So, Trump's defense, it appears, is going to come down to 2 points and nothing more?

1) cohen didn't actually speak to Trump about confirming the Stormy payment deal was done, Defense alleges, when Cohen called a colleague who was physically with Trump sandwiched between texts between Cohen and colleague about a 14-year old crank caller. The all was only a minute and a half, and Defense says too short to talk with both people. DA is presenting photo proof that trump and colleague were together at exact time of the call. Talking heads debate if there was enough time to mention both matters to both men.

2) cohen stole $30,000 from trump in the 420,000 payment arrangement explained above.


THAT'S IT?!?!?!

Forgetaboutit! Guilty!!

The Fellini film cast assembled in the Fealty Bullpen today at court:

I spy felon Chuck Zito, felon Bernie Kerik, Alan Dershowitz and Dumber of Dumb and Dumber.
What kinda sh@it ya figure tRump has on Dershowitz?
*Bonus Where's Waldo points if you can find Alina Habba in the rogue's gallery. Boris da Spider also in Da House!

...

concordtom said:

---

So, Trump's defense, it appears, is going to come down to 2 points and nothing more?

1) cohen didn't actually speak to Trump about confirming the Stormy payment deal was done, Defense alleges, when Cohen called a colleague who was physically with Trump sandwiched between texts between Cohen and colleague about a 14-year old crank caller. The all was only a minute and a half, and Defense says too short to talk with both people. DA is presenting photo proof that trump and colleague were together at exact time of the call. Talking heads debate if there was enough time to mention both matters to both men.

2) cohen stole $30,000 from trump in the 420,000 payment arrangement explained above.


THAT'S IT?!?!?!

Forgetaboutit! Guilty!!

---

Is your case that Trump didn't need to have knowledge that Cohen was committing a crime for him or that Trump did have knowledge despite Cohen being an embezzler who lied about the alleged conversation he had with Trump discussing the crime? Also, is there any relevance to the fact that Trump's alleged crime is paying off a mistress who was blackmailing him?

bearister said:

---

The Fellini film cast assembled in the Fealty Bullpen today at court:

I spy felon Chuck Zito, felon Bernie Kerik, Alan Dershowitz and Dumber of Dumb and Dumber.
What kinda sh@it ya figure tRump has on Dershowitz?
*Bonus Where's Waldo points if you can find Alina Habba in the rogue's gallery. Boris da Spider also in Da House!

---

See my blueberries thread. There's a scene where they are identifying the rogue's gallery of sinners.
This image will be similarly remembered.

Quote:

---

Is your case that Trump didn't need to have knowledge that Cohen was committing a crime for him or that Trump did have knowledge despite Cohen being an embezzler who lied about the alleged conversation he had with Trump discussing the crime? Also, is there any relevance to the fact that Trump's alleged crime is paying off a mistress who was blackmailing him?

---

Doesn't matter if she had sex with him in hopes of getting doors opened, like a spot on the apprentice.

Doesn't matter if she was glad to accept money in exchange for whatever contract that locked up her story. It's slimy but legal.

Doesn't matter if Cohen lied about the amount owed to Red Finch so he'd get extra. That's illegal but superfluous to trump's alleged crime, which is paying off stormy and mis-booking the expense bookkeeping.

Doesn't matter if Cohen is a proven/admitted liar.

What matters is this:

Trump didn't want Stormy to talk - because of the election.

Trump wanted to have her paid to shut up. "Cash?" …He knew!

Trump didn't want it booked as a repayment to Cohen. Apparently, that would have been legal. Instead of "repayment", which would have been half as much money but traceable back to Trump, which he didn't want, Trump paid double and had it booked as a lawyer service.
Wrong. Falsification of records.


Team Trump offered NO defense other than to point out cohen as a thief and liar. But the jury has a ton of evidence to the contrary.

Trump lawyer told the jury in opening statements that he didn't have sex with stormy. But then offered no evidence to the contrary. Did he have alibi? No. They only tried to co fuse and slur stormy. Didn't work for me.

Defense did slur Cohen, but the paper evidence carries the day. It fits with testimony of others like Pecker and Stormy and others.

Who comes out of this trial smelling alright? Only the CSPAN guy.
Trump, his girl, his lawyer, his media friend…. none are reputable characters.

