Although the Manhattan case does not center on Mr. Trump’s presidency or official acts — but rather personal activity during his campaign — his lawyers argued on Monday that prosecutors had built their case partly on evidence from his time in the White House. And under the Supreme Court’s new ruling, prosecutors not only cannot charge a president for any official acts, but also cannot cite evidence involving official acts to bolster other accusations. In a letter to the judge who presided over the trial, Juan M. Merchan, Mr. Trump’s lawyers argued that the conviction should be set aside....
UPDATE: The sentencing is now delayed until September 18th.
पोस्ट्स
१४९ टिप्पण्या:
It's not illegal to pay hush money.
Slick Willie getting his knob polished in the Oval Office and beating subsequent impeachment looks very much like an official act in hindsight. Way more involved than hush money to a blackmailing hooker with a fridge-style body.
Pot calls kettle. Kettle says "screw you" and hangs up the phone.
Why are they giving Merchan a way out?
We really need them to try to put Trump in jail for the next 2 years.
This just gives the Regime a way to escape the box canyon they are in.
Oh, boy- Chuck and the Chuck brigade had already bought the balloons and booze to celebrate Trump's 100 year long prison sentence for next week.
Dear corrupt left, go F yourselves said...
It's not illegal to pay hush money.
More accurately it is not illegal to label a legal expense paid to a lawyer as a legal expense.
That seems like a stretch to me. But, I don't know, -- after all there are myriad other reasons this travesty will be overturned on appeal, so I guess throwing another item against the wall of Merchan won't hurt. But, question here: will this move delay the "sentencing"? Is that the reason for it?
Well no that was a private act even though he used public resources to cover up
Of course we dont have any proof this hsppened only the word of daniels spit and cohen their designated chimp
The structural idea was no lawfare, in the immunity rulings. This was lawfare so it's not surprising that it might apply.
And here is the REAL issue that follows from petty lawfare and kangaroo courts:
https://www.statista.com/chart/30231/the-worlds-most-competitive-economies/
The USA dropped out of the top 10 in world rankings for competitive economies. For the first time ever. Unchecked corruption and lawlessness has consequences. The world is hanging on to the legacy and vapors of old-school "honest dealer" USA...but the culture has moved beyond that.
Oooh. This is gonna complicate matters for the prosecution.
So they decided to test the limits of "Official Acts" immediately
She blacked out! in 2006.
Certain that means Trump goes to jail for life.
I guess it will be interesting to see Trump in trial again in the fall. Maybe time for plea negotiations?
They are also talking about evidentiary hearings in the DC case to address the scope of the USSC decision. Will Trump want to attend those?
Delay is Trump's friend.
I apologize for not reading the post carefully before I posed the question regarding the possible attempt by DJT's attorneys to delay sentencing by filing this motion. I have no defense to offer other than I slept in today, rising much later than usual, so my initial stop at Althouse was not quite an official act.
Narciso, what "public resources" did Trump allegedly use per your comment? TIA
I slept in this morning as I am returning to full time work after being sidelined by replacement hip surgery on April 15th of this year. I was on approved 90-day FMLA leave until July 14th (and could have remained out until then),but need the extra income that my short-term disability policy doesn't cover. I'm anticipating replacing my tires on my 2005 BMW Z4 (the one that someone put a bullet through the back window and out the front last October) and I can expect $600-$1000 needed for that. I recovered from surgery quickly (three weeks out, I was walking 2-3 miles a day) but I needed to continue physical therapy to strengthen the muscles and the area near the incision. Plus I had enough $ saved to pay all my bills --- but, as usual in life, other unexpected expenses popped up and I need my wages + overtime as well as the income from my contract training of restaurant, hotel, and bar staffs in the Prevention of Foodborne Illnesses as well as the Responsible Service of Beverage Alcohol. The former is state-required, the latter optional for owners.
All TMI and TL;DR, but wanted to put things in perspective for my silly and stupid error in my first post. Blessings to all.
Well it was always hard to figure out just what crime the Bragg case was about. But if you look at the time line, the "false accounting entry" occurred in March 2017 when Trump had already been inaugurated two months beforehand.
The Dims lawfare campaign against the Bad Orange Man was as dumb an idea as their three and a half year gaslighting of the American public about Joe's mental abilities. That campaign came crashing down last week.
Soviet Show trial for leftist narrative hive-loyal talking points.
CONVICTED FELON! Old Joe made sure to get it in.
Clinton not trump using his cabinet
There was actual evidence there not third hand hearsay
Trump lawyers giving Merchan a chance to reconsider his actions vis-a-vis the poll results. They handed him a fig leaf and suggested he use it.
Is it true that Merchan keeps a bust of Andrey Yanuaryevich Vyshinsky in his bedroom.?
RideSpaceMountain said..."Way more involved than hush money to a blackmailing hooker with a fridge-style body."
LOL! but also Ouch!
Told ya, though I'm still a bit surprised the Democrats actually showed good sense. No way was Trump going to jail after Biden shat the bed in Atlanta.
Well, they were looking for an excuse. After Biden's debate performance, those who took their shots at Trump will be looking to get out of the firing line. Let the mad scramble begin. Got popcorn.
It would seem like we now need to know which of the three possible underlying crimes the jurors used as the basis for their conviction. So we can consider whether it was immune.
I think the debate makes it more likely that Merchan tries to jail Trump. I think a custodial sentence of some kind is basically a given here with the only open question as to whether Merchan orders Trump immediately to jail (I am betting against the latter, however).
"LOL! but also Ouch!"
We all have a type. My type is Tulsi Gabbard. Cocaine Mitch likes Asians. Joe Biden likes pre-pubescents that smell like Pantene. And Trump gets turned on by Frigidaires.
Takes all kinds to make a world, ain't that what they say...
"And Trump gets turned on by Frigidaires."
LOL!!
Jupiter said...
"It would seem like we now need to know which of the three possible underlying crimes the jurors used as the basis for their conviction. So we can consider whether it was immune."
Excellent point.
Delay is Trump's friend.
For sure. I'm reminded of the 2500 year old joke first told by Herodotus: A thief was captured and dragged before the king, who sentenced him to execution. As he was being taken away in chains, he made a last-ditch bargain with the king: in one year he would teach the king's favorite horse to sing hymns. The other prisoners watched the thief singing to the horse and laughed. "You will not succeed," they told him. "No one can." To which the thief replied, "I have a year, and who knows what might happen in that time. The king might die. The horse might die. I might die. And perhaps the horse will learn to sing."
I can see all types of judicial corruption, including jury tampering. Delaying the sentencing gives them time to weasel their way out of possible criminal charges. Civil charges will be a different matter. New York is facing some expensive legal costs.
