Candidate TRUMP Now Has Crazy Judge JUAN MERCHAN After Him - The Stormy Daniels Hush-Money Case.

a reply to: WeMustCare

He is not candidate Trump. He is former President Trump. This is complete BS. The entire thing. In the media, I have yet to hear anything about GL entries. That is what this case is about. Not hush-money. Not election interference.

ACCOUNTING!

None of the other information should be entered by the Prosecution. What does a pay off to someone other than Stormy have to do with a bad GL entry.

He will be convicted based on stories the judge is allowing and not based on the case and the SDNY knows that.

a reply to: matafuchs

Intentional election interference in an attempt to damage CANDIDATE Trump.

a reply to: WeMustCare

Yes, causing election interference to candidate Trump. The media is playing this case as election interference in 2016.

There was no reason to call Peck to the stand .This is not a conspiracy to defraud trial. Every piece of the indictment is about finances and ledger entries. It is not illegal to pay someone for services they say they provided.

On CNN right now they are saying 'the fact the payment was made' is not in question, it is the why?

That is not what is on trial..

a reply to: matafuchs

It is to try to cover it up as "legal fees".

But, you knew that.

a reply to: Oldcarpy2

That is not in the indictment. That is my point. There is not even an issue with how it was recorded.

If you had an employee, and they put in expenses, you would pay them. Now, if those expenses were for strip clubs and blow disguised as business expenses are you at fault for what it was spent on?

No. They even grossed up the checks to make sure taxes were taken out.

What you said is exactly what is occurring. You think this is about a coverup of fees it is not according to the indictment, but, you knew that.

a reply to: matafuchs

"False accounting"?

a reply to: matafuchs

Falsifying business records. Etc.

www.politifact.com...


Now, I think this is a bit of a witch hunt and the indictment is 'interesting" but don't play dumb.

Your comparison is otiose.

Which is legal speak for...well, go figure.

a reply to: Oldcarpy2

I am not. also, for the record, Politifact is tied to the Tampa Bay Times which is one of the most left wing papers on the planet so no, I am not going to take anything they say.

Yes. the indictment says "FALSIFYING BUSINESS RECORDS IN THE FIRST DEGREE", but nothing is actually falsified. This is like the other case. He paid back loans and was fined 500 million. He paid back (I mean everyone talks about how he does not pay his bills especially to vendors) something that was submitted as an expense as an employee.

How is that falsifying a business record? 34 counts of the SAME THINGS to make it look like so many more and that it is so vile. The NY AG should be ashamed.

Furthermore, Donald Trump does not do the journal entry or the invoicing and since Cohen was an employee at the time he was paid from the Trump Org. We know this because it has been testified in court.

a reply to: matafuchs

You have seen the indictment.

Suggest you apply to join Trump's legal team rather than bugging me.

I'm not the prosecutor, and you are just repeating yourself.

I'm just watching on out of morbid curiosity.

Why keep asking me about your otiose and rhetorical agenda driven questions?

originally posted by: matafuchs
Yes. the indictment says "FALSIFYING BUSINESS RECORDS IN THE FIRST DEGREE", but nothing is actually falsified.

.. and that all goes back to the claim that the payment to the porn star was a 'campaign contribution'. It clearly wasn't. The false ruling on that is what everything hinges on. It's a house of cards.

I don't like Trump. He's crass and bloviating and scummy. But what the left has done is nothing short of weaponizing the legal system and engaging in voter interference. And they are getting away with it.

a reply to: FlyersFan

Contrary to popular opinion, I happen to agree with you.

I just like to point out legal stuff for the sake of accuracy.

Which seems to upset some peeps.

a reply to: Oldcarpy2

Sorry, I was just responding to your posts. All good.

PS - I hope I am not the one you think is 'upset'. I have said time and again, show me a real crime and lock his ass up They haven't and won't but he will be convicted in NY unless there is a hung jury.

a reply to: matafuchs

No worries. No, not you.

originally posted by: Oldcarpy2
a reply to: FlyersFan

Contrary to popular opinion, I happen to agree with you.

I just like to point out legal stuff for the sake of accuracy.

Which seems to upset some peeps.

Just reminds me of the “Teflon Dons”.

You know they’ve committed illegal acts — but manage to slip past being caught.

Until . . . Some minor crime nails them.

a reply to: Annee

Al Capone was done for tax evasion. Just saying....

originally posted by: Oldcarpy2
a reply to: Annee

Al Capone was done for tax evasion. Just saying....

Exactly. He made himself a target.

His own fault really.

And someone went digging.

originally posted by: matafuchs
a reply to: WeMustCare

Yes, causing election interference to candidate Trump. The media is playing this case as election interference in 2016.

There was no reason to call Peck to the stand .This is not a conspiracy to defraud trial. Every piece of the indictment is about finances and ledger entries. It is not illegal to pay someone for services they say they provided.

On CNN right now they are saying 'the fact the payment was made' is not in question, it is the why?

That is not what is on trial..

They didn't "dig" to find out why Obama was doing shady things with his election campaign funds. The Government merely fined him $375,000, and everyone went on about their business.

Putting Pecker on the stand first was smart and he was a very good opening witness for the prosecution. What Pecker established, in his own words, was that he and Trump had an agreement that he would work for him in furtherance of his campaign. They agreed to do what they did to make sure it helps his candidacy.

That's what this witness established.

Another future witness, probably Cohen, will then establish a financial paper trail, how the payments were made, trace the money through accounts and so on. But all of that will be just evidence supporting the master plan, manipulation of media in order to benefit a campaign in a federal election.

a reply to: Mahogani

All of which, can't prove Trump committed the "alleged" crimes. 😀

It's like they're "trying" a different case that doesn't exist 🤓

They can "try" whatever they want to but the jury has to buy it all.

The cries of this being political ended when this went to a jury. From that point on it all weighs on what you can or cannot prove to a jury picked by both sides.