Cohen fell flat

[gatomontes99]

CNN via MSN

 

The best he could come up with is his own word that Trump wanted it done before the election. There was no documentation. Cohen was convicted of perjury before. His word isn't goong to be enough.

Plus, no one has (of yet) listed the federal law or regulation that has been violated or proven that any law was violated.

I really hope the defense calls the investigators for the FEC, DOJ, and previous NY AG tonask them why they didn't bring charges. That would be a hoot.

Edited May 14, 2024 by gatomontes99

[Rebound]

“We didn’t bring federal charges cause he said he’d fire us if we did”

[CdnFox]

Yeah it was underwhelming but honestly that was to  be expected. 

He kind of shot the case in the foot too going on about how mad he was at his xmas bonus that year. First off it gives him motive to torpedo trump and second off it raises the question why would trump stiff a guy who just did something illegal for him?

They really needed that to go better. Even if this judge makes a bad call this will be going down on appeal. 

[robosmith]

4 hours ago, gatomontes99 said:

CNN via MSN

 

The best he could come up with is his own word that Trump wanted it done before the election. There was no documentation. Cohen was convicted of perjury before. His word isn't goong to be enough.

You're wrong. Hope Hicks (among others) also testified about the importance to Trump of paying off Daniels before the election. They tried to delay the payoff, but Daniels knew her story would be worthless after the election. Duh

4 hours ago, gatomontes99 said:

Plus, no one has (of yet) listed the federal law or regulation that has been violated or proven that any law was violated.

In REALITY, Trump is being prosecuted under NY state law.

4 hours ago, gatomontes99 said:

I really hope the defense calls the investigators for the FEC, DOJ, and previous NY AG tonask them why they didn't bring charges. That would be a hoot.

Barr fired SDNY DAG Berman before he could bring charges.

IOW, you know NOTHING about the history of this case.

[User]

14 minutes ago, robosmith said:

You're wrong. Hope Hicks (among others) also testified about the importance to Trump of paying off Daniels before the election. They tried to delay the payoff, but Daniels knew her story would be worthless after the election. Duh

She testified Trump was most concerned about protecting his wife. 

Seriously, this whole case is an absurdity. 

[CdnFox]

29 minutes ago, User said:

She testified Trump was most concerned about protecting his wife. 

Seriously, this whole case is an absurdity. 

This is the thing. At the end of the day the payoff is not illegal at all. The only thing that makes it illegal, and I use that word sparingly, is if it was an election expense and he didn't declare it. You know, like Obama and Hillary didn't declare expenses and got into trouble  

And if he can argue that the reason he was paying her off was to keep it from his wife then there's no crime here. And the fact that she was pushing for it at that time believing that the election was what made it have monetary value Allows him to argue that it wasn't him, he would have paid the same amount at any time but she was pushing for it right then

This case just is not strong.

[Nationalist]

There is no case here. This is a hail Mary to keep Trump off the campaign trail and hope New Yorkers will ignore the law and convict.

Garland, Bragg and Juan Merchan should face charges after this for trying to warp the legal system and costing the taxpayers.

[gatomontes99]

11 hours ago, robosmith said:

1. You're wrong. Hope Hicks (among others) also testified about the importance to Trump of paying off Daniels before the election. They tried to delay the payoff, but Daniels knew her story would be worthless after the election. Duh

2. In REALITY, Trump is being prosecuted under NY state law.

3. Barr fired SDNY DAG Berman before he could bring charges.

IOW, you know NOTHING about the history of this case.

You failed miserably.

1. Hope Hicks said: "He liked to call himself 'Fixer' or 'Mr Fix-it'," Hicks said. "And it was only because he first broke it."

She did not say the Stormy Daniels story was important to the campaign. She did say the Karen McDougal story in the Wallstreet Journal was something they tried to delay. However, that story isn't relevant to this case  Deadline.com

2. No, they bundled laws from NY, that have all had the statute of limitations run, into some unnamed federal election law/regulation to bypass the NY statute of limitations. Washington Examiner

3. Dude quit: PBS

You lied shorty.

Edited May 14, 2024 by gatomontes99

[WestCanMan]

4 hours ago, gatomontes99 said:

No, they bundled laws from NY, that have all had the statute of limitations run, into some unnamed federal election law/regulation to bypass the NY statute of limitations. Washington Examiner

I don't even understand where they get off thinking this was a legitimate case.

