NY judge issues gag order on Trump in hush money trial

[Danderman123]

2 hours ago, Yellowtail said:

Yes, he's alleged to have banged a willing porn actress fifteen years ago and then paying her to keep quiet eight years ago.

 

Meanwhile, criminal illegal aliens arrested for violent crimes, illegal guns and drugs are released on their own recognizance. 

The problem is that he claimed the hush money as a business expense.

 

Not a big crime, but a crime none the less.

 

Before you go on with "whatabout" again, let me ask you if any white collar crimes should be prosecuted.

[jerrymahoney]

3 minutes ago, Danderman123 said:

The problem is that he claimed the hush money as a business expense.

 

Not a big crime, but a crime none the less.

Trump is charged with 34 counts of violating 

 

§ 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.

 

https://www.nysenate.gov/legislation/laws/PEN/175.10

 

So it is a 2-part charge.

[Yellowtail]

4 minutes ago, Danderman123 said:

The problem is that he claimed the hush money as a business expense.

Not true. You've already admitted you have no idea what the charges are, why are you back to pretending you do? 

4 minutes ago, Danderman123 said:

Not a big crime, but a crime none the less.

Well, the left would have us believe it's the crime of the century. Anyone else, it would have been dropped or a state misdemeanor.  

4 minutes ago, Danderman123 said:

 

Before you go on with "whatabout" again, let me ask you if any white collar crimes should be prosecuted.

I absolutely believe white collar crimes should be prosecuted.

 

And I also think criminal illegal aliens arrested for violent crimes, illegal guns and drugs should be prosecuted and deported, not released on their own recognizance to disappear. 

 

 

[Danderman123]

3 minutes ago, Yellowtail said:

Not true. You've already admitted you have no idea what the charges are, why are you back to pretending you do? 

 

 

I wrote that I hadn't memorized the charges.

[Danderman123]

3 minutes ago, Yellowtail said:

 

I absolutely believe white collar crimes should be prosecuted.

 

 

 

So you are okay with prosecution of Trump for white collar crimes. Great.

[Danderman123]

3 hours ago, Yellowtail said:

 

Well, the left would have us believe it's the crime of the century. Anyone else, it would have been dropped or a state misdemeanor.  

 

Nope.

 

Prosecution of falsifying business records in the first degree is commonplace and has been used by New York district attorneys’ offices to hold to account a breadth of criminal behavior from the more petty and simple to the more serious and highly organized.

[jerrymahoney]

34 minutes ago, Danderman123 said:

Nope.

 

Prosecution of falsifying business records in the first degree is commonplace and has been used by New York district attorneys’ offices to hold to account a breadth of criminal behavior from the more petty and simple to the more serious and highly organized.

From your link:

 

An individual “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.” N.Y. Penal Code § 175.10.

 

For Trump to be prosecuted for felony violation of falsifying business records, the statute requires the DA to prove not only that Trump is guilty of falsifying business records (a misdemeanor), but that he did so with the intent to commit “another crime,” or aiding or concealing the commission of “another crime.”

 

Or as Judge Merchan put it in a ruling:

 

The People's primary contention with Defendant's argument is that the statute does not require that the "other crime" actually be committed. Rather, all that is required is that defendant have the intent. That is, he acted with a conscious aim and objective to commit another crime.

 

KInda like the Shadow radio intro as spoken by Orson Wells:

 

Who knows what evil lurks in the hearts of men?

 

Don't be confused. It's simple: The Prosecution's closing argument might be to the jury:

 

We are asking you to find Donald Trump guilty of something he didn't do.

'

Edited April 11 by jerrymahoney

[Danderman123]

DA Alvin Bragg would not have indicted Trump unless his office thought the law and the facts were on their side.

 

Conversely, Trump would not be delaying if he thought the law and facts were on his side.

 

Of course, even if Trump is convicted, there is going to be a long appeal process.

[jerrymahoney]

12 minutes ago, Danderman123 said:

DA Alvin Bragg would not have indicted Trump unless his office thought the law and the facts were on their side.