It doesn't wipe Trump clean of the crime.

concordtom said:

---

Doesn't matter if she had sex with him in hopes of getting doors opened, like a spot on the apprentice.

Doesn't matter if she was glad to accept money in exchange for whatever contract that locked up her story.

Doesn't matter if Cohen lied about the amount owed to Red Finch so he'd get extra.

Doesn't matter if Cohen is a proven/admitted liar.

What matters is this:

Trump didn't want Stormy to talk - because of the election.

Trump wanted to have her paid to shut up. "Cash?" …He knew!

Trump didn't want it booked as a repayment to Cohen. Apparently, that would have been legal. Instead of repayment, which would have been traceable back to Trump, which he didn't want, Trump paid double and had it booked as a lawyer service. Wrong. Falsification of records.

---

Trump didn't necessarily pay double. His lying embezzling convict ex lawyer paid double and then pocketed money. Did Trump personally falsify these records?

Trump paid double to have it cover income taxes.
If Cohen didn't pay income taxes, then the IRS should go after him.
It doesn't clear trump of his crime

concordtom said:

---

Trump paid double to have it cover income taxes.
If Cohen didn't pay income taxes, then the IRS should go after him.
It doesn't clear trump of his crime

---

What does cover income taxes mean?

Also, do you have ANY proof that Trump was involved with how Cohen's payback was recorded on the records? Wasn't he president at this time? What proof did the prosecution offer here?

oski003 said:

---

concordtom said:

---

Trump paid double to have it cover income taxes.
If Cohen didn't pay income taxes, then the IRS should go after him.
It doesn't clear trump of his crime

---

What does cover income taxes mean?

---

Well….Trump thought he was paying Cohen money for lawyer services. That's income. See the piece of paper where Weisselberg write it out. "x2".

oski003 said:

---

concordtom said:

---

Trump paid double to have it cover income taxes.
If Cohen didn't pay income taxes, then the IRS should go after him.
It doesn't clear trump of his crime

---

What does cover income taxes mean?

---

It means an employer pays more to make the employee whole on income taxes.

If Cohen was to make $180k then after taxes it would be $90k. So, to cover income taxes, Cohen can be paid $360k so he is made whole on the targeted $180k.

I have seen legitimate companies do this for legitimate reasons that were fully disclosed.

dajo9 said:

---

oski003 said:

---

concordtom said:

---

Trump paid double to have it cover income taxes.
If Cohen didn't pay income taxes, then the IRS should go after him.
It doesn't clear trump of his crime

---

What does cover income taxes mean?

---

It means an employer pays more to make the employee whole on income taxes.

If Cohen was to make $180k then after taxes it would be $90k. So, to cover income taxes, Cohen can be paid $360k so he is made whole on the targeted $180k.

I have seen legitimate companies do this for legitimate reasons that were fully disclosed.

---

Okay, but do you have ANY proof that Trump was involved with how Cohen's payback was recorded on the records? Wasn't he president at this time? What proof did the prosecution offer here?

oski003 said:

---

concordtom said:

---

Trump paid double to have it cover income taxes.
If Cohen didn't pay income taxes, then the IRS should go after him.
It doesn't clear trump of his crime

---

Also, do you have ANY proof that Trump was involved?

---

Trump involved with Stormy? Yes.
1. Photo of them together, plus
2. Her storytelling, plus
3. His lack of storytelling, plus
4. Pecker storytelling, plus
5. Cohen storytelling, plus
6. Tape recording of payment for Karen McDougall, plus
7. Paper docs written by Weisselberg and Cohen handwriting, plus
8. Trump signature on checks

It all matches, and Trump offered no defense other than "cohen is a liar".

Oh wait, your sentence continues…

Quote:

---

… do you have ANY proof that Trump was involved with how Cohen's payback was recorded on the records?

---

uh, you mean the trump org bookkeeper man witness and female employee witness ?

I forget their names, but I know who you are talking about. The guy said he had a pull down menu in the computer software program he was using. He never used that billing code category before, if I recall correctly. He would have got his instructions from Weisselberg, I presume. He's in jail and is unavailable. The code fits with the x2 story that is written on paper by Weisselberg and that story matches the dollar amount of checks that Trump signed.

The woman employee testified that she mailed the checks to the White House and that Trump (or his son) always signed for checks over $10k.