That sounds like a sensible claim to me.
Prosecutors can use an official act to prove a crime but it can’t look at motivation for the official act by using the presidents communications with his staff.
But the opinion is pretty wordy and vague on spots. Roberts hopes the issue never returns. The New York judge will never understand it.
The most interesting thing about the opinion is a president can’t be prosecuted at all for a constitutionally required official act.
So the president can be prosecuted for bribery if he directs an underling to award a contract (but prosecutors can’t use the presidents communications with his staff about directing the contract that only his communications with the bribe payor) but he can’t be prosecuted for taking a bribe to appoint someone Ambassador of France.
It makes sense that the court's immunity ruling would apply to the second order crimes that were required to secure Trump's conviction.
And nobody can answer the question of whether the underlying crimes supporting Trump's conviction were or were not official acts because nobody can say what those crimes were. Nobody, possibly not even the jury itself, knows what those crimes were.
This is point in the Science fiction movie where the one cogent scientist rushes in and says "Wait, don't use the nuke. The monster will only absorb the power and become stronger."
"he can’t be prosecuted for taking a bribe to appoint someone Ambassador of France."
That would shut the whole system down. Blinken gave Biden a no show teaching job at Penn (money laundering) and paid him a million dollars, then he got the Secretary of State gig, in which he is way over his head, but who cares? I bet right now Blinken has buyer's remorse about that deal.
the funny thing is that Hillary had no immunity of any kind except for the fact that she is a Democrat, and she deliberately incorrectly reported the money she spent making ups the fake dossier. Why isn't she facing prison? Oh yeah, because the FEC said it wasn't criminal, same as they did with Trump.
Why the State of New York has not only taken it upon themselves to enforce Federal Election law where the FEC said no violation occurred, but even kept the FEC from testifying, is beyond me. Actually, it's not beyond me, I know why then did it. To put Trump in jail by any means necessary, to call him a "convicted felon" even as they cooked the "felony" up in the bowl of their hash pipe.
Also robot dr who episode from 1974
https://thefederalist.com/2024/07/02/ex-fbi-counsel-behind-russiagate-biden-laptop-censorship-now-part-of-left-wing-election-network/
Everyone who was objective realized this was a sham partisan trial from Day 1. So why doesn't some Federal Judge or NY Appeals judge put an end to this farce?
Instead, one leftwing NY Judge, whose daughter is a Democrat Operative, has the power to stop Trump from being President. Take the screeching hatred of Trump shown by Sotomayor in her "dissent" and multiply x10 and you'll get the hatred this NY Judge feels.
Good God, can the grown-ups make an appearance and stop the USA from becoming a Bananna Republic?
One of the "possible" crimes was "a violation of federal campaign finance laws.
If the campaign financial reporting was a legal requirement for the President then that would seem to fall within the outer bounds of the President's official duties and he is immune from criminal prosecution for failing to comply with that requirement.
The conviction must be overturned on that alone.
But it wasnt a crime according to the fec commissioner
They were going to throw Trump in Jail just prior to the convention, but now realized it's a really bad idea.
RideSpaceMountain said...
"And Trump gets turned on by Frigidaires."
Jim Croce did, too.
Roller Derby Queen
If the case is overturned, can they still call PEDJT a "former convicted fellow? Or maybe "Ex Convicted Felon"? Shorten it to Ex-Con and all is good.
John Henry
GRW3 said...
This is point in the Science fiction movie where the one cogent scientist rushes in and says "Wait, don't use the nuke. The monster will only absorb the power and become stronger."
7/2/24, 12:13 PM
The Andromeda Strain was a great book for exploring this concept. Then again, NOT firing the nuke might result in a sentient bioweapon slaughtering the staff then escaping.
You really need contingencies upon contingencies. Anyways, these imbeciles are busting flush after flush. It's not remotely the same thing.
Hillary paid for a fake dossier that called her opponent a foreign agent, a traitor.
Her campaign was based in NYC.
FEC fined her for bookkeeping crimes in relation to this.
Why is she not charged?
BREAKING NEWS!
This just in…
teh moptop “gets it”
and teh mop top will say this
joe has delivered
Tucker Carlson comments:
At this point Trump is not just the Republican candidate, but effectively the presumptive president. If you’re going to put him in jail, it had better be for a very serious crime that everyone agrees he committed. Otherwise you risk destroying the system completely and forever. We’re in legitimate danger. Democrats need to pull back.
Merchan sees Biden hanging on and draws inspiration. If he's going down, he's going down fighting. Take one for the team.
https://nypost.com/2024/07/02/us-news/donald-trumps-hush-money-sentencing-pushed-to-september-18/
Bragg used confidential White House communications between Trump and his lawyers to build his case, meaning material that should have been excluded because they were "official acts" (confidential advice to the Executive) and immune from prosecution. Every one of these cases is built on shifting sands because they cut corners, denied hearings to determine immunity, and generally just fucked up their own cases.
Where is our neighborhood bully that endlessly lectured us about how these were top men -- TOP MEN! -- bringing these cases and Trump would be soon marched off to Federal Prison? He denied every obvious flaw. He waved away such silly questions as "should they have pierced attorney-client privilege for that?" and "under what Special Counsel law is Garland appointing this Smith fellow?"
But here both Merchan and Bragg admit that the sentencing warrants a delay, perhaps indefinitely, while these very serious questions finally get sorted out. So Trump remains a non-felon, since NY law says until pronounced by the judge and sentenced one is still not considered a felon. Looks like Democrats and LLRs have truly jumped the gun this time.
Trump is NOT YET a felon under NY law.
You have to view these things as items on a production line, with a steady output at the mouth of the factory being the objective. That has been the case with the ongoing, regular stream of events with the various Lawfare pageants since they started. If you think there isn't a coordinating function, well.....we know about those daily conference calls, now don't we? So let's not be coy. This is just an October Surprise option being developed.
doctrev said...
The Andromeda Strain was a great book for exploring this concept. Then again, NOT firing the nuke might result in a sentient bioweapon slaughtering the staff then escaping.
You really need contingencies upon contingencies
the Key Take away was: do NOT hire epileptic researchers for a WILDFIRE
Well now the walls are REALLLY closing in!
We got him now!
Ticktock!
Eva Marie: "Tucker Carlson: "We’re in legitimate danger. Democrats need to pull back."'
I'm afraid the New Soviet Democraticals are pressing the pedal to the metal in a system destroying Full Thelma and Louise Finale.
"It's not illegal to pay hush money."
He was not prosecuted for paying hush money. He was prosecuted for falsifying financial records (in the first degree) to hide that he paid hush money. That is a felony crime in New York State.
