NY - Ex-President Donald Trump, charged with 34 criminal counts of falsifying business records, Apr 2023, Trial 25 Mar 2024 #2

[SouthAussie]

If your hypothetical printer then bills the campaign and gets paid, it wasn't a donation, right?

Another hypothetical leading to one felony indictment under these NY/FEC law?:

Some pundit mocks trumps hair before the election. A stylist makes trump a new wig for his last tv appearance before the election. The wig fools some voters into thinking trump hasnt lost his hair.

A lawyer draws up a NDA with the stylist regarding trump follicular activity and pays him $3000 over and above the fair market value of a tangerine toupee. Lawyer has previously discussed with other advisors an overall scheme to conceal trumps physical ugliness from the voters.

Lawyer pays stylist at time of service and bills trump after election. Some one enters the repayment transaction in the business records as anything except "hush money and one orange-ish wig".

DT's 34 charges are for falsifying business records.
The repayments were put through as legal expenses.
Michael Cohen did no legal work for him that year, and there was no retainer agreement.

The felony comes about (probably, it hasn't been stated at the moment) because the business records were falsified to cover up hush money payments ... pre-election.


Former federal prosecutor Shan Wu:
"If it turns out that the other crime we're talking about - which they don't have to prove; it just has to be the intent to cover it up - is the federal campaign violation, which Michael Cohen had pled guilty to"
"There's nothing novel about it being a felony. That happens all the time with the falsification charge."
"For the defense, my biggest worry would be this is not a hard case for the jury to understand - very easy to present. It's a man who wanted to buy silence. That would worry me some 'cause it's easy for the jury to get."

https://www.npr.org/2023/04/05/1168116105/trump-faces-34-felony-counts-of-falsifying-business-records-to-cover-damaging-in

 

[mooseandcoffee]

I don't think that DA Bragg's will turn a misdemeanor into a felony and then turn it back into a misdemeanor. JM

In Trump's case, the DA has found additional evidence that takes the misdemeanor to a felony. I don't believe he will offer Trump any kind of deal because Trump would have to admit his guilt. Trump is still sticking to his witch hunt rhetoric.

Sorry, that last comment of mine was meant to be sarcasm. I shouldn't have even included it in my post.

 

[Vern]

If your hypothetical printer then bills the campaign and gets paid, it wasn't a donation, right?

Another hypothetical leading to one felony indictment under these NY/FEC law?:

Some pundit mocks trumps hair before the election. A stylist makes trump a new wig for his last tv appearance before the election. The wig fools some voters into thinking trump hasnt lost his hair.

A lawyer draws up a NDA with the stylist regarding trump follicular activity and pays him $3000 over and above the fair market value of a tangerine toupee. Lawyer has previously discussed with other advisors an overall scheme to conceal trumps physical ugliness from the voters.

Lawyer pays stylist at time of service and bills trump after election. Some one enters the repayment transaction in the business records as anything except "hush money and one orange-ish wig".

Except that Trump wrote the cheque and signed it from his account else the campaign would be the one's reimbursing.

Here's an image of one of the cheques in this article.

In the Middle of His Official Business, Trump Took the Time to Send Checks to Michael Cohen (Published 2019)

The dates on newly available checks shed light on the parallel lives Mr. Trump was living — at once managing affairs of state while quietly paying the price of keeping his personal secrets.

www.nytimes.com

Remember the actual audio recording of Trump and Cohen discussing this 'hushing' sceme and Trump suggested using cash? Bet he wishes he'd have stuck with that instinct now (which was probably also the same statement that made Cohen go, "Hmmmm, I'd better keep proof of this so I'm not his fall guy" (IMO).

 

[smeck]

<modsnip> ... if the case has no merit, and no laws were broken, Trump has nothing to worry about…

The narrative which implies the charges, even if true, don’t merit accountability, is simply stupid.

Anyway.. we will leave a lot in the weeks and months ahead..

This is not a weak case.. a grand jury decided to indict based on the witness testimony and evidence..

..and remember, this is the least severe of all the ongoing investigations he’s dealing with..

More charges lie ahead

 

[Smelly Squirrel]

This is an analysis by a former Manhattan assistant DA, and she says this is a typical kind of case that this office handles and that it would be wrong not to prosecute it.

Opinion | We Finally Know the Case Against Trump, and It Is Strong

There’s nothing novel or weak about Alvin Bragg’s case.

web.archive.org

 

[GRT]

DT's 34 charges are for falsifying business records.
The repayments were put through as legal expenses.
Michael Cohen did no legal work for him that year, and there was no retainer agreement.

The felony comes about (probably, it hasn't been stated at the moment) because the business records were falsified to cover up hush money payments ... pre-election.