The oversight of dollar amounts by trump, including always having employees NOT just pay bills but negotiate them down shows that Trump wouldn't just sign checks willy nilly, although Cohen did pull one over on Trump nonetheless with the $50k red Finch figure (not $20k, which is what Red Finch actually received) AND by the fact that Cohen apparently did NOT declare ANY of the $420,000 as taxable income on his annual filing.

Quote:

---

Wasn't he president at this time?

---

What's that matter??? Presidents are not above the law.
But to be clear… the sex happened when he was ordinary citizen. The idea to pay her for silence occurred as candidate, with goal of helping his campaign. The repayment to Cohen happened after he was President.

Quote:

---

What proof did the prosecution offer here?

---

Unclear what you are asking here.

oski003 said:

---

dajo9 said:

---

oski003 said:

---

concordtom said:

---

Trump paid double to have it cover income taxes.
If Cohen didn't pay income taxes, then the IRS should go after him.
It doesn't clear trump of his crime

---

What does cover income taxes mean?

---

It means an employer pays more to make the employee whole on income taxes.

If Cohen was to make $180k then after taxes it would be $90k. So, to cover income taxes, Cohen can be paid $360k so he is made whole on the targeted $180k.

I have seen legitimate companies do this for legitimate reasons that were fully disclosed.

---

Okay, but do you have ANY proof that Trump was involved with how Cohen's payback was recorded on the records? Wasn't he president at this time? What proof did the prosecution offer here?

---

It's a shame that cameras were not in the courtroom. Hard for everyone to follow!!!

Transcripts are available daily but they are a serious pain to go through. An addict like me tried, and forget about it. Too much.

That leaves an addict to rely on the play-by-play reporting coming from the overflow room, which is not good enough.

I followed via CNN mostly but also some on msnbc. I've given up on Fox because they are too upsetting to me. They regularly state things that aren't true, whenever I watch them. I yell at the TV, "that's not true" but it does no good.

My shock about how Foxnews can mischaracterize basically anything and everything does no good. They continue doing so. I need to protect my own level of sanity, and so no longer watch them.

Go ahead. I threw you a bone. Tell me that my efforts to protect my sanity do no good. Ha ha.
I'll just respond that's America under Donald Trump. He's having a similar affect upon millions and millions of us!!

But to answer your question, if you had followed the trial, you'd know. I explained the pertinent testimony above. Go read the transcript if you want to be sure. I imagine you were (mis)led by Fox and you'll think I was misled by my news feeds. The story is best understood in the transcripts. I'm trusting the source I took in.

dajo9 said:

---

oski003 said:

---

dajo9 said:

---

oski003 said:

---

concordtom said:

---

Trump paid double to have it cover income taxes.
If Cohen didn't pay income taxes, then the IRS should go after him.
It doesn't clear trump of his crime

---

What does cover income taxes mean?

---

It means an employer pays more to make the employee whole on income taxes.

If Cohen was to make $180k then after taxes it would be $90k. So, to cover income taxes, Cohen can be paid $360k so he is made whole on the targeted $180k.

I have seen legitimate companies do this for legitimate reasons that were fully disclosed.

---

Okay, but do you have ANY proof that Trump was involved with how Cohen's payback was recorded on the records? Wasn't he president at this time? What proof did the prosecution offer here?

---

I don't know. I'm not prosecuting the case or sitting on the jury. I wouldn't presume to know better than them the facts of the case. Go play your look-over-there, game of distraction with somebody else.

---

Got it. You don't know much about this case. Just let Tom answer then.

concordtom said:

---

oski003 said:

---

concordtom said:

---

Trump paid double to have it cover income taxes.
If Cohen didn't pay income taxes, then the IRS should go after him.
It doesn't clear trump of his crime

---

Also, do you have ANY proof that Trump was involved?

---

Trump involved with Stormy? Yes.
1. Photo of them together, plus
2. Her storytelling, plus
3. His lack of storytelling, plus
4. Pecker storytelling, plus
5. Cohen storytelling, plus
6. Tape recording of payment for Karen McDougall, plus
7. Paper docs written by Weisselberg and Cohen handwriting, plus
8. Trump signature on checks

It all matches, and Trump offered no defense other than "cohen is a liar".

Oh wait, your sentence continues…

Quote:

---

… do you have ANY proof that Trump was involved with how Cohen's payback was recorded on the records?