Thanks for that link, Narciso
The Post gets it wrong on the possible penalties.
Trump, 78, faces up to four years in prison
That's the punishment for one count. They charged him with 34 felonies.
So his possible punishment is 136 years in prison.
If that seems like overkill to people, well, yeah. It was insane overkill to pretend like Trump committed 34 felonies. The whole thing is a scam, designed to sway the 2024 election and nothing more.
I think we should honestly report on what convicting somebody on 34 felonies means. If the prosecutors or the judge is embarrassed that the potential penalty is way too high, well, you should be embarrassed.
"Trump, 78, faces up to 136 years in prison, since prosecutors elected to charge him with 34 felonies instead of one."
Blogger BillieBob Thorton said...
Well now the walls are REALLLY closing in!
We got him now!
Ticktock!
Shame on you BillieBob, That is Inga the magnificant's line.
John Henry
His lawyer presumably paid a blackmail fee. Trump paid a legal expense. Was it established otherwise? He was declared innocent or otherwise uncontested by the federal government for the alleged precipitating felony charge. That said, all's fair in lust and abortion under the ethical religion in Democratic jurisdictions.
"'Trump, 78, faces up to four years in prison.'
"That's the punishment for one count. They charged him with 34 felonies.
"So his possible punishment is 136 years in prison.
"If that seems like overkill to people, well, yeah."
That is a pernicious and ubiquitous ill of our justice system today. Most defendants don't have the financial means to fight off a court case with a multitude of charges, so it serves as a stave to beat them into pleading guilty to something to get the desired conviction without the trouble, risk, and expense of actually giving people their day in court.
Saying this doesn't mean I think Trump was unjustly tried; he did commit a crime. Now, as to whether it was necessary to try him with such a multitude of charges is another matter.
"We'll charge him with a felony."
"No, no, we'll charge him with 34 felonies."
"It's not working. We need to charge him with more felonies."
"100 felonies!"
"And rape, we'll call him a rapist."
"That's 100 felonies, plus a rape, he can't possibly win now."
and then, the horrible realization...
"What if people don't believe us?"
Darkisland said...
Blogger BillieBob Thorton said...
Well now the walls are REALLLY closing in!
We got him now!
Ticktock!
Shame on you BillieBob, That is Inga the magnificant's line.
John Henry
Sorry, I smegahow fininik...........well anyways..........like I said.
Do I get my pudding now?
I answered all the questions, didn't I?
LOL - most criminals are set free without penalty - in our wonderful Soros DA blue zone 'Merica.
Robert Cook: "Saying this doesn't mean I think Trump was unjustly tried; he did commit a crime."
No, he didn't. Just like Solzhenitsyn didn't commit any crime. Nor did Sergei Kovalev.
But you Stalinist/New Soviet Democratical types have never been overly concerned with any of that.
"he did commit a crime"
Care to elaborate? explain the crime?
And the Drone Killer still walks free among us. President Obama's ordering the death of American citizen(s) by Hellfire missiles is now ensconced and cloaked in official immunity.
Big mistake. I can't seem how the Supreme Court ruling has anything to do with Trump's actions re: Paying his lawyer for services rendered. (Which is what he did, and what he was convicted of doing. Very stupid times we live in.) That was obviously not an official act conducted in his capacity as President.
Also, an earlier sentencing would have given Team Trump more time to counter whatever f***ery Merchan decides to pull. The later date will also deflect attention from the catastrophe that will be the Democratic National Convention.
"We'll charge him with a felony."
"No, no, we'll charge him with 34 felonies."
"It's not working. We need to charge him with more felonies."
"100 felonies!"
"And rape, we'll call him a rapist."
"That's 100 felonies, plus a rape, he can't possibly win now."
NOBODY expects the Spanish Inquisition!
‘This just in… Hunter Biden has joined meetings with President Biden and his top aides this week at the White House, reportedly the reaction from some senior White House staff has been, “What the hell is happening?” - NBC News’
The 54 year old asshole knows that he’s running out of time to cash in and make his BIG score.
The walls are expanding out!
"It would seem like we now need to know which of the three possible underlying crimes the jurors used as the basis for their conviction. So we can consider whether it was immune."
Might get complicated. IIRC the judge said you don't have to be unanimous on any of the three. So it's possible, should say one charge falls under official duties and the other two only had 11 guilty votes.... Hung jury?
Oh what a tangled web....
Techno Fog on Substack read the SCOTUS decision and he knows the evidence in the NY case cold. Said evidence was admitted at trial which SCOTUS says should not be admitted.
Juan Marchan really is compelled to grant a new trial if he has any respect for the rule of law.
Robert Cook. OK and what were the other 33 felonies?
Cookie implicitly admits that charging Trump with 34 felonies is sketchy as shit. But since he's giving Donald Trump presumption of guilt, he doesn't actually care.
Cookie in the jury room: "Yes, okay, they overcharged him with 34 felonies. He's really just guilty of one. Maybe we should acquit him on the other 33 counts?"
But they shout him down. If I made this movie, I'd call it 11 Angry Men and 1 Cookie
Henry Fonda would not play you in the movie.
You're all...
Guilty
Guilty
Guilty
Guilty
Guilty
Guilty
I'm not going to type it out 34 times, it's too fucking ridiculous
JAORE said...
IIRC the judge said you don't have to be unanimous on any of the three. So it's possible, should say one charge falls under official duties and the other two only had 11 guilty votes
BUT! the judge ALSO said; that NO ONE would EVER have to say WHAT the "other crime" was..
(which is GOOD, because the "other crime" was CERTAINLY: "Being Donald Trump")
The Real Question IS: Can you start an appeal BEFORE sentencing ?
Robert Cook said...
He was prosecuted for falsifying financial records (in the first degree) to hide that he paid hush money. That is a felony crime in New York State.
NOPE! that is a misdemeanor in New York State (covered by a statue of Limitations)..
Only "became" a "felony because of the "Mystery Crime". I wouldn't expect YOU to know that Robert..
It's the sort of thing a person might need to have lived in New York State to understand.
Even STILL.. Perhaps YOU would like to tell Us WHAT the "Mystery Crime" was?
I'll wait for your answer
"Care to elaborate? explain the crime?"
In this particular case, falsifying business records, a felony in New York, as previously stated.
(Also, sexual abuse, in an earlier case.)
He is a thoroughly dishonest person.
"No, he didn't (commit a crime). Just like Solzhenitsyn didn't commit any crime. Nor did Sergei Kovalev."
Bwahahahaha...! If I'd been sipping some tea when reading your comparison of creep Trump to Solzhenitsyn I would have had a spit take for real! Hahahaha! (I had no idea who Kovalev was. I see he was a boxer who beat up a woman. I guess it's not inapt to compare Trump with Kovalev, though Trump finds other ways to abuse people than physically punching them.)