 

Conversely, Trump would not be delaying if he thought the law and facts were on his side.

 

Of course, even if Trump is convicted, there is going to be a long appeal process.

Thanks for the colo(u)r commentary. From The Washington Post:

 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/2024/04/08/falsifying-business-records-charges-trump-hush-money-case/

Prosecutors have suggested that the overall scheme was a potential violation of federal and state election laws, as well as state tax laws. But Trump has not been charged with any other crimes in the case, making the felony counts for falsifying business records more unusual.

 

(Renato Mariotti, a former federal prosecutor on financial fraud cases) said it still could be difficult to get jurors to agree that Trump should be convicted.

 

“Although there is evidence of another crime, and that’s something that’s going to have to be proven out, ultimately that’s not what Trump is charged with.”
 

[Yellowtail]

14 minutes ago, Danderman123 said:

DA Alvin Bragg would not have indicted Trump unless his office thought the law and the facts were on their side.

Bragg did look at it and refused to indict him the first time around, he knows it's made up. The facts on Trump's side, but the law doesn't care. 

14 minutes ago, Danderman123 said:

Conversely, Trump would not be delaying if he thought the law and facts were on his side.

Trump knows Bragg and the judge will do all they can to convict him. 

14 minutes ago, Danderman123 said:

Of course, even if Trump is convicted, there is going to be a long appeal process.

As long as they can help keep him out of office, that's all that matters. Maybe they can convict him, and make him post a $10B bond to stay out of jail until the appeal. That'll teach him to bang porn stars and pay them hush money. 

[Danderman123]

3 hours ago, Yellowtail said:

That'll teach him to bang porn stars and pay them hush money. 

Just before the presidential election.

 

If the shoe were on the other foot, you would be screaming about election interference.

[jerrymahoney]

15 hours ago, Danderman123 said:

DA Alvin Bragg would not have indicted Trump unless his office thought the law and the facts were on their side.

Updated Nov. 27, 2022, 12:58 a.m. ET

 

according to data made public by the DA’s office ( https://data.manhattanda.org/ )

 

When serious felony charges are brought, Bragg’s office wins a conviction just 51% of the time — down from 68% in 2019, the last year before the pandemic disrupted the court system.

 

https://nypost.com/2022/11/26/convictions-plummet-downgraded-charges-surge-under-manhattan-da-bragg/

[Chomper Higgot]

17 hours ago, jerrymahoney said:

From your link:

 

An individual “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.” N.Y. Penal Code § 175.10.

 

For Trump to be prosecuted for felony violation of falsifying business records, the statute requires the DA to prove not only that Trump is guilty of falsifying business records (a misdemeanor), but that he did so with the intent to commit “another crime,” or aiding or concealing the commission of “another crime.”

 

Or as Judge Merchan put it in a ruling:

 

The People's primary contention with Defendant's argument is that the statute does not require that the "other crime" actually be committed. Rather, all that is required is that defendant have the intent. That is, he acted with a conscious aim and objective to commit another crime.

 

KInda like the Shadow radio intro as spoken by Orson Wells:

 

Who knows what evil lurks in the hearts of men?

 

Don't be confused. It's simple: The Prosecution's closing argument might be to the jury:

 

We are asking you to find Donald Trump guilty of something he didn't do.

'

So conspiracy to commit a crime is not a crime in and of itself if the conspiracy does not result in the conspired crime being committed?

 

 

[rudi49jr]

The trial starts on Monday. Anyone want to hazard a guess as to how many posts Donald Trump is going to dump on his Truth Social this weekend? His record, if I’m not mistaken, was about 70 or 80 two weekends ago. 
Although it has been relatively quiet on that front lately. Maybe his lawyers/handlers finally managed to put a leash on him. Or maybe they just take his phone away from him at night.