---

uh, you mean the trump org bookkeeper man witness and female employee witness ?

I forget their names, but I know who you are talking about. The guy said he had a pull down menu in the computer software program he was using. He never used that billing code category before, if I recall correctly. He would have got his instructions from Weisselberg, I presume. He's in jail and is unavailable. The code fits with the x2 story that is written on paper by Weisselberg and that story matches the dollar amount of checks that Trump signed.

The woman employee testified that she mailed the checks to the White House and that Trump (or his son) always signed for checks over $10k.

The oversight of dollar amounts by trump, including always having employees NOT just pay bills but negotiate them down shows that Trump wouldn't just sign checks willy nilly, although Cohen did pull one over on Trump nonetheless with the $50k red Finch figure (not $20k, which is what Red Finch actually received) AND by the fact that Cohen apparently did NOT declare ANY of the $420,000 as taxable income on his annual filing.

Quote:

---

Wasn't he president at this time?

---

What's that matter??? Presidents are not above the law.
But to be clear… the sex happened when he was ordinary citizen. The idea to pay her for silence occurred as candidate, with goal of helping his campaign. The repayment to Cohen happened after he was President.

Quote:

---

What proof did the prosecution offer here?

---

Unclear what you are asking here.

---

The fact that he was president is further proof that he was not involved in the repayment of Cohen. The prosecution did not establish that Trump did this. All you have is point #8, which is that Trump signed checks.

oski003 said:

---

All you have is ... that Trump signed checks.

---

LOL

oski003 said:

---

The fact that he was president is further proof that he was not involved in the repayment of Cohen.

---

I'm sorry. But why on earth does him being President mean he wasn't involved???
You've said that twice now. It makes no sense to me.

Trump was involved in the sex (which his lawyers claimed didn't happen in opening statements and yet they provided ZERO defense of in the trial).
Trump was involved in the catch and kill scheme before the election, for the purpose of impacting the election.
Trump was involved in the payments Cohen made, as proved with the documents outlining Cohen's repayment and actual repayment with the checks.

I'll accept if you want to say Cohen is a liar and therefore Cohen took executive action to protect Trump by paying Stormy on his own (even though this totally would be the opposite of what they did with Karen McDougall). Unfortunately, Trump confirmed his agreement with the actions after the fact by repaying Cohen for them, and then hiding the repayment by approving the doubled-amount (an expensive bookkeeping disguise) and writing a series of checks that would mimic the disguise.

If you want to cut Trump every single possible reasonable doubt, go ahead. I mean, I know you will.
For me, the story matches up precisely who I have come to know his to be.
Did he think it all the way through in every last detail? No. He's an idiot. He just wanted it to go away, and DA Bragg found an applicable law to apply. Tough Titty for Team Trump.

Earlier in the day, I thought it was a disaster to hear that Cohen ripped off Trump with the Red Finch bill, and then not even paying income taxes on the total $420,000 amount. Well, actually, we don't yet know how Cohen handled the amounts with his IRS filings:

Quote:

---

At one point Cohen was asked by Blanche if he ever filed taxes for the $420,000 that Trump paid him, allegedly as reimbursement for $130,000 in hush money. The reimbursement is the centerpiece of the DA's case against Trump, because Cohen testified its purpose was to cover up the hush money payment in a phony legal retainer agreement using falsified business records.

An objection from a prosecutor, upheld by Judge Juan Merchan, derailed Blanche's line of questioning about taxes.

---

As the day wore on, I decided that Cohen is worse than I thought. But his Red Finch rip-off scheme did not ruin the case. There's too much back up and support for what happened. Guilty.

The nutjobs went from Russia, Russia, Russia to Cohen. They're down to Cohen?

oski003 said:

---

dajo9 said:

---

oski003 said:

---

dajo9 said:

---

oski003 said:

---

concordtom said:

---

Trump paid double to have it cover income taxes.
If Cohen didn't pay income taxes, then the IRS should go after him.
It doesn't clear trump of his crime

---

What does cover income taxes mean?

---

It means an employer pays more to make the employee whole on income taxes.

If Cohen was to make $180k then after taxes it would be $90k. So, to cover income taxes, Cohen can be paid $360k so he is made whole on the targeted $180k.

I have seen legitimate companies do this for legitimate reasons that were fully disclosed.

