The never-ending POTUS Election thread....

[yimyammer]

I made a spreadsheet from 2 articles that lists each "felony" which you can see consists of three actions per payment (although the first one had 2 entires into the general ledger for some reason):

1. Receiving an invoice from Michael Cohen (11 felonies)
2. Entering Michael Cohens invoice into the DJT Trust General ledger (12 felonies)
3. Paying Michael Cohen with a check (11 felonies)

Further, these invoices, entries and checks occurred AFTER Trump had already been elected so how can the voters be deceived by falsified business records after the election has already taken place.

Further still, all of the 34 indictments were contained within a set up financial statements that to my knowledge (someone please correct me if I'm wrong) were never available to the voting public in the first place.

Which begs the question, how can the voters be deceived by falsified business records they were never privy to in the first place?

To elaborate on the overstatement and exaggeration of calling this 34 felonies (and perhaps someone can come up with a better analogy), this is like charging someone with 10 murder felonies because that person shot the victim 10 times (aka one felony per bullet) when its obvious to everyone that there was only one crime in this scenario since someone can only be murdered once.

I wonder how many people understand the absurdity of the 34 felonies.

View attachment 1717351763524.png

 

[yimyammer]

Yes, this is true. But neither side entered evidence of tax fraud. I suppose because if the prosecution did, then the judge would have to allow Trump to bring evidence in rebuttal.

The judge also disallowed an expert witness on federal election crime. When Trump's attorneys insisted that the judge them provide clear, and precise, jury instruction on what constitutes a FEC violation, the prosecution objected and argued for a more summary explanation saying less is more! The judge sided with the prosecution.

These are all grounds for appeal, but the horse is out of the barn and the damage is done. Also, I don't think it mattered what jury instructions the judge provided, I think they were going to convict Trump before the trial began. I still think this will all become clear before long. They were probably told to hide for a few weeks but in time they will be on 60 Minutes, CNN or MSNBC gloating about what they did and hawking their stories for money. I am sure of that.

and what was the logic in creating what I understand were 50 pages of jury instructions and then not giving the jury a copy of those instructions?

Is this standard in a trial to withhold written jury instructions and if so, why?

I think the prosecution could have used the fact Trump didnt use these expenses as deductions for tax purposes because a case could be made that is damaging to Trump by showing he didnt take the deduction of these expenses for tax purposes because that would imply he knew the illegality of the payments and didnt want to bring attention to them by risking them being disallowed by the IRS or NYC state tax authorities or worse, treated as a fraudulent deduction. Am I wrong?

 

[Kevinicus]

Yes, this is true. But neither side entered evidence of tax fraud. I suppose because if the prosecution did, then the judge would have to allow Trump to bring evidence in rebuttal.

The judge also disallowed an expert witness on federal election crime. When Trump's attorneys insisted that the judge them provide clear, and precise, jury instruction on what constitutes a FEC violation, the prosecution objected and argued for a more summary explanation saying less is more! The judge sided with the prosecution.

These are all grounds for appeal, but the horse is out of the barn and the damage is done. Also, I don't think it mattered what jury instructions the judge provided, I think they were going to convict Trump before the trial began. I still think this will all become clear before long. They were probably told to hide for a few weeks but in time they will be on 60 Minutes, CNN or MSNBC gloating about what they did and hawking their stories for money. I am sure of that.

The judge is just a state official. The FEC and what constitutes a violation is completely outside his scope of law. He's not qualified to instruction the jury on the matter. Neither is the prosecution.

All of this is entirely random and circular logic nonsense.

All of their "unlawful means" which they never did nail down and just threw out a buffet platter to pick from (They didn't even say any of the means did happen, just that it "may" have been one of a handful), would have taken place after an election. So, how can they even argue that those actions would have promoted or prevented an election that already took place?

 

[Kevinicus]

I made a spreadsheet from 2 articles that lists each "felony" which you can see consists of three actions per payment (although the first one had 2 entires into the general ledger for some reason):

1. Receiving an invoice from Michael Cohen (11 felonies)
2. Entering Michael Cohens invoice into the DJT Trust General ledger (12 felonies)
3. Paying Michael Cohen with a check (11 felonies)

Further, these invoices, entries and checks occurred AFTER Trump had already been elected so how can the voters be deceived by falsified business records after the election has already taken place.

Further still, all of the 34 indictments were contained within a set up financial statements that to my knowledge (someone please correct me if I'm wrong) were never available to the voting public in the first place.

Which begs the question, how can the voters be deceived by falsified business records they were never privy to in the first place?

