Trump Indicted!

[Samson]

Yes, it would have been legal, but not without a paper trail. You can't just show up at a bank with $130000 without an explanation where it came from. And the explanation "It is hush money from Trump" (which will be forwarded to multiple agencies) kinda defeats the point, doesn't it? So instead, the explanation is "It is work for Essential Consultants, LLC under an NDA" and no one will bat an eye. But that level of indirection also means taxes.

You is Stormy in this? I do not actually know how it would work, but at the simplest had she accepted the cash, kept it at home and spent it on incidentals, and noted it in her tax return as income that would have been legal. Had she taken it to the bank and told them it was payment she contractually received from someone who would rather remain nameless would that be allowed?

[EDIT] Thinking about it, could she not have just said it was an advance on her book, which it sort of was?

 

[Gori the Grey]

What predicate crime was Trump convicted of?

The law doesn't require that there be a prior conviction for a predicate crime, or even a that any predicate crime be charged. Here is the law:

An individual “is guilty of falsifying business records in the first degree when he commits the crime of falsifying business records in the second degree, and when his intent to defraud includes an intent to commit another crime or to aid or conceal the commission thereof.” N.Y. Penal Code § 175.10.

It just requires that, in falsifying business records, you have the intent to commit another crime. That's what the jury is being asked to decide: when he falsified his business records, did Trump have the intent of violating NY election code? The term I've heard used is "object" crime; it was his object(ive) to violate NY election code. "Predicating" is a misnomer. I understand why the website used it. The article probably makes a point of mentioning the fact that he wasn't convicted of insurance fraud in Holley's case just to be fair to him as a person--not give the impression that he is guilty of more crimes than he in fact is. That fact about his case doesn't bear on the list that website is compiling.

What the jury decided in the case you cite is that Holley had the intent to commit insurance fraud. That's why he was judged guilty of falsification of business records in the first degree. That's the crime Trump is being charged with.

Establishing intent, by the the way, is a heavy lift for prosecutors--since we can't see directly into someone's mind. But Trump's defense team hurt his case by not putting on the record any alternate narrative regarding his intent.

 

[uppi]

You is Stormy in this? I do not actually know how it would work, but at the simplest had she accepted the cash, kept it at home and spent it on incidentals, and noted it in her tax return as income that would have been legal. Had she taken it to the bank and told them it was payment she contractually received from someone who would rather remain nameless would that be allowed?

Well, everyone involved in this, but yes, Stormy in particular. I believe that even if she had accepted cash and kept it at home, she would have been obligated to file IRS form 8300, disclosing who she got the money from. If she kept it at home no one might have asked (but why would she agree to this?), but as soon as she tried to deposit it, she would have definitely had to disclose the source of the money.

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

A conviction here may set an uncomfortable precedent.

That if you break the law you have to face consequences. Even if you're Donald Jessica Trump

I.e. Lawfare may have unintended consequences.

Here we go again.

Claims of lawfare are worth as much as the support behind it. In other words: they're worthless.

If rich people can not pay off discarded lovers and secure their
discretion, I suspect more discarded lovers will be found dead.

They can pay off discarded lovers and secure their discretion, they just can't , for the 759th time, falsify business records to do so.

 

[Gori the Grey]

On the other matter, regarding the chosen method of paying Cohen back. Trump did it that way because Cohen insisted on it being done that way. Cohen probably insisted on it being done that way, because if Trump just agreed to hand him a paper bag full of cash, he knew Trump would find some way not to deliver, Trump being Trump. (That's why the envelope on which Cohen and Weisselberg agreed to the method was a big exhibit in the case.) It's not only a case of one inept criminal being surrounded by other inept criminals. It's a group of criminals who all know the other guy is a criminal.

 

[Samson]

On the other matter, regarding the chosen method of paying Cohen back. Trump did it that way because Cohen insisted on it being done that way. Cohen probably insisted on it being done that way, because if Trump just agreed to hand him a paper bag full of cash, he knew Trump would find some way not to deliver, Trump being Trump. (That's why the envelope on which Cohen and Weisselberg agreed to the method was a big exhibit in the case.) It's not only a case of one inept criminal being surrounded by other inept criminals. It's a group of criminals who all know the other guy is a criminal.

This I think is a very good reason why Dylan Howard did not just deal with it and expect to be repaid. Had Trump always paid his debts I bet Dylan would have just sorted it out without any paperwork anywhere near Trump and asked for something in return later. As it was Cohen did have to rely on Trump paying up later.

 

[Cutlass]

A conviction here may set an uncomfortable precedent.

I.e. Lawfare may have unintended consequences.

If rich people can not pay off discarded lovers and secure their
discretion, I suspect more discarded lovers will be found dead.

"Criminals shouldn't be prosecuted because prosecution causes crime."

 

[Samson]

If rich people can not pay off discarded lovers and secure their
discretion, I suspect more discarded lovers will be found dead.

If you have not heard Stormy description of the liaison I certainly do not recommend it, but love it not the word that springs to mind.

 

[Gorbles]

"oh no, we'll have to get them on murder charges instead of fraud"

You can't put the onus for a hypothetical murder on the people prosecuting it.

 

[Kaitzilla]

Is it? If he could convince the jury that he paid off Stormy to avoid Melania leaving him he would be innocent, right?

Sure, but what if you burst out laughing while arguing it?

 

[Farm Boy]

But NY is not one of those states. State's rights?

They have definitely transitioned to gerrymandering ****hole with this election cycle. So full faith and credit as warranted!

