GUILTY NY - Ex-President Donald Trump, charged with 34 criminal counts of falsifying business records, Apr 2023, Trial 25 Mar 2024 #4

[Deleted member 39678]

I am confused how anyone could believe the judge has no idea what the other crime was. As if they could have held this whole monumental trial of the century and it was never mentioned, and that it got by the judge and all the attorneys as well. One big oops for everyone.

But anyone who cared enough to follow the trial knows the answer. And it was indeed covered by a zillion reporters with a zillion articles published and live tweets tweeted every day of the trial, so the information was and still is there for anyone who wants.

Bayou and Ranch, you can find out most accurately for yourself here:

Legal News & Analysis on Litigation, Policy, Deals : Law360

https://pdfs.nycourts.gov/PeopleVs.DTrump-71543/

Those pages have all the transcripts and records of the case, including exhibits. You could find the jury instructions there and see if the other crime is ever mentioned. While you're there, you can even look up Exhibits 35 and 36, which are just some evidence that proves the charges without relying on Cohen's testimony alone.

Happy reading!

Which one of the three crimes was used by the jury?

 

[Deleted member 39678]

snipped

moo here's why i disagree:

1. intent matters: mislabeling the payments as legal expenses to hide their true purpose is the issue. the prosecution argued this was done to conceal campaign finance violations.
2. legal precedent: mislabeling expenses to hide illegal activities can still constitute a crime, as established in similar cases.
3. prosecution’s case: Payments were intended to influence the election, not legitimate legal expenses, violating state and federal laws.
4. cohen’s guilty plea: MC's plea to campaign finance violations supports the prosecution’s argument about the payments’ true intent.



moo agreed, if you look at the raw evidence it's my opinion that its vindicated especially through precedent

I don't believe that the documents were mislabeled. JMO.

 

[Deleted member 39678]

And I think that the very fact that they "grossed up" the payment so Cohen wouldn't incur taxes from this interaction, proves he was well aware it wasn't legal fees. When your lawyer bills you for actual legal services, you don't "gross up" their payment, you pay what you owe/agreed to.

That was for legal services provided by Cohen for the perfectly legal NDA that he arranged and paid for. JMO.

 

[Deleted member 39678]

Only makes sense if you don't know the evidence.

https://twitter.com/x/status/1787490565254181030

All that proves is that Cohen and and Weisselberg worked together on those payments.

Is is not evidence that President Trump intended to falsify any business records. JMO.

 

[TDoc72]

That was for legal services provided by Cohen for the perfectly legal NDA that he arranged and paid for. JMO.

All that proves is that Cohen and and Weisselberg worked together on those payments.

Is is not evidence that President Trump intended to falsify any business records. JMO.

IMO if everything was aboveboard and on the up&up, Trump would’ve just paid it outright and Cohen wouldn’t have to take out a mortgage/home equity loan in his house.

 

[Deleted member 39678]

IMO if everything was aboveboard and on the up&up, Trump would’ve just paid it outright and Cohen wouldn’t have to take out a mortgage/home equity loan in his house.

I believe that Cohen used the HELOC to pay SD because he wanted to protect President Trump. So he took the initiative and took care of it.
JMO.

 

[BayouBelle_LA]

Which one of the three crimes was used by the jury?

We might have to wait for the book or we may never know.

 

[maamager]

I don't believe that the documents were mislabeled. JMO.

moo, there is a lot to support they were mislabeled.

michael cohen, who facilitated the payments, testified under oath that they were intentionally labeled as legal expenses to hide their true purpose as hush money. this was part of his plea agreement and conviction. you don't even have to believe MC's testimony - the jury saw the evidence.

Which one of the three crimes was used by the jury?

the details may not be explicitly listed in public records since jury deliberations and the specific reasoning can be confidential. however, here’s an explanation based on the charges and evidence presented (all moo):

1. false entry in records: the prosecution argued that the payments made to Stormy Daniels were falsely recorded as legal expenses. the primary charge was falsifying business records with the intent to commit or conceal another crime.
2. possible underlying crimes:
• campaign finance violations: the payments were allegedly intended to influence the 2016 election by keeping damaging information from becoming public, which should have been reported as campaign expenditures.
• tax fraud: If the payments were falsely recorded, they might also have implications for tax filings and related fraud.
• etc lol: any other activities where business records were intentionally falsified to conceal illegal acts.

the jury likely found that the false entries were intended to commit or conceal one of these underlying crimes. the focus was on the intent and the falsification itself, rather than specifying one particular crime over the others

 

[SouthAussie]

I believe that Cohen used the HELOC to pay SD because he wanted to protect President Trump. So he took the initiative and took care of it.
JMO.

Then trump should never have personally signed checks to repay Cohen, if he didn't want to be involved.

imo

 

[Smelly Squirrel]

Which one of the three crimes was used by the jury?

Ranch, I already just today showed you some evidence that you evidently either didn't read or didn't understand, since you continued to repeat your same misunderstanding about the matter. (One small hint: ask, why are they grossing up a reimbursement payment? The answer is very simple!) Which tells me that ultimately no matter how hard I might try, I have to admit that I can't read the evidence for you nor can I understand it for you. Fortunately for America, democracy and justice, the right 12 people who most needed to see the evidence and understand it did so quite competently. And their verdict is not going to be overturned by anybody's misunderstandings. jmo

In short, it's not the best use of my time and energy to answer your questions. Go with God, my friend.