• "We, The State of New York, are ignoring our own state legislation, and acting as federal prosecutors, to try Donald Trump for something that we can't really identify as a specific crime, and which has passed the statute of limitations for all of our own nearly applicable laws. We are hoping to set a precedent for other states to use nearly applicable laws from the federal gov't and relatively nearby states to indict people that they don't like in the future."

[WestCanMan]

Ricky, Julian, Hunter, and Bubbles. 

Honestly, doesn't he just fit like an old shoe? That would be a GREAT episode. Possibly even the greatest cinematic masterpiece of all time. 

Just replace the obelisk with an aging double-wide, and the bone with a crackpipe. 

[gatomontes99]

47 minutes ago, WestCanMan said:

I don't even understand where they get off thinking this was a legitimate case.

• "We, The State of New York, are ignoring our own state legislation, and acting as federal prosecutors, to try Donald Trump for something that we can't really identify as a specific crime, and which has passed the statute of limitations for all of our own nearly applicable laws. We are hoping to set a precedent for other states to use nearly applicable laws from the federal gov't and relatively nearby states to indict people that they don't like in the future."

You were being both sarcastic and 100% accurate at the same time.

[robosmith]

6 hours ago, gatomontes99 said:

You failed miserably.

1. Hope Hicks said: "He liked to call himself 'Fixer' or 'Mr Fix-it'," Hicks said. "And it was only because he first broke it."

She did not say the Stormy Daniels story was important to the campaign. She did say the Karen McDougal story in the Wallstreet Journal was something they tried to delay. However, that story isn't relevant to this case  Deadline.com

2. No, they bundled laws from NY, that have all had the statute of limitations run, into some unnamed federal election law/regulation to bypass the NY statute of limitations. Washington Examiner

3. Dude quit: PBS

You lied shorty.

You're the one who's pretending to be an expert on this case and FAILING MISERABLY.

Quote

The law — Section 17-152 of the state’s election code — makes it a misdemeanor for two or more people to “conspire to promote or prevent the election of any person to a public office by unlawful means.” Trump is not being charged under that statute, which apparently has been used only a few times in cases related to state or local elections, though it is a key factor in his case.

 

The former president faces 34 felony counts of falsifying business records to cover up $130,000 paid to adult film actress Stormy Daniels to keep her allegations of a sexual affair hidden from voters. If convicted, Trump could face up to four years in prison.

 

In bringing the felony charges, prosecutors are required to prove not just that Trump doctored records, but that he did so to commit or conceal another crime. The underlying crime that motivated Trump’s alleged misconduct, prosecutors said in court, was a conspiracy to defraud voters in his presidential campaign.

Next time CITE an EXPERT if you want to be believed.

 

[Rebound]

2 hours ago, WestCanMan said:

I don't even understand where they get off thinking this was a legitimate case.

• "We, The State of New York, are ignoring our own state legislation, and acting as federal prosecutors, to try Donald Trump for something that we can't really identify as a specific crime, and which has passed the statute of limitations for all of our own nearly applicable laws. We are hoping to set a precedent for other states to use nearly applicable laws from the federal gov't and relatively nearby states to indict people that they don't like in the future."

None of those arguments has persuaded any court of law. 

[WestCanMan]

47 minutes ago, Rebound said:

None of those arguments has persuaded any court of law. 

Nor has "This isn't a crime here, but we'll try to convict someone on federal charges from our local court, based on the verbal testimony of a convicted felon/perjurer and a porn star with a vendetta".

This is a kangaroo court in a clown car driven by no less than Judge Bobo himself. 

[gatomontes99]

2 hours ago, robosmith said:

You're the one who's pretending to be an expert on this case and FAILING MISERABLY.

Next time CITE an EXPERT if you want to be believed.

 

That is the state's election code. But the state statute of limitations has run. In order for the prosecution to bypass the statute of limitations, they have alleged that the crimes were in furtherance of a federal crime. If they were not in the furtherance of a federal crime, they can't be prosecuted. So what is that federal crime? You can deflect all you want, shorty. You have to address the issue at some point. Or you can just run away again.

[robosmith]

4 minutes ago, gatomontes99 said:

That is the state's election code. But the state statute of limitations has run. In order for the prosecution to bypass the statute of limitations, they have alleged that the crimes were in furtherance of a federal crime. If they were not in the furtherance of a federal crime, they can't be prosecuted. So what is that federal crime? You can deflect all you want, shorty. You have to address the issue at some point. Or you can just run away again.

YOUR AMATEUR ^OPINION means nothing. 