I'm almost certain a lot of the Trump lovers here would have been eager Manson acolytes if they'd been in that place at that time, so insistent are they to champion this moral worm and intellectual midget as a giant among men. You deny his actions even when he has been adjudged responsible for them in the courts, and you see (and assert) greatness in him for which not a whisper of evidence exists.
Jupiter said...
It would seem like we now need to know which of the three possible underlying crimes the jurors used as the basis for their conviction. So we can consider whether it was immune.
7/2/24, 11:35 AM
----
And, based on Erlinger v. U.S. also decided this week at SCOTUS, the jury finding as to the underlying crime would have to be unanimous (although Merchan instructed the jury that they could split that decision 3/3/3 if they wished). The case is not entirely on point but very close and I believe it would apply.
gilbar said...
Even STILL.. Perhaps YOU would like to tell Us WHAT the "Mystery Crime" was?
I'll wait for your answer
7/2/24, 5:23 PM
You're talking to someone who believes in unicorn leftism: the species of socialism which will never be tried. Every time it is tried, like in China or the USSR, there is no standard of justice beyond the will of the rulers. It's more capricious than England under the Magna Carta. Beria ended his career in a bathroom, which is appropriate. Is Trump the most moral guy ever? Obviously not, but he's the cleanest American politician in fifty years (including St. Reagan) to hold up under this kind of assault.
In a way I pity Cook. He represents the diehard form of tankie that no one cares about anymore. Just old men yelling at clouds while the Starmer/ Obama liberals just roll their eyes and step around them. By contrast, even an unfocused and generally overoptimistic movement like MAGA is running rings around him.
Give Cookie a break. He likely gets his news from the NYT.
Jupiter said...
"It would seem like we now need to know which of the three possible underlying crimes the jurors used as the basis for their conviction. So we can consider whether it was immune."
I think you've hit on it.
RideSpaceMountain said...
"LOL! but also Ouch!"
We all have a type. My type is Tulsi Gabbard. Cocaine Mitch likes Asians. Joe Biden likes pre-pubescents that smell like Pantene. And Trump gets turned on by Frigidaires.
Stormy is not like the other women in his life.
I think it is pretty clear Stormy made her story up.
Sorry to be a killjoy.
cookie's is quite a stalinist, not a new insight
manson the murderer, well would be very happy in the democratic party,
The NY prosecuter had to bend two midemeaners into felonys in order to trap Trump.
Like I said before, Robert, You'd be smiling happily on the platform while the political prisoners were shoved inyo the Stolypin cars while you tell them to mind the gap.
https://www.gbnews.com/politics/us/woke-bbc-presenter-donald-trump-murder-supreme-court
"And Trump gets turned on by Frigidaires."
This would probably get laughs on The Daily Show. But I've always been struck by how men think women who are obviously out of their league are frigid.
I don't know if Trump feeds them chocolate milk or what, but merely having loyal ex-wives is commendable when oligarchs would give them $1 billion to "tell all." I non-ironically think Melania Trump might take torture to help her husband.
Maybe Ford did deserve to lose for pardoning Nixon to avoid a criminal trial. And don't forget that the vice president who originally would have succeeded Nixon pleaded nolo contendere to avoid jail time less than a year before. So, it's not like the 4 women who dissented or failed to fully join the Chief's opinion have overactive imaginations about the crooks who occasionally make it to high office. (VP Aaron Burr anyone?)
Democrats, fix your party. Stop aiming your frustrations at President Trump and fix your party.
As I read the unhinged anti Trump comments, I’m beginning to see TDS as a manifestation of the powerlessness Democrats feel vis a vis their own party. Rather than choosing their candidate, Democrats are now reduced to begging Dr Jill Biden to convince her husband not to run for a second term. They’re not even directing their pleas at President Biden, but at his wife. That’s how far the Democrats are removed from influencing their own party.
Blogger Robert Cook said...
"It's not illegal to pay hush money."
He was not prosecuted for paying hush money. He was prosecuted for falsifying financial records (in the first degree) to hide that he paid hush money. That is a felony crime in New York State.
**********************
The statute of limitations had run out on that "crime".
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
phantommut said...
Big mistake. I can't seem how the Supreme Court ruling has anything to do with Trump's actions re: Paying his lawyer for services rendered.
***************
You have forgotten that Bragg's claim was, Trump violated federal election statutes that somehow resurrected NY state law from the Statute of Limitations graveyard.
And as Mike points out above :
.
"Bragg used confidential White House communications between Trump and his lawyers to build his case, meaning material that should have been excluded because they were "official acts" (confidential advice to the Executive) and immune from prosecution. Every one of these cases is built on shifting sands because they cut corners, denied hearings to determine immunity, and generally just fucked up their own cases."
So there's plenty of valid reasons to delay sentencing pending a review of those issues.
What's more, we might even learn what federal statute the jury used to convict Trump. It might be nice to know...doncha think?
And under the Supreme Court’s new ruling, prosecutors not only cannot charge a president for any official acts, but also cannot cite evidence involving official acts to bolster other accusations.
Yes, but you also can't bring in testimony that's "disparaging" to the defendant but unrelated to the crime he's being charged with.
Such at Stormy's testimony.
So why start following the law now?
Robert Cook wrote:
" He was prosecuted for falsifying financial records (in the first degree) to hide that he paid hush money. That is a felony crime in New York State."
Er,sorry, falsifying financial records is a misdemeanor, not a felony. And it was time barred. They allegedly got him by saying the bookkeeping was to carry out a felony - pick one of 3.
Apart from that, you were spot on.
Iman at 5:01
wow
"What the hell is happening?"
That Biden life raft sure has a lot of leaks.
Kamala?
I think Cook has lost a step.
Eva Marie said, "Democrats, fix your party. Stop aiming your frustrations at President Trump and fix your party."
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Their party is fixed. This is business as usual, all the time. They're a party of lowlife billionaires, sycophantic toadies, sexual deviants, and man-hating feminists with penis envy and a chip on their shoulder.
It only looks broken because the illusion has failed due in no small part to their selfishness. This is who they are.
In this particular case, falsifying business records, a felony in New York, as previously stated.
No. It isn't. And you continuing to repeat it doesn't change that.
It is a misdemeanor upon which the statute of limitations had run out.