[transam]

You would think that McTrumps mouth would bury him, surely those from top to bottom are tired of this wide boy..................🤔

[scottiejohn]

16 minutes ago, rudi49jr said:

The trial starts on Monday. Anyone want to hazard a guess as to how many posts Donald Trump is going to dump on his Truth Social this weekend? His record, if I’m not mistaken, was about 70 or 80 two weekends ago. 
Although it has been relatively quiet on that front lately. Maybe his lawyers/handlers finally managed to put a leash on him. Or maybe they just take his phone away from him at night.

Or just remove the only brain cell that it might have!

[scottiejohn]

6 minutes ago, transam said:

You would think that McTrumps mouth would bury him, surely those from top to bottom are tired of this wide boy..................🤔

Unfortunately not it would seem!

[Danderman123]

"They put him into the state of New York, and then into the D.A.'s office to run the case," said Trump. "This is being run by Biden. They put a man into the state, Letitia Jones, 'Peekaboo,' I call her, Peekaboo Jones, Peekaboo — they put a man into that one to, Letitia. They put a man into that one to run it, and he went into the D.A.'s office."

 

I don't know who Trump is talking about.

 

Any Trump fan here who can tell us who they are supposed to be angry at?

[Danderman123]

11 hours ago, jerrymahoney said:

Updated Nov. 27, 2022, 12:58 a.m. ET

 

according to data made public by the DA’s office ( https://data.manhattanda.org/ )

 

When serious felony charges are brought, Bragg’s office wins a conviction just 51% of the time — down from 68% in 2019, the last year before the pandemic disrupted the court system.

 

https://nypost.com/2022/11/26/convictions-plummet-downgraded-charges-surge-under-manhattan-da-bragg/

That is suprisingly incompetent.

[stevenl]

1 hour ago, Danderman123 said:

"They put him into the state of New York, and then into the D.A.'s office to run the case," said Trump. "This is being run by Biden. They put a man into the state, Letitia Jones, 'Peekaboo,' I call her, Peekaboo Jones, Peekaboo — they put a man into that one to, Letitia. They put a man into that one to run it, and he went into the D.A.'s office."

 

I don't know who Trump is talking about.

 

Any Trump fan here who can tell us who they are supposed to be angry at?

Same as always: everyone but Trump.

[Danderman123]

6 minutes ago, stevenl said:

Same as always: everyone but Trump.

The problem is that Trump isn't speaking English anymore.

 

We went through this with Reagan, he had good days and bad days. His staff was pretty good during bad days. And he never was so far gone that he wouldn't listen to his wife.

 

Trump, on the hand, is uncontrollable.

Edited April 12 by Danderman123

[rudi49jr]

2 hours ago, Danderman123 said:

"They put him into the state of New York, and then into the D.A.'s office to run the case," said Trump. "This is being run by Biden. They put a man into the state, Letitia Jones, 'Peekaboo,' I call her, Peekaboo Jones, Peekaboo — they put a man into that one to, Letitia. They put a man into that one to run it, and he went into the D.A.'s office."

 

I don't know who Trump is talking about.

 

Any Trump fan here who can tell us who they are supposed to be angry at?

Just the ‘stable genius’ becoming increasingly more mentally unstable, and uttering incoherent gibberish more and more frequently. His mind is going, that much is obvious to anyone but his MAGA cult followers.

[LosLobo]

Hush money trial will not be delayed because of publicity

 

The New York judge, Justice Juan Merchan, overseeing Donald Trump’s hush money case, has denied Trump’s request to indefinitely delay the trial scheduled for Monday.

 

Trump had argued that pre-trial publicity and bias against him in Manhattan would make a fair trial impossible.

 

However, Merchan ruled that an indefinite delay was untenable and noted that Trump himself had contributed to the publicity through his continuous media posts.

Trump's hush money trial will not be delayed because of publicity, judge rules | Reuters

[rudi49jr]

52 minutes ago, LosLobo said:

and noted that Trump himself had contributed to the publicity through his continuous media posts.

Amen to that. Looks like someone shot himself in the foot….