 

[Deleted member 39678]

moo, there is a lot to support they were mislabeled.

michael cohen, who facilitated the payments, testified under oath that they were intentionally labeled as legal expenses to hide their true purpose as hush money. this was part of his plea agreement and conviction. you don't even have to believe MC's testimony - the jury saw the evidence.



the details may not be explicitly listed in public records since jury deliberations and the specific reasoning can be confidential. however, here’s an explanation based on the charges and evidence presented (all moo):

1. false entry in records: the prosecution argued that the payments made to Stormy Daniels were falsely recorded as legal expenses. the primary charge was falsifying business records with the intent to commit or conceal another crime.
2. possible underlying crimes:
• campaign finance violations: the payments were allegedly intended to influence the 2016 election by keeping damaging information from becoming public, which should have been reported as campaign expenditures.
• tax fraud: If the payments were falsely recorded, they might also have implications for tax filings and related fraud.
• etc lol: any other activities where business records were intentionally falsified to conceal illegal acts.

the jury likely found that the false entries were intended to commit or conceal one of these underlying crimes. the focus was on the intent and the falsification itself, rather than specifying one particular crime over the others

Like I've said many times, I don't believe convicted liar Cohen. This whole case rests on whether he's credible and I don't find him to be credible at all. JMO.

 

[Deleted member 39678]

Ranch, I already just today showed you some evidence that you evidently either didn't read or didn't understand, since you continued to repeat your same misunderstanding about the matter. (One small hint: ask, why are they grossing up a reimbursement payment? The answer is very simple!) Which tells me that ultimately no matter how hard I might try, I have to admit that I can't read the evidence for you nor can I understand it for you. Fortunately for America, democracy and justice, the right 12 people who most needed to see the evidence and understand it did so quite competently. And their verdict is not going to be overturned by anybody's misunderstandings. jmo

In short, it's not the best use of my time and energy to answer your questions. Go with God, my friend.

What I don't understand is why you don't see what I'm asking. It's a very simple question.

Probably best to move on as we are just going in circles.

JMO.

 

[Deleted member 39678]

Then trump should never have personally signed checks to repay Cohen, if he didn't want to be involved.

imo

Good point.

 

[maamager]

Like I've said many times, I don't believe convicted liar Cohen. This whole case rests on whether he's credible and I don't find him to be credible at all. JMO.

bbm - respectfully i disagree and i think this might be the core of my disagreement. moo, even excluding MC from the situation, Trump was cooked. even without a lot of the granular detail, we've seen time and time again with legal precedent. it may be hard to envision because the defendant is so... singular. but rare as he is, he was determined guilty by jurors that are wholly capable.

 

[SouthAussie]

bbm - respectfully i disagree and i think this might be the core of my disagreement. moo, even excluding MC from the situation, Trump was cooked. even without a lot of the granular detail, we've seen time and time again with legal precedent. it may be hard to envision because the defendant is so... singular. but rare as he is, he was determined guilty by jurors that are wholly capable.

I don't think they needed Cohen's testimony either. His testimony was just icing on the cake.

The paper trail of money is clear. The business entries - especially Weisselberg's handwritten annotations - are clear. Trump's repayments are clear. Pecker's testimony is clear.

imo

 

[Deleted member 39678]

bbm - respectfully i disagree and i think this might be the core of my disagreement. moo, even excluding MC from the situation, Trump was cooked. even without a lot of the granular detail, we've seen time and time again with legal precedent. it may be hard to envision because the defendant is so... singular. but rare as he is, he was determined guilty by jurors that are wholly capable.

Okay. Sounds good.

 

[maamager]

I don't think they needed Cohen's testimony either. His testimony was just icing on the cake.

The paper trail of money is clear. The business entries - especially Weisselberg's handwritten annotations - are clear. Trump's repayments are clear. Pecker's testimony is clear.

imo

100% agreed

and imo what's worse imo for trump's innocence brigade is that MC's statements were supported by literal documentary evidence, including checks and communications related to the hush money payments, which of course bolstered the prosecution’s case. it's not like his testimony was the singular event that kicked off the event. they were full-sending this case regardless - it just happens the puzzle fell into piece.

 

[Deleted member 39678]

Donald Trump’s former personal lawyer, Michael Cohen delivered testimony crucial to the prosecution's case that Trump falsified business records to cover up a hush money payment to star Stormy Daniels.

Michael Cohen's testimony against Donald Trump delivered for prosecution, if jury believes him

Michael Cohen delivered testimony crucial to the prosecution at Donald Trump's hush money trial, but will the jury believe the convicted perjurer?

www.usatoday.com

 

[Deleted member 39678]

The criminal hush money trial of former President Donald Trump reached a crescendo Monday when the state's star witness, former Trump attorney Michael Cohen, testified about his ex-boss directing him to "just take care of" a payment to silence adult film actress Stormy Daniels in the waning days of his 2016 presidential campaign.

4 big takeaways from Day 16 of Trump's hush money trial

The state's star witness, former Trump attorney Michael Cohen, took the stand Monday in former President Trump's criminal hush money trial.

abcnews.go.com

 

[Deleted member 39678]

Cohen is a key character in the prosecution's narrative, having made one of the "hush money" payments himself.

Michael Cohen, key witness against Trump, testifies at trial about "hush money" payments

On the stand, Michael Cohen told jurors about the decade he spent working for Trump as his self-described "fixer" and attorney.

www.cbsnews.com