If you can't even get the basic shit correct, why do you expect us to believe anything else you write?
it depends what the purpose of the Party is, is it to make the lives of American citizens better, then it has failed but it hasn't even tried, is it the enrichment of its elites out of the Hunger Games, it's a spectacular success,
"So, it's not like the 4 women who dissented or failed to fully join the Chief's opinion have overactive imaginations about the crooks who occasionally make it to high office. (VP Aaron Burr anyone?) "
Burr was acquitted at his treason trial, Justice Marshall presiding. Was he convicted of any crime? He was not convicted of Hamilton's murder. The charges were dropped. Why are you saying Burr was a crook? You don't have any color of law to claim that.
The prosecution and the judge are like the dog that caught the car. They are looking for a way to let go of the bumper between their teeth as the car begins to accelerate.
If falsifying records I the State of New York is a felony, then Hillary is guilty of one. But that's right, that's "whataboutism."
This is a needed pause while Biden is replaced by Harris, and then to rally the troops and independents, all criminal charges against Trump will be dismissed,one by one, including the conviction, with the assertion that the SCt's decision immunized Trump.
Ds want to put wind in Harris' campaign sails as it starts from a cold start, while looking to delegitimize the SCt's conservative majority decisions, with one goal being to expand the SCt at the first opportunity with a D president.
I can make the case that delay on the sentencing in NY is not Trump's friend. Merchan is probably going to make an egregious mistake in sentencing (4 months home confinement or something stupid like that). Get Merchan to make the error that gets quickly reversed in NY or forces quicker consideration of his appeals.
"Maybe Ford did deserve to lose for pardoning Nixon to avoid a criminal trial."
Ford pardoned Nixon to keep the discovery that Nixon would have had a right to from happening. Nixon was deposed by the deep state for recognizing China's claim to Taiwan as official US policy, making the war we have been planning with China for decades, since the end of WWII, see the various crises in the Taiwan Straits the 1950s where the US involved itself in China's civil war. Nixon's concession to China made this war much harder for us to get underway. He also ended the Viet Nam War. He had to go.
Ford was also in charge of the JFK cover up, the "Warren Commission." Which evidently was able to "prove" that a magic bullet killed JFK that violated all of the laws of ballistics, he was able to prove this because if you weighed the report on a scale, it weighed a lot. Ford was trusted by the security state. So yeah, Ford deserved to lose for preventing the airing of the facts that a Nixon trial would have led to.
Original Mike: "I think Cook has lost a step"
Anyone still a Stalinist in 2024 has lost a "wee bit" more than just a step...
You deny his actions even when he has been adjudged responsible for them in the courts
You bet your ass I deny them. It's not "the courts", it's Manhattan courts. Manhattanites are some of the most contemptible leftist scum on the planet, in particular their judges and prosecutors, and there is no possible way a Republican politician can ever get a fair trial there. The Scottsboro Boys had a better chance.
A conviction from a New York court is a badge of honor that makes me more likely rather than less likely to vote for a politician. That shithole is an enemy beachhead, and the filth who live there are not my fellow Americans, and I will never set foot there as long as I live.
@doctrev
You're talking to someone who believes in unicorn leftism:
I've never heard that phrase before. But it's certainly an apt name for those who were unable to mature away from the 60's. If that's original kudos to you.
Robert Cook said...
"It's not illegal to pay hush money."
He was not prosecuted for paying hush money. He was prosecuted for falsifying financial records (in the first degree) to hide that he paid hush money. That is a felony crime in New York State.
Well. Cook is a liar and stupid.
§ 175.10 Falsifying business records in the first degree.
A person is guilty of falsifying business records in the first degree when he commits the crime of falsifying business records in the second degree, and when his intent to defraud includes an intent to commit another crime or to aid or conceal the commission thereof.
Falsifying business records in the first degree is a class E felony.
So the only way it can be a felony(first degree) is for Trump to be guilty of second degree falsifying business records AND intent to commit another crime.
It is right there in black and white you Stalinist ass. So the requirement is obviously that he is convicted of another crime.
You can't possibly be this stupid. There was no second crime. They never even specified the crime.
And as Trump committed the crime of writing down a legal expense as a legal expense more than 7 years ago this "crime" was clearly past the statute of limitations.
There is no stupidity excuse for this. Nobody actually thinks Trump broke any law that is written or chargeable.
You are just a stalinist **** at this point if you think this trial was legitimate. And the fact that they could find 12 people in New York City that would go along with this just means that New York City is full of people that just do not belong in this country.
The question of sentencing for the 34 crimes would come down to whether they would be served consecutively or concurrently. I don't know New York law but in Michigan concurrently is the default unless a specific statutory direction states that the crimes are to be served consecutively. An example in Michigan is felony firearm which is a consecutive crime to be served first before the other crime. It is specifically stated in the statute.*
*Caveat: my criminal law information is old and may be superseded and again, I do not know New York law.
"and again, I do not know New York law."
The first thing to be aware of are the Trump exemptions. It would appear they are many and varied.
pacwest said...
I've never heard that phrase before. But it's certainly an apt name for those who were unable to mature away from the 60's. If that's original kudos to you.
7/2/24, 6:55 PM
I'd be astonished if someone hasn't come up with similar. But it's a major component of why many leftists are still lulled by the Guardian, which doesn't really believe in its old mission and venerates non-entities like Keir Starmer.
Leftist dissidents like Owen Jones, Jimmy Dore, and Glenn Greenwald are hollowing the left from the inside. Their groups are small, compared to MAGA at least, but interesting.
Mason G.: It would remain to see if that would be a bridge too far.
Anyone still a Stalinist in 2024 has lost a "wee bit" more than just a step...
That is surprising because Cook was the superstar of the HS faculty lounge just a few years ago.
The Trump prosecutions are conjured out of thin air. I assume all will be eventually reversed on appeal. In the meantime they function as election interference. There is no other reason for them. Bragg and James are good foot soldiers for the left but too obvious to be believed.
Maynard: "That is surprising because Cook was the superstar of the HS faculty lounge just a few years ago."
There may also be a marxist 20-somethings blue hair/nose ring koffee klatch somewhere that is equally enamored of cookie's "insights".
I remember Robert lambasted us because we called a Stalinist. He was offended because, his words, Stalin wasn't a true communist. A Trotskyite? Perhaps.
They know now this whole persecution has blown up in their face. So the courts are now scared of Trump... and are waiting to see which way the wind blows before they do anything...
I don't know New York law but in Michigan concurrently is the default unless a specific statutory direction states that the crimes are to be served consecutively.
In New York, as in most places, it's up to the judge.
Former prosecutors say shit like "it's unlikely" which is not the same thing as "it's impossible."
It's also unlikely that a former president would be charged with over 100 felonies in an election year.
Scratch any Communist and you will always find Stalin or Pol Pot just under the paint.
