Bragg Manhattan DA charges tfg? Hush money. tfg “INDICATED!” - CONVICTED!!

[Suranis]

Ok if you are using business funds that you put into your personal account in order to fig leave that it was a personal transaction, how the heck is that not fraud in any case. I'm sure he was doing that with the Trump foundation and that was ruled as fraud, so why not this?

It's at the very least money laundering.

[much ado]

As for the cross of Stormy Daniels, either Trump's lawyer does not know about the rule never to ask a witness a question to which you don't know the answer (unlikely), or her idiot client insisted she get tough (likely) and she simply got tangled up in trying to make the witness look bad. Stormy Daniels was pretty much equal to the challenge and left the lawyer looking like a fool. Susan Necheles should be embarrassed.

Yeah, even though the prosecution has made the substantial errors that Stern has pointed out, I think we can rely on the likelihood that Trump's lawyers will f**k things up so badly it will not make a difference.

[Jim]

Ok if you are using business funds that you put into your personal account in order to fig leave that it was a personal transaction, how the heck is that not fraud in any case. I'm sure he was doing that with the Trump foundation and that was ruled as fraud, so why not this?

It's at the very least money laundering.

Wouldn't it be funny if the IRS used this to claim the money given to Stormy was personal money (not a business expense since it went through his personal account) and he owed back taxes and penalty on it as income?

[sterngard friegen]

As for the cross of Stormy Daniels, either Trump's lawyer does not know about the rule never to ask a witness a question to which you don't know the answer (unlikely), or her idiot client insisted she get tough (likely) and she simply got tangled up in trying to make the witness look bad. Stormy Daniels was pretty much equal to the challenge and left the lawyer looking like a fool. Susan Necheles should be embarrassed.

Yeah, even though the prosecution has made the substantial errors that Stern has pointed out, I think we can rely on the likelihood that Trump's lawyers will f**k things up so badly it will not make a difference.

We don't have to rely on Trump's attorneys. How about Trump himself? He gave a declaration admitting to the reimbursements in one of the cases where Michael Avenatti represented Stormy Daniels. (I haven't been able to locate it.) And then Trump put out these tweets the morning after Rudy Giuliani stated in an interview that Trump had reimbursed Cohen.

https://x.com/realDonaldTrump/status/991992302267785216

Mr. Cohen, an attorney, received a monthly retainer, not from the campaign and having nothing to do with the campaign, from which he entered into, through reimbursement, a private contract between two parties, known as a non-disclosure agreement, or NDA. These agreements are.....

https://x.com/realDonaldTrump/status/991994433750142976

...very common among celebrities and people of wealth. In this case it is in full force and effect and will be used in Arbitration for damages against Ms. Clifford (Daniels). The agreement was used to stop the false and extortionist accusations made by her about an affair,......

https://x.com/realDonaldTrump/status/991995845120753664

...despite already having signed a detailed letter admitting that there was no affair. Prior to its violation by Ms. Clifford and her attorney, this was a private agreement. Money from the campaign, or campaign contributions, played no roll in this transaction.

("Roll." Trump is illiterate.)

I only see one way out for Trump but his lawyers haven't been asking the right questions to set it up. Maybe they will with Cohen, but so far they are as bad as Alina Habba.

[Maybenaut]

Hidden Content

This board requires you to be registered and logged-in to view hidden content.

[Reality Check]

Justice Merchan really brought it on the rulings on the requests for mistrial. He was well prepared for what the defense was arguing and had even gone back and reviewed his prior rulings. Very impressed.

[sterngard friegen]

Hidden Content

This board requires you to be registered and logged-in to view hidden content.

Yes.

Hidden Content

This board requires you to be registered and logged-in to view hidden content.

[sterngard friegen]

Hidden Content

This board requires you to be registered and logged-in to view hidden content.

[bob]

Hidden Content

This board requires you to be registered and logged-in to view hidden content.

This is a case about stupid greed. If this had been conducted by professional fixers, there would have been no paper trail (at least in the business's ledgers).

