Trump has pleaded not guilty to 34 counts of falsifying business records

[Scott]

 

https://abcnews.go.com/

[candide]

Priceless! ????

https://news.yahoo.com/trump-arraigned-manhattan-alleged-hush-110056179.html

[jerrymahoney]

Reading the indictment, Lawyer A (Cohen) will testify at any eventual trial.

 

Big question is: Will TO CFO (Weisselberg) testify?

[pomchop]

This case is the least of t's problems....more and bigger shoes to drop soon.

[Tug]

This is the least serious of the cases he’s facing (because of his actions) does anyone think it’s penetrating his brain that he in deep trouble or does he think he’s truly untouchable?

[Scott]

https://www.scribd.com/document/636100433/Donald-J-Trump-Indictment

 

 

 

[Fat is a type of crazy]

A tad underwhelming. It is what it was likely to be but no more. 

Though this is a thing, put this on the back burner, and see if other investigations have a bit more immediacy and substance. 

[Chomper Higgot]

While the Defendant was being arrested in New York, the DOJ won at appeal to compel the testimony of Mark Meadows.

 

The Defendant is heading into a world of hurt.

 

 

[jerrymahoney]

57 minutes ago, pomchop said:

This case is the least of t's problems....more and bigger shoes to drop soon.

While I will not disagree, the other 3 legal issues involve unique circunstances.

 

According to a statement by DA Bragg:

 

“My office, including the talented prosecutors you saw at arraignment earlier today, has charged hundreds of felony falsifying business records — this charge, it can be said, is the bread and butter of our white-collar work,” Bragg said.

 

“I bring cases when they’re ready,” Bragg told reporters. “Having now conducted a rigorous, thorough investigation, the case was ready to be brought, and it was brought.”

 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2023/04/04/trump-arraignment-ny-indictment-live-updates

 

 

 

 

 

[Chomper Higgot]

5 minutes ago, Fat is a type of crazy said:

A tad underwhelming. It is what it was likely to be but no more. 

Though this is a thing, put this on the back burner, and see if other investigations have a bit more immediacy and substance. 

The immediacy is there right in front of you, I’ll grant you the Defendant hasn’t kicked off with his usual whinny histrionics, even he seems to have grasped the gravity of the situation he’s put himself in.

 

I’m hopeful your wish with respect to other investigations the Defendant faces will meet your wishes and tgen some.

[Salerno]

25 minutes ago, Tug said:

This is the least serious of the cases he’s facing (because of his actions) does anyone think it’s penetrating his brain that he in deep trouble or does he think he’s truly untouchable?

Does this pic from his arrival at Trump Towers look like a happy man without a care in the world waving to his "fans" or a worried man realising his history is starting to catch up with him? 

[Chomper Higgot]

“Falsifying business records in the first degree” doesn’t sound very dramatic, it is however a felony and of concern to the Defendant, it is a felony that is very easily proven with documents and records.

 

Or in this case 34 counts of “Falsifying business records in the first degree”
 

 

[Fat is a type of crazy]

19 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

The immediacy is there right in front of you, I’ll grant you the Defendant hasn’t kicked off with his usual whinny histrionics, even he seems to have grasped the gravity of the situation he’s put himself in.

 

I’m hopeful your wish with respect to other investigations the Defendant faces will meet your wishes and tgen some.

This case is open to being interpreted as being followed up for political purposes - given the time the alleged acts happened and the substantiveness of the issues.

I had looked to whether the facts, for the basis and reasoning of proceeding with the case, would put it beyond doubt that that it was not done for those reasons. The argument for the case indicates it is a thing, and is I guess likely laws were broken, but it seems the right WILL have a basis to say this was done for political reasons. It may be that more will come out to justify these actions over time. 

As others have said, the other cases appear to be much more serious, and the argument to take matters further against a former president more substantive. 

[2baht]

1 hour ago, Chomper Higgot said:

I’ll grant you the Defendant hasn’t kicked off with his usual whinny histrionics

Be patient, he will not be able to help himself, he'll milk this for more than it's worth!

[Chomper Higgot]

1 minute ago, Fat is a type of crazy said:

This case is open to being interpreted as being followed up for political purposes - given the time the alleged acts happened and the substantiveness of the issues.

I hoped the facts of the basis and reasoning of the case would put it beyond doubt that that it was not done for those reasons. The argument for the case indicates it is a thing, and is I guess likely laws were broken, but it seems the right WILL have a basis to say this was done for political reasons. It may be that more will come out to justify these actions over time. 

As others have said, the other cases appear to be much more serious, and the argument to take matters further against a former president more substantive. 

Is falsifying business records in the first degree a crime?

This case breaks what is only a convention of not indicting a former President.

 

Bringing more indictments against the Defendant just got a whole lot easier, a whole lot more certain. 

[Chomper Higgot]

3 minutes ago, 2baht said:

Be patient, he will not be able to help himself, he'll milk this for more than it's worth!

But he’s now a Defendant, anything and everything he says relating to the case may be used against him at trial.

 

He needs to stay schtum.

 

Well, if he knows what’s good for him.

[SunnyinBangrak]

10 minutes ago, Fat is a type of crazy said:

This case is open to being interpreted as being followed up for political purposes - given the time the alleged acts happened and the substantiveness of the issues.