Cookie belives the Souced Mouse House "rape is sexy" gal who plagiarized the show she wrote about in her tabloid advice column.
Of course he does.
Thank you, Saint Croix. I try to point out where I am speculating in my field as opposed to others from my state.
St Croiix - your reliance on the 14th Amendment for Congress to pass a law is dependent on a feoetus meeting the definition of a person - something that it does not in US law. So please point elsewhere for the basis for a Federal Abortion law. Many people assume Federal Congress can pass any law it wants - and you seem to be of that school of thought given you believe it "unthinkable" that they can't.
US Federalism divides power between the state and the federal governments. If the Feds aren't explicitly given a right to legislate - that rests with the states. Which was what overturning RvW did.
St Croix - your reliance on the 14th Amendment for Congress to pass a law is dependent on a feoetus meeting the definition of a person - something that it does not in US law.
A person is a live human being. Look it up if you don't know what a word means. I know what a person is like I know what a woman is.
As I said earlier, claiming unborn children are not people went out when Roe v. Wade was overruled. That's the opinion that defined unborn babies as non-people, as sub-human, as property.
Your position, that federal authorities can define unborn babies -- or women -- as "non-persons" is a lie.
I say to you the word "person" is not a legal term of art. It's a simple, ordinary word. You don't have to go to law school to know what a person is. A person is a live human being.
When you play semantic games with words in order to classify human beings as non-people, you're doing a dangerous thing.
Who are you citing for your claim that an unborn baby is not a person? That opinion that was wiped off the books?
Let me time travel to the 19th century and try your argument.
St Croix - your reliance on the 14th Amendment for Congress to pass a law is dependent on a negro meeting the definition of a person - something that it does not in US law. So please point elsewhere for the basis for your abolitionist law
I find the public hand-wringing right now by Democrats and the White House about presidential immunity to be in really poor taste - beyond normal politicking. Even moreso the promise to introduce articles of impeachment by AOC.
Obama literally authorized targeted execution of a U.S. citizen without independent review/approval. It's well documented. There is a clear case to be made that it was an illegal act in his official capacity as President.
Should Trump pursue Obama and Biden for premeditated murder and conspiracy to murder?
Of course not. But that is what the USC codified - that such acts in an official capacity are immune.
Trump will argue that his NY conviction must be overturned because the court admitted evidence of conversations he had with his staff while President in order to prove knowledge and intent. He will argue those conversations were “official acts.” Judge Merchan and higher will reject the argument based on finding that those conversations were not official acts and that including it was a harmless error.
Trump will appeal from NY’s highest court to SCOTUS.
5 or 6 SCOTUS judges, who normally love harmless error like a 15-year-old-boy loves a tube sock, will find that it doesn’t apply to introduction of evidence of Presidentially-immune acts, and that the NY court didn’t analyze official acts doctrine right and remand for more proceedings.
I’m pretty sure that presidential immunity doesn’t apply here. However, the most that Trump was guilty of is a single misdemeanor in new norm, not a federal offense. It’s no surprise that the defense will pounce on this opportunity, though.
Democrats and the media playing the presidential immunity are simply treating their audience as they are stupid ignorant leftists. They know it doesn’t mean the president can do literally anything while in office, but are telling them (their captive audience) this so the voters are going to be ‘scared’ of a Trump residency. Mind you, AOC is unintelligent, so she likely believes it.
I’m pretty sure that presidential immunity doesn’t apply here.
Strictly speaking it is not the question of immunity but the entire ruling this week included a lot more:
1. Prosecutors may not consider confidential advice provided to the President in the course of his official duties.
2. When considering which acts are official or unofficial, prosecutors must presume acts are official unless evidence beyond reasonable doubt points to unofficial.
3. Prosecutors may not speculate or hypothesize about motive when evaluating a president's actions.
Even though a lot of the so-called Hush Money Trial concerned actions in 2006, the invoices were paid and the "false records" recorded in 2017 after Trump took office. Prosecutors spent a lot of time and testimony violating numbers 1 and 2 above, with the lead guy repeatedly telling the jury "Trump's only possible motive was to cover up this affair." There's a lot of falsehood, or at least unproven accusation in that statement, but the glaring problem anyone should see is that they continuously pretended to read Trump's mind and impute motive. No doubt the Chief Justice's opinion that elucidated the above guidance for lower courts reviewing their cases was written with exactly this prosecutorial abuse in mind.
One final word on immunity. Until these trials no one questioned the fact presidents enjoyed absolute immunity for their official acts. That is why in 248 years not one ex-president has so much as been indicted for his acts as president. No one considered charging Nixon for crimes. He resigned when threatened with impeachment. When talk after the fact bubbled up about going after him criminally, because Democrat blood lust was unsatisfied by not getting the chance to impeach, Ford pardoned him (though some say the idea of Nixon's discovery uncovering the spying that Johnson did or other Deep State malfeasance was the real reason Ford acted expeditiously). No one considered charging Obama for droning an American at the time. The remedy for presidential "high crimes and misdemeanors" is impeachment. Period. And once out of office that door has closed.
“Big mistake. I can't seem how the Supreme Court ruling has anything to do with Trump's actions re: Paying his lawyer for services rendered. (Which is what he did, and what he was convicted of doing. Very stupid times we live in.) That was obviously not an official act conducted in his capacity as President.”
But this allegedly became a class 2 felony when it was in furtherance of or to cover up another crime.
We don’t know what that other crime is, which a problem in and of itself, but it potentially runs afoul of the court’s recent ruling on immunity. Was that mysterious second crime an official act.
Remember first that the Court declared an implied immunity to all actions of the President which would have to be defeated by the prosecution. In other words the prosecution would have to affirmatively prove that the second crime, whatever it was, was an unofficial act. The NY trial clearly didn’t do that. In fact, they completely ignored that issue. So the implied immunity stands.
The Court is clearly telling lower courts to go back and redo your work if they want to uphold their conviction. Ain’t gonna happen in this case, which has myriad other problems before we even get to immunity.
If you don’t like that one, remember that the Court also ruled that questions of intent are not relevant and can’t be introduced. That whole damn trial was about intent.
Too many questions, not enough time.
"One final word on immunity. Until these trials no one questioned the fact presidents enjoyed absolute immunity for their official acts. That is why in 248 years not one ex-president has so much as been indicted for his acts as president."
Ridiculous! There has never been a view that the President was beyond the reach of the law. The founders did not establish the office of the President to be equivalent to a king. Nixon resigned expressly to try to avoid being indicted for his illegal acts as president. A month following Nixon's resignation from office, President Ford pardoned Nixon, putting an end to any prosecution of the president. (Nixon's near-indictment repudiates his wrong and self-serving statement at the time that "When the president does it that means it's not illegal.")
