Michael Cohen Takes Center Stage in Trump's Hush Money Trial

[Danderman123]

1 hour ago, Yellowtail said:

 

The best hope for Trump is to will the election. 

The best hope for Trump is the Unified Reich.

[Danderman123]

Just now, Yellowtail said:

You mean concealment of someone else's campaign finance violation don't you?

 

In any event, do you have a statute number for that? I thought not. 

It's been posted here several times.

 

Re-posting it won't stop your trolling.

[Yellowtail]

Just now, Danderman123 said:

It's been posted here several times.

 

Re-posting it won't stop your trolling.

That's what I thought, you still don't have any idea. 

[Walker88]

8 minutes ago, Yellowtail said:

That's what I thought, you still don't have any idea. 

Penal Law §175.10

 

Did you see that?

 

Penal Law §175.10

 

In case you missed it....

 

Penal Law §175.10

 

And just to make it clear....

 

P e n a l  L a w (squiggly thing) One Seven Five dot One Zero

 

And for the next 30 times you ask the same thing:

 

Penal Law §175.10 Penal Law §175.10 Penal Law §175.10 Penal Law §175.10 Penal Law §175.10

Penal Law §175.10 Penal Law §175.10 Penal Law §175.10 Penal Law §175.10 Penal Law §175.10

Penal Law §175.10 Penal Law §175.10 Penal Law §175.10 Penal Law §175.10 Penal Law §175.10

Penal Law §175.10 Penal Law §175.10 Penal Law §175.10 Penal Law §175.10 Penal Law §175.10

Penal Law §175.10 Penal Law §175.10 Penal Law §175.10 Penal Law §175.10 Penal Law §175.10

Penal Law §175.10 Penal Law §175.10 Penal Law §175.10 Penal Law §175.10 Penal Law §175.10

 

 

 

 

[Danderman123]

18 minutes ago, Yellowtail said:

That's what I thought, you still don't have any idea. 

Of course I do, and have posted it.

 

I am just not playing your trolling game.

 

Next week, the Prosecution will present their closing argument, you can advise the Trump Defense on the law afterwards.

Edited May 22 by Danderman123

[Danderman123]

18 hours ago, spidermike007 said:

Kind of amusing that a trial of the most dishonest man in history could be derailed by a man who stole a relatively small amount of money and lied about it. Something ironic about that. Dishonest men using any reason to have their man avoid facing reality and punishment. 

There was no derailment of the Prosecution's case.

 

The Defense witness was a mess.

[jerrymahoney]

From the transcript Judge's conference April 23

ADA Steinglass: However, as the Court is aware, Falsifying
Business Records in the First Degree requires an intent to
defraud, that includes the intent to commit or conceal
another crime .

 

The primary crime that we have alleged is New York
State Election Law Section 17-152 .

[jerrymahoney]

2 hours ago, jerrymahoney said:

2 hours ago, Yagoda said:

You take the Pattern Jury Instructions and gussy them up.

As here:

 

https://nycourts.gov/judges/cji/2-PenalLaw/175/175.10.pdf

Model Jury instructions NY PL 175.10 slightly edited:

 

In order for you to find the defendant guilty of this crime, the
People are required to prove, from all of the evidence in the case,
beyond a reasonable doubt, EACH of the following two elements:

 

1. That on or about (date) , in the county of (county) ,
the defendant, (defendant's name), ...

 

made or caused a false entry in the business records
of an enterprise; 

 

2. That the defendant did so with intent to defraud that
included an intent to commit another crime or to aid or
conceal the commission thereof.

 

If you find the People have not proven beyond a reasonable
doubt EITHER ONE OR BOTH of these elements, you must find the
defendant not guilty of this crime.

 

So despite all the complexities of this case, if the jury were to find that the 34 records were not false entries, it would be time to go home.
 

 

 

 

 

[Yellowtail]

57 minutes ago, Walker88 said:

Penal Law §175.10

 

Did you see that?

 

Penal Law §175.10

 

In case you missed it....

 

Penal Law §175.10

 

And just to make it clear....

 

P e n a l  L a w (squiggly thing) One Seven Five dot One Zero

 

And for the next 30 times you ask the same thing:

 

Penal Law §175.10 Penal Law §175.10 Penal Law §175.10 Penal Law §175.10 Penal Law §175.10

Penal Law §175.10 Penal Law §175.10 Penal Law §175.10 Penal Law §175.10 Penal Law §175.10

Penal Law §175.10 Penal Law §175.10 Penal Law §175.10 Penal Law §175.10 Penal Law §175.10

Penal Law §175.10 Penal Law §175.10 Penal Law §175.10 Penal Law §175.10 Penal Law §175.10

Penal Law §175.10 Penal Law §175.10 Penal Law §175.10 Penal Law §175.10 Penal Law §175.10

Penal Law §175.10 Penal Law §175.10 Penal Law §175.10 Penal Law §175.10 Penal Law §175.10

 

 

