talking about Pecker’s testimony . Did I get that wrong? And when I said everyone knows Trump paid her off I was talking about McDougal. You know that. You usually don’t take things out of context like that.

The “context” is that President Trump is on trial for falsifying records to cover up the repayment of an illegal “campaign contribution“ with regards to one, Stormy Daniels.
BIAIM, from your helpful quote of Pecker’s testimony,

”Pecker said he recommended.
Pecker testified that he recommended that Trump pay McDougal $150,000, but Trump’s lawyer Michael Cohen wanted Pecker to pay it upfront for them.”

This would go to show that Trump already had it in his head that should this sort of thing occur in the future, someone else could “front the bill”, so then he could hide any transaction under another layer of legal obfuscation.
Done legally, there wouldn’t be an issue, but in having to pay back an illegal campaign contribution would lead to questions as to why anyone would front Donald Trump $130K, why did Trump need this money?

 

[Pommer]

Here is the Judges reasons not to dismiss the case

https://www.nycourts.gov/LegacyPDFS/press/PDFs/People-v-DonaldTrump2-15-24Decision.pdf

I really struggled to understand it , in particular seems to suggest trying to conceal information from the public to get elected is a crime, surely the vast majority of politicians are guilty of this.

I’m pretty sure that you have a misunderstanding of the decision.
ETA:
FWIW, it is a slog wading through the court cases that the Defendant-in-Chief’s lawyers attempted to use to get the case dismissed on the “they waited ‘too-long’ to prosecute me!” defense.

But the order (page 5) shows that part of the delay from 2018 until the indictments were handed down was because President Trump fought the subpoena that prosecutors sought (in order to do Justice sooner).

Just so we’re clear, Donald J Trump did nothing “wrong” in defending himself against a subpoena, but he himself contributed to the delay of this getting into court.

 

[BPPLEE]

The “context” is that President Trump is on trial for falsifying records to cover up the repayment of an illegal “campaign contribution“ with regards to one, Stormy Daniels.
BIAIM, from your helpful quote of Pecker’s testimony,

”Pecker said he recommended.
Pecker testified that he recommended that Trump pay McDougal $150,000, but Trump’s lawyer Michael Cohen wanted Pecker to pay it upfront for them.”

This would go to show that Trump already had it in his head that should this sort of thing occur in the future, someone else could “front the bill”, so then he could hide any transaction under another layer of legal obfuscation.
Done legally, there wouldn’t be an issue, but in having to pay back an illegal campaign contribution would lead to questions as to why anyone would front Donald Trump $130K, why did Trump need this money?

Recommended to who? Cohen
He said he reached out to Trump attorney Michael Cohen and told him about Daniels' claim and advised him that he should pay her. He said Cohen responded that the Enquirer should pay her. "I said I am not purchasing this story. I am not going to be involved with a porn star,” Pecker recounted, adding that Wal-Mart, a store with conservative roots, was his biggest seller of magazines.
Cohen agreed to pay Daniels' lawyer $120,000 but initially didn't pay. Pecker said he advised Cohen to cough up the cash "because if you don’t and it gets out, I believe the boss" — the word Cohen used to refer to Trump — "is going to be very angry with you.”

'I'll take care of it'​

Pecker said he found out that Cohen was the one who paid Daniels in December 2016, when he met with Cohen at Trump Tower after the election. He said Cohen asked him whether he could "talk to the boss on his behalf" about getting reimbursed. Cohen also asked him whether he could review the Enquirer's files on Trump, a request Pecker said he refused.

 

[essentialsaltes]

And when I said everyone knows Trump paid her off I was talking about McDougal. You know that. You usually don’t take things out of context like that.

Oops, my mistake. Your response only discusses "he" and "her", but the post you replied to makes the context clear.

At the same time, I'm not sure the two cases are all that different in terms of when and if "everyone knew" Donald was involved. And in terms of criminality, both were campaign finance violations.

 

[BPPLEE]

Oops, my mistake. Your response only discusses "he" and "her", but the post you replied to makes the context clear.

View attachment 346639

At the same time, I'm not sure the two cases are all that different in terms of when and if "everyone knew" Donald was involved. And in terms of criminality, both were campaign finance violations.

That isn’t what Pecker said.

 

[essentialsaltes]

That isn’t what Pecker said.

I'm not even talking about what Pecker said, just the situation as it appears to be.

Just so I understand you clearly, are you asserting that Donald Trump knew nothing about both of these payments?