[Yellowtail]

On 4/12/2024 at 9:42 AM, Chomper Higgot said:

So conspiracy to commit a crime is not a crime in and of itself if the conspiracy does not result in the conspired crime being committed?

 

 

Correct. 

 

You can plan to rob a bank all you like, but unless the bank is robbed, or an attempt to made to actually rob it, there is no crime. 

 

 

[Danderman123]

4 minutes ago, Yellowtail said:

Correct. 

 

You can plan to rob a bank all you like, but unless the bank is robbed, or an attempt to made to actually rob it, there is no crime. 

In such a case, any action in support of a conspiracy to rob a bank can incur criminal charges.

 

In the current case, Trump paid off Stormy Daniels to ensure she didn't go public before the 2016 election. Was that a crime? I don't know, but Trump wasn't indicted for it.

Edited April 13 by Danderman123

[Yellowtail]

12 minutes ago, Danderman123 said:

In such a case, any action in support of a conspiracy to rob a bank can incur criminal charges.

Only if the bank is actually robbed.

"Legally, a Conspiracy exists when 2 or more persons join together and form an agreement to violate the law, and then act on that agreement. The crime of Conspiracy was created to address the inherent dangers posed to society when people come together and join forces to commit criminal acts."

Federal Conspiracy Law (Mp3) | Federal Law Enforcement Training Centers (fletc.gov)

12 minutes ago, Danderman123 said:

In the current case, Trump paid off Stormy Daniels to ensure she didn't go public before the 2016 election. Was that a crime? I don't know, but Trump wasn't indicted for it.

Trump paid Stormy to enter into non-disclosure agreement (NDA) which is perfectly legal. People enter NDAs all the time and they are legal and binding. 

 

The state is pretending there is a crime because the payment to Stormy (I believe) should have been entered as campaign expense and was not.  

 

So, the state should have to prove the only reason Trump paid her was because of the election, which seems a bit silly. But of course, the state will likely not have to prove anything, because TRUMP. 

[Chomper Higgot]

50 minutes ago, Yellowtail said:

Correct. 

 

You can plan to rob a bank all you like, but unless the bank is robbed, or an attempt to made to actually rob it, there is no crime. 

 

 

Don’t ever use that as a defense.

 

The criteria for a conspiracy to become a felony is taking any step in furtherance of the crime. Actus reus.

 

 

So in your bank robbery example, conspiring to rob a bank becomes a crime the moment any action is taken in preparation for the robbery - eg you conspired to rob the bank then you went to the bank to ‘case the joint’.

 

 

[Chomper Higgot]

32 minutes ago, Yellowtail said:

Only if the bank is actually robbed.

"Legally, a Conspiracy exists when 2 or more persons join together and form an agreement to violate the law, and then act on that agreement. The crime of Conspiracy was created to address the inherent dangers posed to society when people come together and join forces to commit criminal acts."

Federal Conspiracy Law (Mp3) | Federal Law Enforcement Training Centers (fletc.gov)

Trump paid Stormy to enter into non-disclosure agreement (NDA) which is perfectly legal. People enter NDAs all the time and they are legal and binding. 

 

The state is pretending there is a crime because the payment to Stormy (I believe) should have been entered as campaign expense and was not.  

 

So, the state should have to prove the only reason Trump paid her was because of the election, which seems a bit silly. But of course, the state will likely not have to prove anything, because TRUMP. 

From your the link you posted:

 

” In addition, the overt act that follows the agreement doesn’t necessarily have to be an illegal act. It just has to be some act that demonstrates that the agreement is now being acted upon.”

[Yellowtail]

6 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

From your the link you posted:

 

” In addition, the overt act that follows the agreement doesn’t necessarily have to be an illegal act. It just has to be some act that demonstrates that the agreement is now being acted upon.”

And what was the crime Trump was conspiring to commit, who was he conspiring with, and what was the act that demonstrated that the agreement was being acted upon? 

 

If it was entering into the NDA with Stormy, wouldn't Stormy be a coconspirator?