"Obama literally authorized targeted execution of a U.S. citizen without independent review/approval. It's well documented. There is a clear case to be made that it was an illegal act in his official capacity as President."
Yes, and he should have been indicted. That presidents commit crimes in office and avoid prosecution has to do entirely with the lack of will by Congress to do so, (or by unofficial tacit agreement within Congress not to do so...those in power want to protect themselves to the degree they can get away with it).
"Robert Cook said...
'He was prosecuted for falsifying financial records (in the first degree) to hide that he paid hush money. That is a felony crime in New York State.'
"NOPE! that is a misdemeanor in New York State (covered by a statue of Limitations)."
NOPE! It's a Class E Felony, punishable by up to 4 years in prison in New York, but up to longer in other states.
NY charged Trump with multiple charges because he falsified 34 different documents, (comprising invoices, checks, and ledger entries) and he was convicted on each one.
"NY charged Trump with multiple charges because he falsified 34 different documents, (comprising invoices, checks, and ledger entries) and he was convicted on each one."
The prosecution actually proved Trump labeled none of those documents personally, Robert. The prosecution's own witnesses from Trump's organization testified that the documents received the labels they did because the invoices came from a lawyer- that it didn't matter how Cohen labeled them. Michael Cohen was the only witness, the only one, who claimed that Trump was involved in any way with the labeling of any of those documents- documents that Cohen himself labeled- additionally, Cohen was forced to admit that some of those invoices were ones he used to defraud Trump.
USA today, huh? OK. We'll go with that. But you don't have the actual records to show us or the context they were written in. No. I just have to take USA Todays word for it. And a lot of that stuff isn't even a misdemeanor. When I had to pay off a county building inspector, in the memo section I would write, " For that little prick the county inspector." In the accounts the expendature was written in as 'building consulting'.
If you had ever run a business this stuff wouldn't be at all alrming.
He didn’t falsify a single document. He signed 11-12 checks payable to his lawyer. He didn’t enter a single false bookkeeping entry. His minions did - seeing that the checks were going to his lawyer. Their actions were attributed to him, even though he no longer had control over them (having given control over to his sons). And these bookkeeping mistakes (at worse) only became felonies, and not barred by the Statute of Limitations, because they were combined, somehow, with other, unspecified crimes, none of which Trump could have been prosecuted for by Bragg and his prosecutors. It was an entirely made up crime, which is why it will ultimately be dismissed (under Due Process grounds, if for nothing else).
But that is the danger that the Supreme Court was addressing. Bragg’s prosecutors violated both attorney/client and executive privilege to get to the convictions. They happily intruded into the sorts of legal privilege and confidentiality that a President needs to run the Executive Branch (which, day to day, means the government). All because a 2 bit hyper partisan DA in NYC wanted to affect the upcoming election.
Everyone else gets immunity for what they do in their jobs: DA Bragg, AG Garland, supposed special counsel Jack Smith, deputy special counsel Jay Bratt, the DOJ and FBI employees who engaged in the likely illegal MAL RAID, ETC. All immune from prosecution for knowingly depriving Trump, etc, of their Constitutional rights. Why should the President (at the time of the supposed crimes) get the same immunity? I would suggest that his need is far higher, since he is responsible for the entire Executive Branch, including the military, our nuclear weapons, etc. Please reread the Hamilton quote earlier.
"The prosecution actually proved Trump labeled none of those documents personally, Robert. The prosecution's own witnesses from Trump's organization testified that the documents received the labels they did because the invoices came from a lawyer- that it didn't matter how Cohen labeled them. Michael Cohen was the only witness, the only one, who claimed that Trump was involved in any way with the labeling of any of those documents- documents that Cohen himself labeled- additionally, Cohen was forced to admit that some of those invoices were ones he used to defraud Trump."
Well, if that's true, why was he convicted? Assuming an incompetent jury, or a jury acting in bad faith, (both of which I find highly unlikely, given the attention paid to who was picked for the jury, the no-doubt stringent voir dire, etc., as well as my own numerous times serving on civil, criminal and grand juries in NYC over 40 years*), wouldn't there have been a mistrial, or wouldn't the judge have vacated the verdict? If Trump didn't personally make the changes, was it established that the changes were made at his behest? Certainly, Trump's lawyers (if he can keep them paid and employed) are certainly seeking to appeal the verdicts.
*(In all cases, the jurors I have served with, always disparate in their background, financial status, level of education, type of work, etc., have been conscientious about finding a fair and true verdict based on the evidence and testimony presented. I've never seen anyone participating with bad faith or prejudice for or against either the prosecution of the defense. Everyone has acted with responsibility and awareness of the seriousness of the outcomes consequent to our decision.)
"... felony conviction for covering up hush money to a porn star...".
I'm hearing that's the crime on all the "important" news stations.
Sigh.
No matter how much you hate the media...
Robert Cook said,
"Well, if that's true, why was he convicted?"
So he would quit running for president. Are you really this naive?
"He didn’t falsify a single document. He signed 11-12 checks payable to his lawyer. He didn’t enter a single false bookkeeping entry. His minions did - seeing that the checks were going to his lawyer. Their actions were attributed to him, even though he no longer had control over them (having given control over to his sons). And these bookkeeping mistakes (at worse) only became felonies, and not barred by the Statute of Limitations, because they were combined, somehow, with other, unspecified crimes, none of which Trump could have been prosecuted for by Bragg and his prosecutors. It was an entirely made up crime, which is why it will ultimately be dismissed (under Due Process grounds, if for nothing else)."
Please. Sounds to me like Trump employees acting at his behest to cover up what the payments were for and who benefitted. When a mafia hit man kills someone, it is not authorized or initiated by the hit man, but by a powerful someone in the organization with the authority to make those calls. The person who didn't do the hit but who made it happen is guilty of murder. Even your brief and Trump-friendly description of "what happened" sounds to me like a cover-up initiated by Trump.
"They happily intruded into the sorts of legal privilege and confidentiality that a President needs to run the Executive Branch (which, day to day, means the government)"
No. The government is tripartite: The Supreme Court, the Executive, and Congress. The president should not and does not have singular power to run "the government" by fiat.
As for "legal privilege and confidentiality," that right belongs to we, the people. The President is simply our short-term hire acting on our behalf. POTUS should not have such unilateral power, and it is not granted to him in the Constitution. We are entitled to all information and rationales guiding all decisions issuing from the president. POTUS is sole commander only of the military, and only after Congress has authorized use of military after due deliberation. It is a rape of the Constitution to assert the President has unbridled power or that he is immune to any and all criminal investigation and charges to any acts undertaken as part of his official duties. POTUS is responsible to the people with regard to all his official duties.