Former federal prosecutor Shan Wu:
"If it turns out that the other crime we're talking about - which they don't have to prove; it just has to be the intent to cover it up - is the federal campaign violation, which Michael Cohen had pled guilty to"
"There's nothing novel about it being a felony. That happens all the time with the falsification charge."
"For the defense, my biggest worry would be this is not a hard case for the jury to understand - very easy to present. It's a man who wanted to buy silence. That would worry me some 'cause it's easy for the jury to get."

https://www.npr.org/2023/04/05/1168116105/trump-faces-34-felony-counts-of-falsifying-business-records-to-cover-damaging-in

The problem is -- your timeline is off.

The hush money payment was made pre-election. The amount was not entered into the records until Cohen was reimbursed, and that was the following year.

2017​

January: Cohen seeks reimbursement from the Trump Organization for $180,035 — $130,000 for the payment to Daniels, plus a wiring fee and an extra $50,000. Trump Organization executives double the reimbursement to $360,000 and add another $60,000, for a total of $420,000 to be paid in monthly installments for 12 months.

Cohen sends invoices for $35,000 per month and receives $420,000 from the company over the course of the year.

Jan. 20: Trump is sworn in as the 45th president of the United States.

Timeline: Donald Trump, Stormy Daniels and the $130,000 payment to buy her silence

The case against former President Donald Trump stems from a "hush money" payment of $130,000 to adult film star Stormy Daniels in 2016.

www.cbsnews.com

 

[smeck]

The case isn’t going to be dismissed, it’s not going to be moved out of its current district, and the judge will not be removed. There will be a trial and, a jury will decide whether he’s guilty or innocent based on the evidence…end of story. IMO only

 

[GRT]

Having a debate at this point is a waste of energy.. if the case has no merit, and no laws were broken, Trump has nothing to worry about…

The narrative which implies the charges, even if true, don’t merit accountability, is simply stupid.

Anyway.. we will leave a lot in the weeks and months ahead..

This is not a weak case.. a grand jury decided to indict based on the witness testimony and evidence..

..and remember, this is the least severe of all the ongoing investigations he’s dealing with..

More charges lie ahead

I don't think anyone has said the charges don't merit accountability. All violations merit accountability.

In addition, I doubt any legal experts on either side of the aisle are stupid.

In order to retain judicial respectability, the charges should be in line with other charges of this nature. Those are typically handled through the FEC and are subject to fines.

To make those charges, Bragg had to finagle the statute of limitations in a way that may or may not hold up, and we have to believe DT wrote his own business checks and did his own record-keeping. Seeing as the repayments to Cohen were invoiced early in 2017 and paid the same year, Bragg is asking us to believe DT was playing bookkeeper for a company he divested control over while he was taking on the role of President of the US.

If that scenario sounds like a long shot to you, you're not alone.

 

[GRT]

The case isn’t going to be dismissed, it’s not going to be moved out of its current district, and the judge will not be removed. There will be a trial and, a jury will decide whether he’s guilty or innocent based on the evidence…end of story. IMO only

If your scenario plays out, and I certainly do not know if it will or won't (but, I suspect it won't), it's unlikely that would be the "end of story." It's more likely that would be fodder for appeal. JMOO

I also think Trump might opt for a judge rather than jury, but that's all MOO.

Personally, I think the charges will be dismissed based on what I posted and the letters I previously posted from the FEC and from Cohen's attorney to the FEC.

 

[Smelly Squirrel]

Personally, I think the charges will be dismissed based on what I posted and the letters I previously posted from the FEC and from Cohen's attorney to the FEC.

I don't see why you keep bringing up that letter and saying it was from the FEC, when it was by two of the Republican commissioners only. And it doesn't appear you have read it, because the letter you posted is about Cohen, not Trump, and it doesn't even absolve Cohen, let alone Trump. What it says is that, because Cohen had already been convicted in court on campaign finance violations, they "concluded that pursuing these matters further was not the best use of agency resources."

And in fact, the letter references the recommendations of the FEC's Office of General Counsel which directly state that Trump did make multiple violations.

FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION FIRST GENERAL COUNSEL’S REPORT

Accordingly, we recommend that the Commission find reason to believe that Cohen violated 52 U.S.C. § 30116(a)(1)(A) by making excessive contributions; that Trump and the Trump Committee violated 52 U.S.C. § 30116(f) by knowingly accepting excessive contributions; that the Trump Committee violated 52 U.S.C. § 30104(b) and 11 C.F.R. § 104.3(a) and (b) by not reporting those contributions; that Cohen, Essential Consultants, and Trump and the Trump Committee violated 52 U.S.C. § 30122 by respectively making, knowingly transmitting in its name, and knowingly accepting contributions in the name of another; and that the Trump Organization violated 52 U.S.C. § 30118(a) or 52 U.S.C. § 30116(a)(1)(A) by making — and Trump and the Trump Committee violated 52 U.S.C. § 30118(a) or 52 U.S.C. § 30116(f) by knowingly accepting — prohibited corporate or excessive contributions in connection with the payment to Clifford. We further recommend that the Commission find reason to believe that the foregoing violations with respect to Cohen, Trump, the Trump Committee, the Trump Organization, and Essential Consultants were knowing and willful.