Taking notes on a criminal conspiracy, etc.

[Frater I*I]

Hidden Content

This board requires you to be registered and logged-in to view hidden content.

This is a case about stupid greed. If this had been conducted by professional fixers, there would have been no paper trail (at least in the business's ledgers).

Taking notes on a criminal conspiracy, etc.

From The Wire...

[sterngard friegen]

Hidden Content

This board requires you to be registered and logged-in to view hidden content.

This is a case about stupid greed. If this had been conducted by professional fixers, there would have been no paper trail (at least in the business's ledgers).

Taking notes on a criminal conspiracy, etc.

Hidden Content

This board requires you to be registered and logged-in to view hidden content.

[chancery]

As I posted on Monday:

Hidden Content

This board requires you to be registered and logged-in to view hidden content.

[Ben-Prime]

Cross concludes.

Necheles's closing argument decoded: So you're a slut and thus couldn't possibly have been shocked to see a guy in boxers on the bed, so you made it up, right?

So transparent. Good luck with that, fuckhead.

I'd be forever traumatized seeing dookiepants in boxers and tee

I swear my eyes first passed over this as 'boxers and tie', and I thought "Ew, but at least on brand."

[chancery]

https://twitter.com/AWeissmann_/status/ ... 2030208488

Andrew Weissmann (weissmann11 on Threads)
@AWeissmann_
Notes from 100 Centre St: KEY ADMISSION --on redirect the state elicits that Trump admitted in a CA legal case that he, Trump, reimbursed Cohen the $130,000 hush money.

If anyone knows where that document can be found, I'd be grateful for a link.

[zekeb]

Cross concludes.

Necheles's closing argument decoded: So you're a slut and thus couldn't possibly have been shocked to see a guy in boxers on the bed, so you made it up, right?

So transparent. Good luck with that, fuckhead.

I'd be forever traumatized seeing dookiepants in boxers and tee

I swear my eyes first passed over this as 'boxers and tie', and I thought "Ew, but at least on brand."

His ties are long enough to... uh... cover.

[Shizzle Popped]

I'd be forever traumatized seeing dookiepants in boxers and tee

I swear my eyes first passed over this as 'boxers and tie', and I thought "Ew, but at least on brand."

His ties are long enough to... uh... cover.

If what Stormy says is true, they don't have to be very long.

[Chilidog]

[noblepa]

I swear my eyes first passed over this as 'boxers and tie', and I thought "Ew, but at least on brand."

His ties are long enough to... uh... cover.

If what Stormy says is true, they don't have to be very long.

A clip-on bow tie would probably do.

[andersweinstein]

https://twitter.com/AWeissmann_/status/ ... 2030208488

Andrew Weissmann (weissmann11 on Threads)
@AWeissmann_
Notes from 100 Centre St: KEY ADMISSION --on redirect the state elicits that Trump admitted in a CA legal case that he, Trump, reimbursed Cohen the $130,000 hush money.

If anyone knows where that document can be found, I'd be grateful for a link.

I don't know, but maybe a clue here?

[chancery]

Thanks, that's helpful. I'd like to read the brief, and that snippet probably supplies enough information to identify the case and download the pdf, but I think I'll wait and see if it surfaces.

It's a helpful piece of evidence, but I'm not sure how admissions and potential collateral estoppel from civil cases work in criminal prosecutions. There's no such thing, for instance, as a summary judgment of conviction.

[MN-Skeptic]

Hidden Content

This board requires you to be registered and logged-in to view hidden content.

[MN-Skeptic]

By the way, the prosecutors have now said that they will not be calling Karen McDougal.

[chancery]

Interesting. Has there already been testimony about the McDougal affair?

Edit: duh, Mr. Pecker. And maybe that lawyer.

[bob]

Hidden Content

This board requires you to be registered and logged-in to view hidden content.

Hidden Content

This board requires you to be registered and logged-in to view hidden content.

[much ado]

Hidden Content

This board requires you to be registered and logged-in to view hidden content.

Hidden Content

This board requires you to be registered and logged-in to view hidden content.