Well, if that's true, why was he convicted?
Cookie, you're embarrassing yourself.
Innocent people get convicted of crimes.
It's possible, and possible things happen.
Imagine you're in some death penalty debate, and people say (quoting you!), "Well, if he's innocent, why was he convicted?"
And have you heard of this thing called "bias"?
What happens if a jury pool is biased?
What happens if the judge is biased?
You're ignoring all of that reality because you are a party man, and all you know how to do is spout party propaganda.
"POTUS should not have such unilateral power, and it is not granted to him in the Constitution. We are entitled to all information and rationales guiding all decisions issuing from the president."
Cookie,
Did you watch newly selected Pedo Pete signing EOs like they were fan autographs?
He was admitting at times he had no idea what they were about.
Assuming an incompetent jury, or a jury acting in bad faith, (both of which I find highly unlikely, given the attention paid to who was picked for the jury, the no-doubt stringent voir dire, etc., as well as my own numerous times serving on civil, criminal and grand juries in NYC over 40 years*)
You are making shit up to suit your political bias.
A judge who is presiding over a criminal trial of a President -- who is hated by 40% of the American people -- needs to bend over backwards to make sure the jury is unbiased and hasn't made pre-judgments about Donald Trump.
He didn't do any of that.
Instead, the judge himself seems biased, as his daughter raised $90 million off the case.
Maybe you noticed the Republican half of the country doesn't believe your joke of a political prosecution?
This was never meant to hold up to appellate review. It was always meant to sway the 2024 election.
"Imagine you're in some death penalty debate, and people say (quoting you!), 'Well, if he's innocent, why was he convicted?'
"And have you heard of this thing called 'bias?'"
Of course. I am well aware that innocent people are convicted of crimes. However, while that can happen to anyone, it typically happens to defendants with no financial means and no access to the many resources the rich and powerful have at their fingers. A defendant with Trump's wealth, power, and human resources is much more evenly matched with the legal system. It is a more difficult task to obtain a conviction of a defendant who can fight back, especially if there is ample evidence proving his innocence (or casting doubt on his guilt), and especially when there is so much public scrutiny of the proceedings.
In context, my question, "if so, why was he convicted," was a reaction specifically to Bruce Hayden's description of Trump as having been essentially and obviously exonerated in the trial.* In short, if his innocence was so apparent, what compelled the jury to vote guilty?
*("The prosecution actually proved Trump labeled none of those documents personally, Robert. The prosecution's own witnesses from Trump's organization testified that the documents received the labels they did because the invoices came from a lawyer-that it didn't matter how Cohen labeled them. Michael Cohen was the only witness, the only one, who claimed that Trump was involved in any way with the labeling of any of those documents- documents that Cohen himself labeled-additionally, Cohen was forced to admit that some of those invoices were ones he used to defraud Trump.")
Sounds in his description like Trump's innocence is an airtight case. Given the public scrutiny, what convinced the jury Trump was guilty? How could such a (supposedly) flimsy prosecution have unanimously convinced a jury of 12 jurors of Trump's guilt on all charges? I'm guessing it has to do with the theory (and likely reality) that everything that was done to hide the hush money was for Trump, at his behest, thus making him the guilty party, the author of the cover-up.
The question is, why isn't Cohen (or anyone else involved, if any, in falsifying documents) facing prosecution?
From another somebody:
"You're ignoring all of that reality because you are a party man, and all you know how to do is spout party propaganda."
What "party" do you imagine that might be?
No, Robert- the reality is that it was 12 jurors picked out of a city where 80% of the people are anti-Trump. You try that same case in upstate New York it would have been an acquittal. That was why Trump got convicted- it had nothing to do with what Trump did or didn't do with the hush money payments.
Robert, I can tell you didn't even follow the details of the trial- my description of what the witnesses testified is 100% accurate- only Michael Cohen testified that Trump had any part in labeling any of the documents he was accused of falsifying. The prosecution called the accountants, the people who actually labeled all the documents but the invoices sent from Cohen, and every single one of them testified in no uncertain terms that they were the ones who applied the labels "legal fees" and that they did so under prompting by no one- that the labels were chosen for only one reason- the invoices came from Trump's lawyer. On cross examination, the accountants testified that it didn't matter what Cohen put on the invoices- he, Cohen was the person being paid, thus they were labeled in the accounting ledgers as "legal fees" as any reasonable human would do in the exact same circumstances.
NOPE! It's a Class E Felony, punishable by up to 4 years in prison in New York, but up to longer in other states.
For the last, fucking time - there must be an underlying crime committed in order for the felony charge to apply.
The only crime he committed was a misdemeanor. And the statute of limitations had run.
That's why we keep demanding to know what the other crime was in order for the felony charge to stick.
Seriously. We've gone over this ad nauseam for weeks. Just quit.
The only explanation for Cook's continued claim that DJT must have been guilt otherwise the jury would not have convicted him is....TDS brain. So sad
This Bragg prosecution backfired big time on all involved in the Dem/Lib Lawfare Party. They got their conviction and the (apparent lie) of "convicted felon". No one in NY bears the redundant title of "convicted felon" until sentence is imposed upon them. I can't predict what the crooked judge will do to further embarrass himself, but I doubt an immediate jail sentence is still an option.
And when this "conviction" is overturned on appeal, DJT will be vindicated. Hopefully this will occur before his inauguration.
Robert Cook said...
"Robert Cook said...
'He was prosecuted for falsifying financial records (in the first degree) to hide that he paid hush money. That is a felony crime in New York State.'
"NOPE! that is a misdemeanor in New York State (covered by a statue of Limitations)."
NOPE! It's a Class E Felony, punishable by up to 4 years in prison in New York, but up to longer in other states.
NY charged Trump with multiple charges because he falsified 34 different documents, (comprising invoices, checks, and ledger entries) and he was convicted on each one.
You obviously didn't or can't read the complete text of the law as written.
You are apparently too stupid to understand it.
In order for falsifying records to be a felony there has to be another crime. It is right there in the law.
Only a moron like you could read the law and miss the requirement for the other crime.
I will write it in crayons for you:
A person is guilty of falsifying business records in the first degree when he commits the crime of falsifying business records in the second degree, and when his intent to defraud includes an intent to commit another crime or to aid or conceal the commission thereof.
Falsifying business records in the first degree is a class E felony.
I understand it is a compound sentence. But anyone with 4th grade reading comprehension could figure out what is required for this to be a felony.
Sentencing is being delayed until Sept. 18." If such is still necessary"
Seems that these criminal documents(sarc) were from 2017 when Trump was president.
What is Robert blathering about?
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा