GUILTY

[ralliann]

And f it doesn’t?

Then we will find out if umbrella unanimity is going to fly (does not look like it will, since another justice commented on a case it was done. Saying an umbrella conviction is unconstutional since it allows some jurors to agree or disagree with other jurors for conviction. Non unanimous.
So if it does?

 

[RocksInMyHead]

I don't blame the jury, it was well predicted by Scholars that the jury was convinced a crime was there when there was none.

Why wouldn't you blame the jury for that?

This just one of the problems. I hope this gets out of new york to the supreme court.

Since this is a matter of state law, it's unlikely that it will make it to the USSC. State cases do occasionally go there, but pretty much only when the defendant alleges violation of their civil rights. I've not seen any claims like that from Trump's lawyers yet.

 

[ralliann]

We know that's why Cohen did it; he pleaded guilty to an ELECTION LAW VIOLATION.

Yeah Cohen has said a lot of things

If the Trump team's initial story were true, that Cohen did it out of the goodness of his heart, we wouldn't be here today. But that was a lie.

The FBI accepted it when it was dropped as a misdemeanor. Also the witness for Trump gave testimony to that.

He knew he was getting repaid, because he made a deal with Donald Trump to do so. And Cohen and Trump (and Weisselberg) agreed on a fraudulent way to repay Cohen, citing legal expenses that were fictitious.

No this is where you are mixing up the original legal expense for an non disclosure, with the secondary crome of ELECTION FRAUD. NON DISCLOSURES are not illegal. This court found a away to make it one.
the kindness of his heart, was about the WHY they paid stormy. To not hurt his family.....
Nope, bragg and the judge turned that LEGAL expense into a felony, SECONDARY CRIME because of his motive not being his family, but the election. Do you understand that?

 

[ralliann]

Why wouldn't you blame the jury for that?

Since this is a matter of state law, it's unlikely that it will make it to the USSC. State cases do occasionally go there, but pretty much only when the defendant alleges violation of their civil rights. I've not seen any claims like that from Trump's lawyers yet.

De ja vu Colorado all over again. State vs federal. the state cannot make INTENT FEDERAL ELECTION LAW WHEN IT IS NOT, concerning a non disclosure agreement..

 

[rturner76]

only when the defendant alleges violation of their civil rights. I've not seen any claims like that from Trump's lawyers yet.

I wonder if the Trump team may try to claim a civil rights violation because his civil right to special treatment due to privilege was violated. I know they get confused when it comes to who has the right to do what.

 

[RocksInMyHead]

De ja vu Colorado all over again.

No, the Colorado case went to the Supreme Court because it concerned interpretations of the 14th Amendment - a Constitutional matter. The USSC is the final arbiter on Constitutional matters.

 

[ralliann]

No, the Colorado case went to the Supreme Court because it concerned interpretations of the 14th Amendment - a Constitutional matter. The USSC is the final arbiter on Constitutional matters.

The case was in Colorado in the first place because STATE LAW (three lousy judges) had no right to ADJUDICATE FEDERAL CANDIDATES ELIGABILITY. 3 lousy people..........
Here we are again. A few people with hatred running amuk trying to take control over who can do what, who can think what. Then those who piggy backed in a few states to follow their lead.
This time it is TWO ( I don't count the jury it should have never went to court)
This is serious for ALL OF US. No matter who does this stuff.

 

[RocksInMyHead]

No this is where you are mixing up the original legal expense for an non disclosure, with the secondary crome of ELECTION FRAUD. NON DISCLOSURES are not illegal. This court found a away to make it one.
the kindness of his heart, was about the WHY they paid stormy. To not hurt his family.....
Nope, bragg and the judge turned that LEGAL expense into a felony, SECONDARY CRIME because of his motive not being his family, but the election. Do you understand that?

Again, you seem to be unclear on the meaning of "legal expense". The issue in this case revolves around the use of "legal expense" (as in "an expense incurred by a lawyer in the pursuit of lawyerly services") to mask payments for things that were not actually that. It has nothing to do with whether or not the expenses were legal (i.e. lawful, not illegal).

The case was in Colorado in the first place because STATE LAW had no right to ADJUDICATE FEDERAL CANDIDATES ELIGABILITY.

I don't see how that pertains to this case, which does not have any effect on Trump's eligibility for the presidency.

Also, the all-caps shouting is unnecessary. Might I suggest taking a deep breath and calming down? Your posts have been getting more and more incoherent.

 

[essentialsaltes]

No this is where you are mixing up the original legal expense for an non disclosure, with the secondary crome of ELECTION FRAUD.

I am not mixing anything up. The payment for the NDA *was* the illegal campaign contribution that Cohen pleaded guilty to. They are the same thing.

 

[ralliann]

Again, you seem to be unclear on the meaning of "legal expense". The issue in this case revolves around the use of "legal expense" (as in "an expense incurred by a lawyer in the pursuit of lawyerly services") to mask payments for things that were not actually that.

The "NOT ACTUALLY THAT" is the secondary crime.
1. COHEN paid stormy Daniels money to not disclose, they signed the agreement. A legal document, legally binding. OK

2. What is the secondary offense That made it a federal election CRIME?

Make "not actually that" coherent for us all.

 

[rturner76]

Here we are again. A few people with hatred running amuk trying to take control over who can do what, who can think what.

How ironic, that is exactly how I would describe the Trump administration

 

[Lost4words]

As a now convicted felon, Trump will make an even better president!!!

 

[ralliann]

As a now convicted felon, Trump will make an even better president!!!

How about caring about a better justice system where justice is applied.

 

[RocksInMyHead]

The "NOT THAT" is the secondary crime. COHEN paid stormy Daniels money to not disclose, they signed the agreement. A legal document, legally binding. OK

Correct.

What is the secondary offense That made it a federal election CRIME?

Cohen's conviction is irrelevant here - the jury was specifically instructed to disregard it.

The crime of falsifying business records comes from the Trump Organization paying Cohen back for the NDA money he paid to Daniels. They classified that reimbursement as "legal expenses, " which is a fraudulent misrepresentation of the nature of those payments. Legal settlements (NDAs included) are not the same thing from an accounting perspective as legal expenses (i.e. reimbursements to your attorney to cover fees and expenses they've incurred while working for you). It would be like having your attorney buy you a Ferrari, then labeling the money you reimbursed him with as "legal expenses" rather than the purchase of a vehicle.

The second element of the case, conspiracy to promote or prevent the election of a person through unlawful means, relies on the establishment of intent on Trump's part. The jury was satisfied with the prosecution's case that Trump's primary reason for paying off Ms. Daniels was in order to influence the election rather than for personal reasons and was not swayed by the defense. You're not required to agree with that. Next, they presented their theories of "unlawful means". As I outlined in a previous post, those were:

1. Violation of the Federal Election Campaign Act (FECA) by means of unlawful campaign contributions. This would refer to the reimbursement from the Trump Organization to Cohen, which exceeded the $2700 maximum threshold that existed in 2016.

2. Falsification of (other) business records. This refers to records associated with dummy corporations set up by Cohen, the payment to Keith Davidson by Cohen, and the Trump Organization's issue of form 1099-MISC to Cohen.

3. Violation of tax laws. This refers to any falsification of tax records associated with the above activities.

 

[ralliann]

I am not mixing anything up. The payment for the NDA *was* the illegal campaign contribution that Cohen pleaded guilty to. They are the same thing.

The illegal campaign contribution is a secondary crime.

Non disclosure agreement, legally binding document, paid for. Legal expense

Secondary crime
NON DISCLOSURE agreement becomes an election crime.
How so?

 

[rturner76]

Non disclosure agreement, legally binding document, paid for. Legal expense

Yes, if you cal an illegal bribe a legitimate legal expense. The jury didn't buy it. What was he found to be again? GUILTY

 

[ralliann]

Correct.



The crime of falsifying business records comes from the Trump Organization paying Cohen back for the NDA money he paid to Daniels.

It was for a non disclosure agreement... Which you agree.

They classified that reimbursement as "legal expenses, " which is a fraudulent misrepresentation of the nature of those payments.

It was payment for a non disclosure agreement. A legal expense. It cost money to have someone sign a non disclosure. That was what the payment was for...

Legal settlements (NDAs included) are not the same thing from an accounting perspective as legal expenses (i.e. reimbursements to your attorney to cover fees and expenses they've incurred while working for you). It would be like having your attorney buy you a Ferrari, then labeling the money you reimbursed him with as "legal expenses" rather than the purchase of a vehicle.

No it is not the same. Trump did not pay for a car, or any other personal property. He paid for a NONDICLOSURE AGREEMENT. A legal agreement, between Trump and Daniels. a legal transaction to legally bind her, from further blackmail.

The second element of the case, conspiracy to promote or prevent the election of a person through unlawful means, relies on the establishment of intent on Trump's part.

BINGO. BINGO BINGO. What makes An NDA CRIME of federal election law?

The jury was satisfied with the prosecution's case that Trump's primary reason for paying off Ms. Daniels was in order to influence the election rather than for personal reasons and was not swayed by the defense.

Here is where there is no crime, but the jury is told it is. And this court CREATED ALL ON IT'S OWN...
And it is not PRIMARY. If he would have done it anyway, they were not to convict...

The intent of non disclosure is to not put out information.
The same happens with GAG orders in divorce settlements with celebrities, and famous people in the media. It is part and parcel of the entire divorce settlement. A legal requirement.

You're not required to agree with that.

If it is federal election law then I certainly do need to agree.
This where your incoherence to law is manifesting. Also why it has never been done before.

Next, they presented their theories of "unlawful means". As I outlined in a previous post, those were:

Theories? Not law...
The rest is just a bunch of baloney concerning an NDA being made a crime.

 

[ralliann]

Yes, if you cal an illegal bribe a legitimate legal expense. The jury didn't buy it. What was he found to be again? GUILTY

It isn't illegal. It is in fact legal. What do you call a pay me or else? But it is not illegal.
It was not the only one he paid, which later, was proved a lie. But Trump paid for that to go away too, rather than pay to go through court, which more than likely would have cost more than the NDA.

 

[rturner76]

It isn't illegal. It is infact legal.

Then why was he legally found guilty? Do you honestly believe that bribery is a legitimate legal expense or do you fear blaspheming the "church of Trump" if you allow yourself to believe he is a flawed human being?

 

[GreatLakes4Ever]

It isn't illegal. It is in fact legal. What do you call a pat me or else? But it is not illegal.

What are you doing wasting time telling us? You should be giving this information to Trump’s legal team. Fly. Fly. For the good of the Seventh Seal.