There was likewise a letter by Democrat members of the FEC which also recommended the same as the OGC report.

And as to the letter by Cohen's lawyer, the above report references it and obviously dismisses it, as they should, since it was when Cohen was still lying for Trump, something he was also convicted of.

So, no, the case will absolutely not be dismissed based on those letters.

Trump will also not be convicted based on the OGC report itself (even though by your logic, he should be), since courts don't care about findings and recommendations by other bodies, courts determine guilt based on their own findings. jmo

 

[Vern]

I don't think anyone has said the charges don't merit accountability. All violations merit accountability.

In addition, I doubt any legal experts on either side of the aisle are stupid.

In order to retain judicial respectability, the charges should be in line with other charges of this nature. Those are typically handled through the FEC and are subject to fines.

To make those charges, Bragg had to finagle the statute of limitations in a way that may or may not hold up, and we have to believe DT wrote his own business checks and did his own record-keeping. Seeing as the repayments to Cohen were invoiced early in 2017 and paid the same year, Bragg is asking us to believe DT was playing bookkeeper for a company he divested control over while he was taking on the role of President of the US.

If that scenario sounds like a long shot to you, you're not alone.

I've already linked in another source today that shows the cheques signed personally by him from his personal trust account - NOT a business or Trump Org account. Although, he did initial "DJT" on the business account cheques too. Oh, and at least one of those cheques to Cohen is dated 2017 after Trump became President. There's even photos of one of the cheques in the article.

In the Middle of His Official Business, Trump Took the Time to Send Checks to Michael Cohen (Published 2019)

The dates on newly available checks shed light on the parallel lives Mr. Trump was living — at once managing affairs of state while quietly paying the price of keeping his personal secrets.

www.nytimes.com

Might I suggest a read of this linked post by one of our Aussie posters?

NY - Former President Donald Trump charged with 34 criminal counts of falsifying business records, Apr 2023

Thank you for the link. So, the judge rejected scientific evidence that may have decided the case. That's truly unfortunate. I think it's more likely that the federal judge saw through Trump's typical delaying tactics. It's very clear in the article. Carroll's legal team has sought DNA from...

www.websleuths.com

I think we're going to see his taxes come into play here; NY has been fighting to get those for years and which they only got in late 2022 as Trump kept apealing to keep them away from the investigators thereby a self-induced extension of the investigation time-line if the money is tracked back to his taxes.

 

[MyBelle]

I've already linked in another source today that shows the cheques signed personally by him from his personal trust account - NOT a business or Trump Org account. Although, he did initial "DJT" on the business account cheques too. Oh, and at least one of those cheques to Cohen is dated 2017 after Trump became President. There's even photos of one of the cheques in the article.

In the Middle of His Official Business, Trump Took the Time to Send Checks to Michael Cohen (Published 2019)

The dates on newly available checks shed light on the parallel lives Mr. Trump was living — at once managing affairs of state while quietly paying the price of keeping his personal secrets.

www.nytimes.com

Might I suggest a read of this linked post by one of our Aussie posters?

NY - Former President Donald Trump charged with 34 criminal counts of falsifying business records, Apr 2023

Thank you for the link. So, the judge rejected scientific evidence that may have decided the case. That's truly unfortunate. I think it's more likely that the federal judge saw through Trump's typical delaying tactics. It's very clear in the article. Carroll's legal team has sought DNA from...

www.websleuths.com

I think we're going to see his taxes come into play here; NY has been fighting to get those for years and which they only got in late 2022 as Trump kept apealing to keep them away from the investigators thereby a self-induced extension of the investigation time-line if the money is tracked back to his taxes.

BBM. I believe some of the financial documents are tax returns.

 

[GRT]

I don't see why you keep bringing up that letter and saying it was from the FEC, when it was by two of the Republican commissioners only. And it doesn't appear you have read it, because the letter you posted is about Cohen, not Trump, and it doesn't even absolve Cohen, let alone Trump. What it says is that, because Cohen had already been convicted in court on campaign finance violations, they "concluded that pursuing these matters further was not the best use of agency resources."

And in fact, the letter references the recommendations of the FEC's Office of General Counsel which directly state that Trump did make multiple violations.

FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION FIRST GENERAL COUNSEL’S REPORT

Accordingly, we recommend that the Commission find reason to believe that Cohen violated 52 U.S.C. § 30116(a)(1)(A) by making excessive contributions; that Trump and the Trump Committee violated 52 U.S.C. § 30116(f) by knowingly accepting excessive contributions; that the Trump Committee violated 52 U.S.C. § 30104(b) and 11 C.F.R. § 104.3(a) and (b) by not reporting those contributions; that Cohen, Essential Consultants, and Trump and the Trump Committee violated 52 U.S.C. § 30122 by respectively making, knowingly transmitting in its name, and knowingly accepting contributions in the name of another; and that the Trump Organization violated 52 U.S.C. § 30118(a) or 52 U.S.C. § 30116(a)(1)(A) by making — and Trump and the Trump Committee violated 52 U.S.C. § 30118(a) or 52 U.S.C. § 30116(f) by knowingly accepting — prohibited corporate or excessive contributions in connection with the payment to Clifford. We further recommend that the Commission find reason to believe that the foregoing violations with respect to Cohen, Trump, the Trump Committee, the Trump Organization, and Essential Consultants were knowing and willful.

There was likewise a letter by Democrat members of the FEC which also recommended the same as the OGC report.

And as to the letter by Cohen's lawyer, the above report references it and obviously dismisses it, as they should, since it was when Cohen was still lying for Trump, something he was also convicted of.

So, no, the case will absolutely not be dismissed based on those letters.

Trump will also not be convicted based on the OGC report itself (even though by your logic, he should be), since courts don't care about findings and recommendations by other bodies, courts determine guilt based on their own findings. jmo

So, it appears you may have missed the letter from Cohen's attorney to the FEC. In that letter, the attorney representing Cohen says Cohen made the hush payment of his own accord without Trump knowing. The letter you cited from the FEC was written more than three years after Cohen informed the FEC via his attorney that the hush payment was his decision. Solely. We know by the time the letter you cite was written that Cohen was already in trouble with the law, which could be why he changed his story. That has yet to be determined but it will come up, I suspect. MOO

Did Cohen lie? Obviously, because all the stories he told cannot be factual.

Will Trump's taxes come into this?

Who knows? Maybe. I'm not sure if they'd actually be relevant since tax returns wouldn't reflect hush money payments. They would--Schedule C--list a cumulative amount for legal expenses, which the reimbursed hush money amount would likely be included in. That would be taxes for the year, 2017, the year the payments were reimbursed.

As far as Trump's signature on the checks, MOO, but I'd hazard a guess they're stamps. Signature stamps are quite common. I didn't see copies of those checks, but we know they exist.

I still see no path to a conviction here. Only time will tell, but based on what's out there now, that's my guess as to the way it will go.

 

[GRT]

BBM. I believe some of the financial documents are tax returns.

There could be. As I said, the Schedule C would list a cumulative amount of legal expenses paid in 2017, and that "should" contain the reimbursements.

 

[Sundog]

<snipped>

Happy Passover and Happy Easter to all who celebrate.

Thank you, and to you, also.

 

[MyBelle]

There could be. As I said, the Schedule C would list a cumulative amount of legal expenses paid in 2017, and that "should" contain the reimbursements.

It's not just the Schedule C, it is the documentation behind the Schedule C.

 

[Cool Cats]

The judge in Trump's criminal hush-money case who the ex-president has slammed as 'highly partisan' has been deluged with death threats​

The judge in Trump's criminal hush-money case who the ex-president has slammed as 'highly partisan' has been deluged with death threats

New York Supreme Court Justice Juan Merchan has received multiple threats over the last week, a person familiar with the situation told Insider.

www.yahoo.com

 

[ilovewings]

The judge in Trump's criminal hush-money case who the ex-president has slammed as 'highly partisan' has been deluged with death threats​

The judge in Trump's criminal hush-money case who the ex-president has slammed as 'highly partisan' has been deluged with death threats

New York Supreme Court Justice Juan Merchan has received multiple threats over the last week, a person familiar with the situation told Insider.

www.yahoo.com

Absolutely horrible and if this judge was assassinated you know who
Would be gleeful

 

[GRT]

It's not just the Schedule C, it is the documentation behind the Schedule C.

The documentation behind Schedule C is considered as a part of that document for audit purposes, so I suppose that’s correct for legal purposes as well.

However, it seems as though they already have the schedule of payments, so perhaps it was already subpoenaed.

 

[GRT]

The judge in Trump's criminal hush-money case who the ex-president has slammed as 'highly partisan' has been deluged with death threats​

The judge in Trump's criminal hush-money case who the ex-president has slammed as 'highly partisan' has been deluged with death threats

New York Supreme Court Justice Juan Merchan has received multiple threats over the last week, a person familiar with the situation told Insider.

www.yahoo.com

It’s ridiculous and cowardly for someone to make death threats. Most will be just loons who can’t control themselves, but the FBI takes close notice of that, and those who think it’s a good idea could find themselves behind bars.