Thanks, but Danderman's claim was "Concealment of a campaign finance violation." which is not covered under Penal Law §175.10, so neither of you know, that's what I thought. Are you still just trolling?    Thanks, but Danderman's claim was  "Concealment of a campaign finance violation."  which is not covered under Penal Law §175.10, so  neither of you know, that's what I thought. Are you still  just trolling?   Thanks,  but Danderman's claim was "Concealment of a campaign finance violation." which is not covered under Penal Law §175.10, so neither of you know, that's what I thought. Are you still just trolling? Thanks, but Danderman's claim was "Concealment of a campaign finance violation." which is not covered under Penal Law §175.10, so neither of you know, that's what I thought. Are you still just trolling? Thanks, but Danderman's claim was "Concealment of a campaign finance violation." which is not covered under Penal Law §175.10, so neither of you know, that's what I thought. Are you still just trolling? Thanks, but Danderman's claim was "Concealment of a campaign finance violation." which is not covered under Penal Law §175.10, so neither of you know, that's what I thought. Are you still just trolling? Thanks, but Danderman's claim was "Concealment of a campaign finance violation." which is not covered under Penal Law §175.10, so neither of you know, that's what I thought. Are you still just trolling? Thanks, but Danderman's claim was "Concealment of a campaign finance violation." which is not covered under Penal Law §175.10, so neither of you know, that's what I thought. Are you still just trolling? 

 

That's what I thought. "Truth is not a left-wing value." 

[Yellowtail]

55 minutes ago, Danderman123 said:

There was no derailment of the Prosecution's case.

 

The Defense witness was a mess.

That's because the prosecution has no crime. 

[Danderman123]

1 minute ago, Yellowtail said:

That's because the prosecution has no crime. 

You are always surprised by Real Life.

[Yellowtail]

2 minutes ago, Danderman123 said:

You are always surprised by Real Life.

I have not been surprised by much of anything in the last ten years, except perhaps how Evil the left is. I used to think they were just stupid. 

[Danderman123]

4 minutes ago, Yellowtail said:

 

Thanks, but Danderman's claim was "Concealment of a campaign finance violation." which is not covered under Penal Law §175.10, so neither of you know, that's what I thought. Are you still just trolling?    Thanks, but Danderman's claim was  "Concealment of a campaign finance violation."  which is not covered under Penal Law §175.10, so  neither of you know, that's what I thought. Are you still  just trolling?   Thanks,  but Danderman's claim was "Concealment of a campaign finance violation." which is not covered under Penal Law §175.10, so neither of you know, that's what I thought. Are you still just trolling? Thanks, but Danderman's claim was "Concealment of a campaign finance violation." which is not covered under Penal Law §175.10, so neither of you know, that's what I thought. Are you still just trolling? Thanks, but Danderman's claim was "Concealment of a campaign finance violation." which is not covered under Penal Law §175.10, so neither of you know, that's what I thought. Are you still just trolling? Thanks, but Danderman's claim was "Concealment of a campaign finance violation." which is not covered under Penal Law §175.10, so neither of you know, that's what I thought. Are you still just trolling? Thanks, but Danderman's claim was "Concealment of a campaign finance violation." which is not covered under Penal Law §175.10, so neither of you know, that's what I thought. Are you still just trolling? Thanks, but Danderman's claim was "Concealment of a campaign finance violation." which is not covered under Penal Law §175.10, so neither of you know, that's what I thought. Are you still just trolling? 

 

That's what I thought. "Truth is not a left-wing value." 

You are lying.

 

§ 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.

 

Concealing and aiding this crime:

 

The Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971, as amended, Title 52, United States Code, Section 30101, et seq., (the “Election Act”), regulates the influence of money on politics.

 

At all relevant times, the Election Act set certain limitations and prohibitions, among them: (a) individual contributions to any presidential candidate, including expenditures coordinated with a candidate or his political committee, were limited to $2,700 per election, and presidential candidates and their committees were prohibited from accepting contributions from individuals in excess of this limit; and (b) Corporations were prohibited from making contributions directly to presidential candidates, including expenditures coordinated with candidates or their committees, and candidates were prohibited from accepting corporate contributions.

 

Trump is hosed unless there is a juror who holds out.

[Danderman123]

9 minutes ago, Yellowtail said:

I have not been surprised by much of anything in the last ten years, except perhaps how Evil the left is. I used to think they were just stupid. 

Nothing screams "evil" like a candidate pitching a "Unified Reich".

[Yellowtail]

1 minute ago, Danderman123 said:

Nothing screams "evil" like a candidate pitching a "Unified Reich".

What does that mean? Closed borders and separate bathrooms for boys and girls? 

[Yellowtail]

9 minutes ago, Danderman123 said:

You are lying.

 

§ 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.

 

Concealing and aiding this crime:

 

The Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971, as amended, Title 52, United States Code, Section 30101, et seq., (the “Election Act”), regulates the influence of money on politics.

 

At all relevant times, the Election Act set certain limitations and prohibitions, among them: (a) individual contributions to any presidential candidate, including expenditures coordinated with a candidate or his political committee, were limited to $2,700 per election, and presidential candidates and their committees were prohibited from accepting contributions from individuals in excess of this limit; and (b) Corporations were prohibited from making contributions directly to presidential candidates, including expenditures coordinated with candidates or their committees, and candidates were prohibited from accepting corporate contributions.