To elaborate on the overstatement and exaggeration of calling this 34 felonies (and perhaps someone can come up with a better analogy), this is like charging someone with 10 murder felonies because that person shot the victim 10 times (aka one felony per bullet) when its obvious to everyone that there was only one crime in this scenario since someone can only be murdered once.

I wonder how many people understand the absurdity of the 34 felonies.

View attachment 14161

Only insane liberal clown world (NY or CA), can someone be convicted of a felony for receiving an invoice.

 

[touchdown]

Letter from Dr. Franklin Graham to DJT

Truth Social

Truth Social is America's "Big Tent" social media platform that encourages an open, free, and honest global conversation without discriminating on the basis of political ideology.

truthsocial.com

 

[dbair1967]

Imagine Trump appointing an aggressive, fearless, MAGA prosecutor to AG. Imagine that AG cleaning house of all the Obama, Hillary and Biden sycophants. Then imagine staffing the DOJ full of angry vengeful conservatives looking for payback.

What a wonderful day that would be.

 

[Creeper]

and what was the logic in creating what I understand were 50 pages of jury instructions and then not giving the jury a copy of those instructions?

Is this standard in a trial to withhold written jury instructions and if so, why?

I think the prosecution could have used the fact Trump didnt use these expenses as deductions for tax purposes because a case could be made that is damaging to Trump by showing he didnt take the deduction of these expenses for tax purposes because that would imply he knew the illegality of the payments and didnt want to bring attention to them by risking them being disallowed by the IRS or NYC state tax authorities or worse, treated as a fraudulent deduction. Am I wrong?

That's possible but there is nothing illegal about not taking deductions you are entitled to. As long as you pay what you are obligated to pay there is no crime. The prosecution wanted to avoid confusing jurors with any evidence that there was no crime - the same was true with the judge which is why he denied Trump's FEC witness.

No matter how you look at this case there is no crime. As you pointed out the records that were supposedly falsified were applied after the election. But more importantly, they were not falsified. There were legitimately legal fees. What happened is the prosecutors convinced the jury that there was illegal activity even if their wasn't and the judge let them do it. Trump's lawyers were partly responsible too because during closing arguments the prosecution referred to illegal acts by Trump related to the FEC laws multiple times and Trump's lawyers did not object!

 

[yimyammer]

Do you know if Trumps revocable trust business records were public information before and/or after the election.

My inclination is the answer is no

Further I can record transactions however I like for my personal use that no third party ever sees or relies upon. Its only when I make them available for public consumption do I have to strictly adhere to GAAP (Generally Accepted Accounting Principles in the case of audited financials--I'm a CPA--license is no longer current--but this is all in my wheelhouse) or when the financial data used to complete state and/or federal income tax returns do I have to follow rules required for each.

So internal financials used for business purposes that are never made public are not subject to any laws or oversight that I am aware of. I keep a complete set of (Quick)books for all my financial transactions and then spin off specific reports for my tax returns, protesting property taxes, etc. To the ignorant, that could be construed as different sets of books when its merely a snap shot taken from a same (single) set of books. I wish I had more info on the other case where it was claimed he kept 2 sets of books

 

[yimyammer]

 

[cml750]

 

[dbair1967]

Nice

Some former 'Never Trump' voters now say they're backing GOP nominee after his conviction

Several voters spoke with The Free Press about how the recent conviction of former President Trump is motivating them to support him in the upcoming election.

www.foxnews.com

 

[Creeper]

Do you know if Trumps revocable trust business records were public information before and/or after the election.

My inclination is the answer is no

Further I can record transactions however I like for my personal use that no third party ever sees or relies upon. Its only when I make them available for public consumption do I have to strictly adhere to GAAP (Generally Accepted Accounting Principles in the case of audited financials--I'm a CPA--license is no longer current--but this is all in my wheelhouse) or when the financial data used to complete state and/or federal income tax returns do I have to follow rules required for each.

So internal financials used for business purposes that are never made public are not subject to any laws or oversight that I am aware of. I keep a complete set of (Quick)books for all my financial transactions and then spin off specific reports for my tax returns, protesting property taxes, etc. To the ignorant, that could be construed as different sets of books when its merely a snap shot taken from a same (single) set of books. I wish I had more info on the other case where it was claimed he kept 2 sets of books

I do not know the answer you your question but I also believe they were not public. Nor does it matter since the records were made after the election there is really not reason to believe they were encoded to hide something to influence the election. But again, no election laws were violated. Federal election laws are clear on this. An expense which has two purposes, one being campaign related, the other non-campaign related, is not a campaign expense. In this case we heard testimony from people close to Trump who said he paid of Stormy to protect his family.