---

Okay, but do you have ANY proof that Trump was involved with how Cohen's payback was recorded on the records? Wasn't he president at this time? What proof did the prosecution offer here?

---

I don't know. I'm not prosecuting the case or sitting on the jury. I wouldn't presume to know better than them the facts of the case. Go play your look-over-there, game of distraction with somebody else.

---

Got it. You don't know much about this case. Just let Tom answer then.

---

You asked a question I know about from real world experience. I'll answer what I please.

concordtom said:

---

oski003 said:

---

The fact that he was president is further proof that he was not involved in the repayment of Cohen.

---

I'm sorry. But why on earth does him being President mean he wasn't involved???
You've said that twice now. It makes no sense to me.

Trump was involved in the sex (which his lawyers claimed didn't happen in opening statements and yet they provided ZERO defense of in the trial).
Trump was involved in the catch and kill scheme before the election, for the purpose of impacting the election.
Trump was involved in the payments Cohen made, as proved with the documents outlining Cohen's repayment and actual repayment with the checks.

I'll accept if you want to say Cohen is a liar and therefore Cohen took executive action to protect Trump by paying Stormy on his own (even though this totally would be the opposite of what they did with Karen McDougall). Unfortunately, Trump confirmed his agreement with the actions after the fact by repaying Cohen for them, and then hiding the repayment by approving the doubled-amount (an expensive bookkeeping disguise) and writing a series of checks that would mimic the disguise.

If you want to cut Trump every single possible reasonable doubt, go ahead. I mean, I know you will.
For me, the story matches up precisely who I have come to know his to be.
Did he think it all the way through in every last detail? No. He's an idiot. He just wanted it to go away, and DA Bragg found an applicable law to apply. Tough Titty for Team Trump.

Earlier in the day, I thought it was a disaster to hear that Cohen ripped off Trump with the Red Finch bill, and then not even paying income taxes on the total $420,000 amount. Well, actually, we don't yet know how Cohen handled the amounts with his IRS filings:

Quote:

---

At one point Cohen was asked by Blanche if he ever filed taxes for the $420,000 that Trump paid him, allegedly as reimbursement for $130,000 in hush money. The reimbursement is the centerpiece of the DA's case against Trump, because Cohen testified its purpose was to cover up the hush money payment in a phony legal retainer agreement using falsified business records.

An objection from a prosecutor, upheld by Judge Juan Merchan, derailed Blanche's line of questioning about taxes.

---

As the day wore on, I decided that Cohen is worse than I thought. But his Red Finch rip-off scheme did not ruin the case. There's too much back up and support for what happened. Guilty.

---

Madeleine Westerhout, Trump's personal secretary in the Oval Office, gave the defense team its biggest gift: She testified that Trump sometimes multitasked and that she had seen him sign a bunch of checks while on the phone or engaging in other activities.

The defense can easily argue that Trump was running the presidency in DC and no longer micromanaging what was going on in New York at the Trump Organization. If he signed checks put in front of him, they could have easily been part of a busy work pile to be FedExed back to the company with Trump barely paying attention. If so, there would have been no intent to falsify the business records. Without Weisselberg's testimony about what Trump knew or intended, the prosecution only has Cohen to rely upon. That might not be enough for a conviction.

Has there been direct evidence and an explicit case made by the prosecution for the "other felonies", which extends the SOL on the NY misdemeanors?

I read that the prosecutor claimed during the hearing to dismiss that the defendant does not have to be convicted of the felony, just show that he intended to commit the felony. If that is correct it seems highly probable this entire case is overturned on appeal and the underlying statutory structure is deemed to be un-Constitutional.

oski003 said:

---

concordtom said:

---

oski003 said:

---

The fact that he was president is further proof that he was not involved in the repayment of Cohen.

---

I'm sorry. But why on earth does him being President mean he wasn't involved???
You've said that twice now. It makes no sense to me.

Trump was involved in the sex (which his lawyers claimed didn't happen in opening statements and yet they provided ZERO defense of in the trial).
Trump was involved in the catch and kill scheme before the election, for the purpose of impacting the election.
Trump was involved in the payments Cohen made, as proved with the documents outlining Cohen's repayment and actual repayment with the checks.