You have to address the issue by citing an AUTHORITY at some point. Or you can just run away again.

You are hanging your hat on a PERSONAL OPINION that could have easily been cited by the defense to quash the entire trial, BUT IT HAS NOT BEEN. Try again.

[gatomontes99]

15 minutes ago, robosmith said:

YOUR AMATEUR ^OPINION means nothing. 

You have to address the issue by citing an AUTHORITY at some point. Or you can just run away again.

You are hanging your hat on a PERSONAL OPINION that could have easily been cited by the defense to quash the entire trial, BUT IT HAS NOT BEEN. Try again.

Funny how you couldn't prove me wrong. Why is that? Well, you double insisted. Now, shorty, you get smacked down:

Quote

 

Second, in order for the business records misdemeanor to be bumped up to a Class E felony under Section 175.10, “his intent to defraud includes an intent to commit another crime or to aid or conceal the commission thereof.”  So, in addition to proving that the business records were falsified to “defraud” someone, the District Attorney must show that Trump falsified the records to commit “another crime” separate from the fraud.

Judge Marshan allowed the District Attorney to proceed with the criminal prosecution without detailing exactly what the “fraud” or “other crime” was.  The District Attorney merely suggested that Trump may have committed state tax fraud, or violated the federal election laws, or violated New York election laws, but was not required to spell out the violations, or to pick which of them applied to each of the two separate crimes that must be proven under Section 175.10.

https://law.syracuse.edu/news/proferssor-gregory-germain-writes-the-manhattan-district-attorneys-convoluted-legal-case-against-donald-trump-gets-more-convoluted/

 

There it is, shorty. A professor of law, in NY, is saying that the judge allowed the proceeding to continue without allowing the defense to know what the crime was. That crime, of yet, has not been revealed. The star witness did not detail any federal crime that was violated or intended to be violated. All they have proven is that an NDA was signed. That was known before the trial. That was known by the previous D.A. that resigned. That was known by the FEC. That was known by the DOJ. And they all had one thing in common, they all determined there was no crime here.

Your Banana Republic is crumbling. Joe Biden is the most corrupt President and the worst President, in the history of the United States. And the voters are going to throw his sorry butt out. I only hope he lives long enough to be prosecuted for the b.s. And let's throw Garland, Bragg, Fanny and Jack in that same cell with him. This b.s. has to stop. This is America and we do NOT do this.

Edited May 14, 2024 by gatomontes99

[robosmith]

6 minutes ago, gatomontes99 said:

Funny how you couldn't prove me wrong. Why is that? Well, you double insisted. Now, shorty, you get smacked down:

There it is, shorty. A professor of law, in NY, is saying that the judge allowed the proceeding to continue without allowing the defense to know what the crime was. That crime, of yet, has not been revealed. The star witness did not detail any federal crime that was violated or intended to be violated. All they have proven is that an NDA was signed. That was known before the trial. That was known by the previous D.A. that resigned. That was known by the FEC. That was known by the DOJ. And they all had one thing in common, they all determined there was no crime here.

Your Banana Republic is crumbling. Joe Biden is the most corrupt President and the worst President, in the history of the United States. And the voters are going to throw his sorry butt out. I only hope he lives long enough to be prosecuted for the b.s. And let's throw Garland, Bragg, Fanny and Jack in that same cell with him. This b.s. has to stop. This is America and we do NOT do this.

Your cite doesn't say the "other crime" must be a Federal crime, nor specified in the indictment.

From your cite:

Quote

Trump may have committed state tax fraud, or violated the federal election laws, or violated New York election laws, but was not required to spell out the violations, or to pick which of them applied to each of the two separate crimes 

The FACT is Bragg has revealed the state crime, which need not be CONVICTED in advance according to NY state law. 

IOW, there was NO REASON to dismiss the case prior to the evidence being heard, which is why IT WAS NOT.

It is a decision for the JURY to decide if the requirements of the VIOLATION have been proven. Duh.

Another FACT is you're unqualified to interpret the Prof's legal arguments and Judge Merchan is FULLY QUALIFIED.

[gatomontes99]

3 minutes ago, robosmith said:

Your cite doesn't say the "other crime" must be a Federal crime, nor specified in the indictment.

From your cite:

The FACT is Bragg has revealed the state crime, which need not be CONVICTED in advance according to NY state law. 

IOW, there was NO REASON to dismiss the case prior to the evidence being heard, which is why IT WAS NOT.

It is a decision for the JURY to decide if the requirements of the VIOLATION have been proven. Duh.