 

Trump is hosed unless there is a juror who holds out.

You said the crime was concealment of a campaign finance violation, what is the statute number for that? 

 

Is concealment of a campaign finance violation not what Hillary got a slap on the wrist for? 

[Danderman123]

19 minutes ago, Yellowtail said:

You said the crime was concealment of a campaign finance violation, what is the statute number for that? 

 

Is concealment of a campaign finance violation not what Hillary got a slap on the wrist for? 

No need to give you a statute that Michael Cohen pled guilty to.

 

I have repeatedly explained the difference between a campaign finance violation and a campaign mislabeling a campaign expenditure.

 

Yes,I know you are going to troll more.

 

Tell you what:

 

Robert Costello was the Defense's star witness, how did he do?

 

 

Edited May 22 by Danderman123

[Danderman123]

The jury does not have to agree on the specific underlying crime.

 

The Prosecution alleges 3 separate underlying crimes, but the jury only has to agree that there was an underlying crime.

[Yellowtail]

11 minutes ago, Danderman123 said:

No need to give you a statute that Michael Cohen pled guilty to.

 

I have repeatedly explained the difference between a campaign finance violation and a campaign mislabeling a campaign expenditure.

 

Yes,I know you are going to troll more.

 

Tell you what:

 

Robert Costello was the Defense's star witness, how did he do?

 

 

So you're deflecting again. 

[Danderman123]

4 minutes ago, Yellowtail said:

So you're deflecting again. 

In other words, you know that Trump's defense screwed up with Costello.

 

When Michael Cohen knew he was in legal trouble, he contacted Costello about his legal services.

 

But newly revealed emails from Costello show that Trump's concern was stopping Cohen from testifying. Not exactly the instincts of an innocent man.

[Danderman123]

52 minutes ago, Yellowtail said:

What does that mean? Closed borders and separate bathrooms for boys and girls? 

If you don't know what the term "Reich" means in a political contest, that explains a lot.

 

Please don't respond by saying that Hitler wasn't all bad, that's Trump's line 

 

[LosLobo]

2 hours ago, Walker88 said:

Oh my!

Besides the guy who claimed "I want to testify; I tell the truth"

Besides being a wife-cheating proven rapist and fraudster and four times indicted criminal defendant, are you suggesting that he might also be a lying coward?
 

"All I can do is tell the truth,” Trump proclaimed the day before his trial began.

{Cough, cough, excuse me, I am choking on those words in quotes above}
 

“Yeah. I will testify. It's a scam. That's not a trial. It's a scam...It's not even a crime," said Trump on April 12.
 

'Trump is a coward': Ex-president bashed for teasing court testimony that never came (msn.com)

 

[Hanaguma]

1 minute ago, Danderman123 said:

If you don't know what the term "Reich" means in a political contest, that explains a lot.

 

Please don't respond by saying that Hitler wasn't all bad, that's Trump's line 

 

When did Trump say "reich"?

 

[Danderman123]

28 minutes ago, Danderman123 said:

The jury does not have to agree on the specific underlying crime.

 

The Prosecution alleges 3 separate underlying crimes, but the jury only has to agree that there was an underlying crime.

A comment on this:

 

The instructions that doesn't require a jury to agree on which underlying crime is to be considered makes sense.

 

If a felony conviction were to require that a jury agree on a single underlying crime, in the event that a mob boss committed a boatload of underlying crimes, he could get off if the jury couldn't agree on a single underlying crime.

[Danderman123]

1 minute ago, LosLobo said:

Besides being a wife-cheating proven rapist and fraudster and four times indicted criminal defendant, are you suggesting that he might also be a lying coward?
 

"All I can do is tell the truth,” Trump proclaimed the day before his trial began.

{Cough, cough, excuse me, I am choking on those words in quotes above}
 

“Yeah. I will testify. It's a scam. That's not a trial. It's a scam...It's not even a crime," said Trump on April 12.
 

'Trump is a coward': Ex-president bashed for teasing court testimony that never came (msn.com)

 

Are you suggesting that Trump was lying?

[Danderman123]

10 minutes ago, Hanaguma said:

When did Trump say "reich"?

 

Trump posted a video on Truth Social calling the country a 'unified reich' if he wins

[Hanaguma]

1 minute ago, Danderman123 said:

Trump posted a video on Truth Social calling the country a 'unified reich' if he wins

Trump said it?

[Danderman123]

3 hours ago, Yellowtail said:

And as I understand it, the payment and book entries were in Trump's personal, not business books. 

Prosecutors are now showing the jury each of the seven monthly checks Michael Cohen received in 2017 from the Trump Organization totaling $420,000, reimbursement primarily for fronting the money to silence Stormy Daniels.

[Danderman123]

Just now, Hanaguma said:

Trump said it?

Is that important to you?

 

Are you really suggesting that posting on Truth Social about a Unified Reich is not a bad thing?

 

[Danderman123]

So, how about that Trump defense?

 

Anyone think their questioning of Robert Costello exonerated Trump?