I had looked to whether the facts, for the basis and reasoning of proceeding with the case, would put it beyond doubt that that it was not done for those reasons. The argument for the case indicates it is a thing, and is I guess likely laws were broken, but it seems the right WILL have a basis to say this was done for political reasons. It may be that more will come out to justify these actions over time. 

As others have said, the other cases appear to be much more serious, and the argument to take matters further against a former president more substantive. 

Are you claiming Bragg is known for dragging up historic non violent convoluted cases to fill prisons? We both know the opposite is true. Why the deceit? 

[Fat is a type of crazy]

8 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

Is falsifying business records in the first degree a crime?

This case breaks what is only a convention of not indicting a former President.

 

Bringing more indictments against the Defendant just got a whole lot easier, a whole lot more certain. 

I am not saying it is not a crime or that in an ideal world charges are not appropriate. But would have they put the resources into this over something that happened some years ago if it wasn't Trump. Not sure. It certainly gives the right ammunition to suggest he is getting special treatment. That is if my interpretation of what has come out is correct. 

[Chomper Higgot]

1 minute ago, Fat is a type of crazy said:

I am not saying it is not a crime or that in an ideal world charges are not appropriate. But would have they put the resources into this over something that happened some years ago if it wasn't Trump. Not sure. It certainly gives the right ammunition to suggest he is getting special treatment. That is if my interpretation of what has come out is correct. 

Trump supporters will not accept any indictments, trial or conviction of their idol.

 

The Defendant himself has in the past said as much ‘I could shoot someone on 5th Avenue and not lose voters’.

 

There is no negotiating with idolatry, no sense at all in considering the views of cult followers when choosing what laws to enforce.

 

 

 

[2baht]

1 hour ago, Chomper Higgot said:

He needs to stay schtum.

????????????That's funny!

[jerrymahoney]

The judge overseeing former President Trump’s criminal case in New York City has set the next in-person hearing for Dec. 4, roughly two months before the official start of the 2024 Republican presidential primary calendar. 

 

https://thehill.com/homenews/3934216-trump-december-court-date-2024-primaries/

 

So nothings gonna happen fast. Possible trial dates (if there is a trial) well into 2024.

[Salerno]

The Manhattan DA's office also released a Statement of Facts alongside the indictment sheet.

 

https://www.manhattanda.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/04/Donald-J.-Trump-SOF.pdf

[jerrymahoney]

To the above 'Statement of Facts' PDF:

 

13 references to TO CFO.

[Bkk Brian]

8 minutes ago, Salerno said:

The Manhattan DA's office also released a Statement of Facts alongside the indictment sheet.

 

https://www.manhattanda.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/04/Donald-J.-Trump-SOF.pdf

"Catch and kill" timeline

The statement of facts contains a timeline during which the former president is alleged to have engaged in a practice known as "catch and kill," which involved buying negative stories in an effort to keep them from being published. From August 2015 through December 2017, the statement of facts says Mr. Trump "orchestrated a scheme with others to influence the 2016 presidential election by identifying and purchasing negative information about him to suppress its publication and benefit the Defendant's electoral prospects."

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/trump-indictment-statement-of-facts-key-takeaways-excerpts-from-charges/

[spidermike007]

This man re-defines the word guilt. He has been guilty since he was a young man, and has always felt the law does not apply to him. 

 

The real question is not whether or not he is guilty of felonies. The question is, can they get a conviction, or do they want to get a conviction? 

[jerrymahoney]

3 minutes ago, spidermike007 said:

The real question is not whether or not he is guilty of felonies. The question is, can they get a conviction, or do they want to get a conviction? 

Even a possible guilty verdict does not mean necessarily any jail time as ex-President Trump's Secret Service protection-for-life will have a lot to say about it.

[pomchop]

57 minutes ago, Fat is a type of crazy said:

This case is open to being interpreted as being followed up for political purposes - given the time the alleged acts happened and the substantiveness of the issues.

I had looked to whether the facts, for the basis and reasoning of proceeding with the case, would put it beyond doubt that that it was not done for those reasons. The argument for the case indicates it is a thing, and is I guess likely laws were broken, but it seems the right WILL have a basis to say this was done for political reasons. It may be that more will come out to justify these actions over time. 

As others have said, the other cases appear to be much more serious, and the argument to take matters further against a former president more substantive. 

The right will of course say it is all political.  T himself has long assured them that he is above the law and could shoot someone in times square and get away with it.  Trump and his companies have been sued over 3500 times most long before he was POTUS.  That might be an indication that just maybe he is not clean as new snow.

 

The jury will no doubt be charged to look at only the facts placed in front of them and ignore everyone's opinions as to why charges were brought....then they have to decide if he is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt or not.  Agree the other cases are reflective of much more serious potential crimes and it will be interesting to see if the republicans are all willing to back trump on obstruction of justice, attempts to overthrow the election results not to mention inciting a riot/coup.  Those are some very serious charges and trumps own words, videos and action seem very well documented and may be the torpedo that sinks donnie and the delusionals.

[Salerno]

11 minutes ago, jerrymahoney said:

Even a possible guilty verdict does not mean necessarily any jail time as ex-President Trump's Secret Service protection-for-life will have a lot to say about it.

Don't they have solitary confinement in the States?

[vandeventer]

Again, a big nothing burger! So what is the crime of intent behind the 34 counts?

[stoner]

what a great reflection of america as a whole.