 

[Birdjaguar]

One thing to keep in mind is that Trump could have refuted all of this by testifying. Of course perjury is also a crime.

 

[danjuno]

They have definitely transitioned to gerrymandering ****hole with this election cycle. So full faith and credit as warranted!

Really? The map they finally settled on seems tamer than what they tried initially (before the state court swatted them down), never-mind what some of the southern states put in in 2021. But a gerrymandering contest with the South is a Lost Cause any way.

 

[Farm Boy]

Hah!

Have more faith in the Yankees, man, lol.

 

[Core Imposter]

Carpetbaggers taught us how.

The lawyers who somehow ended up on the jury are leading the way through the thicket of nonsensical instructions. One thing is abundantly clear, the railroad spared no expense getting the right personnel in place for this show.

Probably the only thing being discussed in the jury room is how long should they stay in deliberations to make them appear legit. The idea of giving a jury of liberals the liberty to pick any crime they want in order to convict Donald Trump is functionally equivalent to the spectral evidence used in the Salem witch trials. When shall the hanging commence?

 

[Birdjaguar]

Fox News and right-wing media have already decided the Trump trial verdict​

Analysis by Oliver Darcy, CNN

New YorkCNN —
The jury might still be deliberating, but Donald Trump’s media allies have already delivered a verdict to their audiences

Throughout the duration of the Manhattan hush-money trial, Fox News and the rest of MAGA Media have set the stage to absolve Trump in the historic case. Day after day, week after week, popular personalities such as Sean Hannity, Laura Ingraham, and Steve Bannon have lampooned the judicial system, portraying Trump as an innocent victim of political persecution.

Inside this alternate media universe, the actual facts of the case never penetrate the bubble that shields its audiences from detrimental developments for Trump. Instead, alternate dishonest storylines are disseminated as the gospel truth.

Not only is Trump entirely innocent of any and all wrongdoing in the MAGA Media world, but President Joe Biden is guilty of nefariously weaponizing government to wage “lawfare” on his political opponent. Audiences are told that Biden cannot win a fair fight with Trump, so he has resorted to illegal “election interference” by rigging the judicial system against Trump.


It goes without saying that these narratives are built on foundations of lies and innuendo that do not hold water. Biden does not control the judicial system. The hush-money case is taking place in New York state court with charges brought by the Manhattan district attorney. And it isn’t Trump’s left-wing enemies who have been making headlines testifying against the GOP candidate in the case, it’s his former allies, such as one-time fixer Michael Cohen and former National Enquirer boss David Pecker.

Nevertheless, millions consuming right-wing media have been fed these deceptive storylines, impacting how voters perceive current events and, more importantly, cast their ballots. In the Republican Party, voters absorb their information from outlets like Fox News, which has dishonestly run defense for Trump over the course of the trial.

“WHERE’S THE CRIME?” demanded a banner on Ingraham’s prime time show Wednesday along with a graphic showing images of Biden, Judge Juan Merchan, and Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg “THE REAL FRAUDS.”

In the following hour, Jesse Watters accused Merchan in an on-screen graphic of “LEADING THE JURY” and intimated how “very fishy” it was that a “stop Trump” judge was selected to preside over the case.

The progressive Media Matters said in a study published this week that Fox News has leveled at least 200 attacks on Merchan alone since the trial commenced — a staggering number that does not include the attacks on others associated with the case. And the study only accounted for Fox News, not the host of other entities that make up the right-wing media universe.

It can be tempting to ignore the torrent of attacks Trump’s media allies are launching in their unrelenting efforts to undermine the case. But those forces are shaping how a large swath of the country understands the high-stakes and unprecedented trial taking place in lower Manhattan. And they’re a reminder that if Trump were to return to power, he has a powerful propaganda apparatus at his disposal that will do everything in its power to sanitize his actions — whatever they may be.


Sounds just like what we are seeing/hearing in this thread.

 

[Gori the Grey]

When shall the hanging commence?

New York has outlawed capital punishment.

And didn't you mean "burn at stake" or "press to death with stones."?

Stick with your chosen metaphor, dude. Hanging is for traitors.

Also, the jurors can't "pick any crime." They have to find him guilty of falsifying business records with the intent to violate NY election law by using unlawful means to promote or obstruct a candidate. They needn't reach unanimity regarding what the unlawful means were.

This too, by the way, is objectionable.

One thing is abundantly clear, the railroad spared no expense getting the right personnel in place for this show.

both as to its content and as to your handling of figurative language.

No money is spent to get particular people on a jury. That's as to content.

Then as to metaphor: railroads don't pay or not pay money (spare expense). And "show," further, makes it a mixed metaphor. Your metaphor has a railroad hiring actors to put on a show. Bleh.

 

[Farm Boy]

Carpetbaggers taught us how.

And they are good at it.

It should be noted the South didn't need lessons. 1830 to 1850 on the Trail of Tears.

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

Sounds just like what we are seeing/hearing in this thread.

Urban Dictionary: Alternative facts

None

www.urbandictionary.com

It goes without saying that these narratives are built on foundations of lies and innuendo that do not hold water. Biden does not control the judicial system. The hush-money case is taking place in New York state court with charges brought by the Manhattan district attorney. And it isn’t Trump’s left-wing enemies who have been making headlines testifying against the GOP candidate in the case, it’s his former allies, such as one-time fixer Michael Cohen and former National Enquirer boss David Pecker.

 

[Birdjaguar]

Verdict is in! and it is not a hung jury, 30 minutes to it going public. Trump could be found guilty on 1 to 34 counts or none.