I'll accept if you want to say Cohen is a liar and therefore Cohen took executive action to protect Trump by paying Stormy on his own (even though this totally would be the opposite of what they did with Karen McDougall). Unfortunately, Trump confirmed his agreement with the actions after the fact by repaying Cohen for them, and then hiding the repayment by approving the doubled-amount (an expensive bookkeeping disguise) and writing a series of checks that would mimic the disguise.

If you want to cut Trump every single possible reasonable doubt, go ahead. I mean, I know you will.
For me, the story matches up precisely who I have come to know his to be.
Did he think it all the way through in every last detail? No. He's an idiot. He just wanted it to go away, and DA Bragg found an applicable law to apply. Tough Titty for Team Trump.

Earlier in the day, I thought it was a disaster to hear that Cohen ripped off Trump with the Red Finch bill, and then not even paying income taxes on the total $420,000 amount. Well, actually, we don't yet know how Cohen handled the amounts with his IRS filings:

Quote:

---

At one point Cohen was asked by Blanche if he ever filed taxes for the $420,000 that Trump paid him, allegedly as reimbursement for $130,000 in hush money. The reimbursement is the centerpiece of the DA's case against Trump, because Cohen testified its purpose was to cover up the hush money payment in a phony legal retainer agreement using falsified business records.

An objection from a prosecutor, upheld by Judge Juan Merchan, derailed Blanche's line of questioning about taxes.

---

As the day wore on, I decided that Cohen is worse than I thought. But his Red Finch rip-off scheme did not ruin the case. There's too much back up and support for what happened. Guilty.

---

Madeleine Westerhout, Trump's personal secretary in the Oval Office, gave the defense team its biggest gift: She testified that Trump sometimes multitasked and that she had seen him sign a bunch of checks while on the phone or engaging in other activities.

The defense can easily argue that Trump was running the presidency in DC and no longer micromanaging what was going on in New York at the Trump Organization. If he signed checks put in front of him, they could have easily been part of a busy work pile to be FedExed back to the company with Trump barely paying attention. If so, there would have been no intent to falsify the business records. Without Weisselberg's testimony about what Trump knew or intended, the prosecution only has Cohen to rely upon. That might not be enough for a conviction.

---

Yes, that could be an argument in closing. I understand your point, and grant you that angle.

But it reminds me of the defense of a serial wife abuser accused of eventually shooting his wife: "I was cleaning my gun when she walked in on me and startled me." And the man's assistant, whose salary AND current lawyer are paid for by the man, said he was very busy on that day.

A jury, or you or I, each get to decide.
I find your rationalization to be weak. And if we were sitting on the jury together, we would be charged with one of us coming to the other's side. We'd have to debate it over and over and over until one of us budged. Here, we can just agree to disagree. Having followed the case as close as I could, I'm good with my position. And I'm also good with looking down my nose at yours, if indeed that's where you're going to leave it: "Trump was very busy as President and therefore mindlessly signed 12 monthly checks for $35,000 after engaging in the background for why they were to be signed. He was overly busy each and every day he signed the checks."




By the way, do you realize you're impeaching his executive ability? He's so busy multitasking that he isn't paying attention to what he's actually doing. Is that your defense? He just signs whatever people put under his nose? Some President.

I'm giving you the popcorn emoji, because you've given me some laughable theater. I would LOVE to be in that jury room as foreman to steer 11 others towards conviction. However, I'm equally sure when I met a dimwitted MAGA idiot committed to saving his ass I would lose my mind. There are simply too many of you. Subconscious bias is too much to overcome. And that's the sad commentary on mankind, unfortunately. We do ourselves in. But, this was known long ago, and this the invention of Jesus' salvation: "fear not, for I have overcome the world." Meaning, man cannot find salvation or righteousness here on earth, but do not give up hope, you can find it in Heaven.
Man must delude himself to come to terms with the madness we see over and over again.

….I digress, but maybe one person gets what I'm getting at.
I see it clearly.
"The arc of the moral universe is long, but it bends toward justice"
True, but the arc is longer than my lifetime, MLK's, or yours.
Maybe one day a millennium from now.

tequila4kapp said:

---

Has there been direct evidence and an explicit case made by the prosecution for the "other felonies", which extends the SOL on the NY misdemeanors?

I read that the prosecutor claimed during the hearing to dismiss that the defendant does not have to be convicted of the felony, just show that he intended to commit the felony. If that is correct it seems highly probable this entire case is overturned on appeal and the underlying statutory structure is deemed to be un-Constitutional.

---

You're making a bit of word salad referring to multiple things in generalization for me to follow. What hearing? You read what, where? I'm not a lawyer so I wouldn't be able to make heads or tails of what you wrote here.
You require the law Must have been applied in a similar way previously for it to be valid? I disagree. There's always a first.

Anything is possible with Trump's hand picked Court influence. Sure, the right people can overturn on appeal. Doesn't mean it's right.

Here's what you need to decide about the case, for our purposes:

Is Trump the kind of guy you wish to be president?
Me: no. He's a liar, a cheater, an idiot, he serves himself and not the country. He's reckless, dangerous, ungrounded morally and ethically. He's an incredibly strong icon for dimwits to follow, which can be great. But with someone so rooted in horrible character traits and values, it makes him an incredibly DANGEROUS man. And we've seen this before in history.

Stay away!

Biden may be aged and beyond the recommended shelf life (indeed, he is). But trump as the alternative? Only a fool goes there.

oski003 said:

---

Impeaching his executive ability is completely irrelevant to this case. Your subconscious bias is what is turning this from an actual objective court case to you judging the facts based on your opinion of his character. There is a ton of evidence indicating that Trump may have not been aware of the accounting of these checks. The prosecution needs to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Trump committed a felony. They failed to do so.

---

Impeaching his executive ability was a sidebar, just to show you the argument you've made. Intended for laughter, not to prove his guilt. It was an "extra" for you.

I previously provided my objective court case rationale. You didn't agree. Fine. I agreed to disagree. Your assertion that I didn't prove anything is merely your assertion.

You said "there is a ton of evidence indicating that Trump may have not been aware of the accounting of these checks."

Great! Let's hear it!
Oh, wait. The Defense just rested after putting on 1 witness who had to have the courtroom cleared by the judge because he was trying to get a mistrial declared.
Too bad Trump didn't simply take the chair and explain it all for us. I would love to have heard all that evidence you speak of. So far, all I heard you say is that his paid-for Secretary in accounting testified that he was very adept at "multitasking". Uh huh. Gee, that's Soooo compelling!!!

Mind you, I'm fully prepared emotionally for a hung jury. There's gotta be one of you MAGA freaks up there. Or, someone who was delivered a horse head, or a million dollars. Bearister has been quite clear about jury tampering. I believe it.

And, we all saw what OJ's jury did.
Pffft.

And yes, I know that when the locked jury verdict returns, you'll crow complete innocence. Go on, do your thing.

concordtom said:

---

oski003 said:

---

Impeaching his executive ability is completely irrelevant to this case. Your subconscious bias is what is turning this from an actual objective court case to you judging the facts based on your opinion of his character. There is a ton of evidence indicating that Trump may have not been aware of the accounting of these checks. The prosecution needs to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Trump committed a felony. They failed to do so.

---

Impeaching his executive ability was a sidebar, just to show you the argument you've made. Intended for laughter, not to prove his guilt. It was an "extra" for you.

I previously provided my objective court case rationale. You didn't agree. Fine. I agreed to disagree. Your assertion that I didn't prove anything is merely your assertion.

You said "there is a ton of evidence indicating that Trump may have not been aware of the accounting of these checks."

Great! Let's hear it!
Oh, wait. The Defense just rested after putting on 1 witness who had to have the courtroom cleared by the judge because he was trying to get a mistrial declared.
Too bad Trump didn't simply take the chair and explain it all for us. I would love to have heard all that evidence you speak of. So far, all I heard you say is that his paid-for Secretary in accounting testified that he was very adept at "multitasking". Uh huh. Gee, that's Soooo compelling!!!

Mind you, I'm fully prepared emotionally for a hung jury. There's gotta be one of you MAGA freaks up there. Or, someone who was delivered a horse head, or a million dollars. Bearister has been quite clear about jury tampering. I believe it.

And, we all saw what OJ's jury did.
Pffft.

And yes, I know that when the locked jury verdict returns, you'll crow complete innocence. Go on, do your thing.

---

The evidence came out during the crosses of the prosecutions witnesses because their testimony was weak. That is why they spent so much time on irrelevant character assassination by putting Stormy on the stand when they should have been focusing on the actual alleged crime, which is falsifying records.