Another FACT is you're unqualified to interpret the Prof's legal arguments and Judge Merchan is FULLY QUALIFIED.

He has not revealed a crime in which the statite of limitations has not run. So it must be in the further ancestors of a federal election crime. But he hasn't said what crime.

Further, he hasn't proven that anyone was defrauded. Nor has he proven that a crime was committed. Certainly, signing an NDA is not a crime. Nor is paying the NDA.

Your fantasy world is crumbling shorty. What are you going to do?

[taxme]

21 hours ago, gatomontes99 said:

CNN via MSN

 

The best he could come up with is his own word that Trump wanted it done before the election. There was no documentation. Cohen was convicted of perjury before. His word isn't goong to be enough.

Plus, no one has (of yet) listed the federal law or regulation that has been violated or proven that any law was violated.

I really hope the defense calls the investigators for the FEC, DOJ, and previous NY AG tonask them why they didn't bring charges. That would be a hoot.

The prosecutor has a liar(Cohen)and a hooker(Stormy)as their witnesses. What a defense, eh? 🤣

[taxme]

15 hours ago, CdnFox said:

This is the thing. At the end of the day the payoff is not illegal at all. The only thing that makes it illegal, and I use that word sparingly, is if it was an election expense and he didn't declare it. You know, like Obama and Hillary didn't declare expenses and got into trouble  

And if he can argue that the reason he was paying her off was to keep it from his wife then there's no crime here. And the fact that she was pushing for it at that time believing that the election was what made it have monetary value Allows him to argue that it wasn't him, he would have paid the same amount at any time but she was pushing for it right then

This case just is not strong.

The whole trial is illegal. The Marxist demoncrats are trying their hardest to try and nail Trump to the cross on something, but so far, nothing has worked for the sick demonrat liars and psychos. I hope that when Trump becomes the next President, he will go after those Marxists traitorous bastards. 🤞

[taxme]

10 hours ago, Nationalist said:

There is no case here. This is a hail Mary to keep Trump off the campaign trail and hope New Yorkers will ignore the law and convict.

Garland, Bragg and Juan Merchan should face charges after this for trying to warp the legal system and costing the taxpayers.

The prosecutor has a liar(Cohen)and a hooker(Stormy)as their witnesses. How can the procecution lose their case? LOL. 

Trump needs to arrest Garland, Bragg and Merchan. They have all become Marxist Traitors to America. Just saying. 😁

[Fluffypants]

5 minutes ago, taxme said:

The prosecutor has a liar(Cohen)and a hooker(Stormy)as their witnesses. How can the procecution lose their case? LOL. 

Trump needs to arrest Garland, Bragg and Merchan. They have all become Marxist Traitors to America. Just saying. 😁

If Trump wins you are going to see spike in the search engine queries for "which countries don't have an extradition agreement with the US" coming out of Washington DC and New York.

[taxme]

3 minutes ago, Fluffypants said:

If Trump wins you are going to see spike in the search engine queries for "which countries don't have an extradition agreement with the US" coming out of Washington DC and New York.

It is for certain that the Zionists ones will be running off to Israel. It seems strange that one of Americas supposedly best friends in the Middle East does not have an extradition treaty with Israel? Is there something wrong with this picture? You tell me? 😇

[CdnFox]

1 hour ago, taxme said:

The whole trial is illegal. The Marxist demoncrats are trying their hardest to try and nail Trump to the cross on something, but so far, nothing has worked for the sick demonrat liars and psychos.

Trials aren't illegal. As the saying goes you can sue someone for eating a ham sandwich. Doesn't mean you'll win but that's why we have courts. 

It is pretty clear that the dems and their supporters have been blatantly engaged in what is called "punishment by process", where the goal is for the process to punish the "defendant" whether they're guilty or not.  But that's not really illegal, it's just beyond scummy and very banana republic. 

 

Quote

I hope that when Trump becomes the next President, he will go after those Marxists traitorous bastards. 🤞

And nobody but the dems will blame him if he does. He let hillary of the hook and now he looks like a dufus for it - i suspect he'll be out for blood. We'll see how far he gets with that, the system is pretty riddled with lefties and there's only 4 years. 

But he might do some real damage which is why nobody before has ever picked this kind of fight.  It very quickly becomes tit for tat and the courts get weaponized against political oppoents.  AND the political parties become very very invested in making sure that only judges that do what they're told get put in place (more so than now even) and everyone loses faith in the gov't, in the courts, and pretty soon the country falls apart.