Eric, Eric, it's embarrassing or incredibly stupid to use a Charlie Kirk video to lie to your followers. This is a video of Biden's April visit to New York...you've never been one of the brightest. pic.twitter.com/0J2ONq6e5v

— Dutchy Patrick (@DutchyPatrick) May 21, 2024

Guessing who was too much of a chicken to testify in his trial, again. #chickentrump pic.twitter.com/dE4VgOKYqB

— Sgt Joker (@TheSGTJoker) May 21, 2024

concordtom said:

---

tequila4kapp said:

---

Has there been direct evidence and an explicit case made by the prosecution for the "other felonies", which extends the SOL on the NY misdemeanors?

I read that the prosecutor claimed during the hearing to dismiss that the defendant does not have to be convicted of the felony, just show that he intended to commit the felony. If that is correct it seems highly probable this entire case is overturned on appeal and the underlying statutory structure is deemed to be un-Constitutional.

---

You're making a bit of word salad referring to multiple things in generalization for me to follow. What hearing? You read what, where? I'm not a lawyer so I wouldn't be able to make heads or tails of what you wrote here.
You require the law Must have been applied in a similar way previously for it to be valid? I disagree. There's always a first.

Anything is possible with Trump's hand picked Court influence. Sure, the right people can overturn on appeal. Doesn't mean it's right.

Here's what you need to decide about the case, for our purposes:

Is Trump the kind of guy you wish to be president?
Me: no. He's a liar, a cheater, an idiot, he serves himself and not the country. He's reckless, dangerous, ungrounded morally and ethically. He's an incredibly strong icon for dimwits to follow, which can be great. But with someone so rooted in horrible character traits and values, it makes him an incredibly DANGEROUS man. And we've seen this before in history.

Stay away!

Biden may be aged and beyond the recommended shelf life (indeed, he is). But trump as the alternative? Only a fool goes there.

---

I am at a disadvantage because I have an incredibly difficult time finding the actual pleadings and rulings in this case. As such, I'm forced to rely on news and other sources instead of reading the primary sources myself, which I normally do.

The entire NY criminal case is structured as follows:
- Trump violated NY misdemeanors
- The statute of limitation (SOL) on those misdemeanors has run (ie, he can't be charged with those crimes under normal circumstances)
- The state is able to extend the misdemeanor SOL's via a NY statutory provision that allows for a defendant to be charged with felonies (longer statute of limitations) if the underlying misdemeanor was done with "the intent" to commit (my words, not necessarily literally correct) another felony.

Pause. I believe another poster has said the above construct is wrong, that NY extended the SOLs due to Covid. I have never seen anything to that effect on the interweb so I'm suspect.

Pause again to consider things normal Constitutional things like the 6th amendment and due process. In short, defendants must be notified of charges; assorted procedural and substantive elements of fairness must be followed.

In this case the defendant has never formally been told what that extra felony is that allows him to be charged. The implication is the felony is either FEC violation, a state election law violation or another one that I cannot remember. But we - and more importantly - the defendant does not know. Generally, this screams Due Process and 6th Amendment issues that could / should lead to appellate reversal.

On top of the notification implication I see a substantive issue with this idea that "intent" to commit another felony is enough to extend the SOL for the misdemeanor and transform the misdemeanor into a felony (this goes to my earlier post that the prosecutor argued the defendant didn't have to be convicted of that other felony, just that he had to act with intent to commit one. I believe that was a pre-trial motion, probably to dismiss). Does the 'extra' felony that allows the SOL to be extended have such a thing as "intent to commit (name of felony")?

So a defendant has to defend against his "intent" to commit some other felony that he is never notified of? This is a crazy statutory construction, so massively unfair to a defendant that I really question if it is Constitutional.

There are real implications here. The defense has a strategic decision to make about seeking jury instructions allowing the jury to convict Trump of lesser included offenses - the original misdemeanors. Think about that for a second. His attorneys may have to enable to the jury to convict Trump of the misdemeanors he cannot be charged with independent of the felonies the jury would decide he didn't commit. This is lunacy.

Put your hatred of Trump aside for a minute. THIS IS NOT ABOUT TRUMP. This goes to the whole MLK "Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere" concept. If one rogue DA can do this to a particular defendant the next rogue prosecutor can do it to someone else...you know, like you or me.