Also, I read somewhere that the accounting system to record the transactions had a drop down for expense categories. The expenses were encoded as legal fees from a drop down menu. My experience with accounting systems backs this up. expenses are recorded in pre-established categories. There is no category for "NDA payoff", it would be lumped in with all legal expenses.

 

[Creeper]

People trying to make sense of the Trump conviction need not bother. It makes no sense. There was no business fraud, and Trump did not violate any election laws. For one thing, the feds and the FEC looked at this same case and walked away from it. Also, Bragg's predecessor, Cyrus Vance, an ultra liberal prosecutor looked at the case and decided not to charge Trump saying it was a weak case. If Vance thought he had any case against Trump he would have charged him in a minute.

Bragg charged Trump because he knew from the beginning it was going to be rigged. He knew he would get the judge he needed and the judge would make sure he got the jury he needed.

The fact that the DA did not identify the underlying crime, then argued it could be one of 3 crimes, while the judge denied Trump expert witnesses for FEC law and evidence showing he did not violate any tax laws then instructing the jury that Trump could be guilty of tax violations was all part of the fix.

This case is egregious enough that I think the SCOTUS can and should step in immediately.

 

[yimyammer]

Also, I read somewhere that the accounting system to record the transactions had a drop down for expense categories. The expenses were encoded as legal fees from a drop down menu. My experience with accounting systems backs this up. expenses are recorded in pre-established categories. There is no category for "NDA payoff", it would be lumped in with all legal expenses.

actually, you can create any new category you want, there are some predefined categories in templates but its easy to add new and more specific expense, income, asset, liability, etc codes in the chart of accounts so this isnt a good defense

having said that, if it wasn't used as an expense for federal or state taxes or neither disallowed this expense as a deduction, regardless of how it was coded, there would be no violation or crime here

 

[touchdown]

 

[Creeper]

actually, you can create any new category you want, there are some predefined categories in templates but its easy to add new and more specific expense, income, asset, liability, etc codes in the chart of accounts so this isnt a good defense

having said that, if it wasn't used as an expense for federal or state taxes or neither disallowed this expense as a deduction, regardless of how it was coded, there would be no violation or crime here

Yes, but I have made this point before. Cohen put up $130k to pay off Stormy. Trump repaid him well over $400k. How could Trump be guilty of all those transactions beyond the $130k? What were the rest of the payments for? Cohen was Trump's personal attorney at the time so claiming those payments were legal fees is perfectly legitimate. In fact, all the payment were legitimate in my mind.

But more importantly, the statute of limitations had run out on this crime anyway. Elevating it to a felony without an underlying crime was as crooked as you can get and a violation of the 6th amendment. This is why I think the NY law they used to elevate the misdemeanor charges is unconstitutional. It does not require the prosecutor to identify the underlying crime, as Alvin Bragg made so clear when he announced Trump's indictment.

 

[InternetKing]

Attorney calls Judge Cannon’s decision in Trump case ‘not normal at all’ — CNN

Judge Aileen Cannon is planning on holding a sprawling hearing on Donald Trump’s request to declare Jack Smith’s appointment as special counsel invalid. Cannon on Tuesday said that a variety of political partisans and constitutional scholars not otherwise involved with the case can join in the...

apple.news

 

[Creeper]

Attorney calls Judge Cannon’s decision in Trump case ‘not normal at all’ — CNN

Judge Aileen Cannon is planning on holding a sprawling hearing on Donald Trump’s request to declare Jack Smith’s appointment as special counsel invalid. Cannon on Tuesday said that a variety of political partisans and constitutional scholars not otherwise involved with the case can join in the...

apple.news

Judge Cannon has no choice but to hold a hearing. The issue was raised and she has to respond. The issue was raised in the Garland hearings yesterday and several Republican congressmen made a compelling argument why Jack Smith's appointment is not lawful. There is no special counsel statute anymore so his appointment has to be either by the president or with the consent of the senate. He is not an employee of the DOJ and therefore has no authority to investigate anyone. This may sound like a technicality but the law is full of technicalities. The law is the law.

Cannon cannot rule on this without some kind of hear, and brace yourselves, once she rules it will be appealed by whatever side loses. If she sides with Trump and rules Jack Smith is not a lawfully appointed counsel for the DOJ, then the DOJ will surely appeal. If she rules he is, you can bet Trump will appeal this to the Supreme Court.

I don't care what a judge on CNN says, Judge Cannon really has no choice but to hold some kind of hearing.

 

[Creeper]

If you haven't heard, the Georgia appeals court just stayed the Trump Fani Willis trial while they consider the appeals before them. This is pretty standard since the two courts cannot be trying the same case simultaneously. The appeals court will not hear arguments until October, I believe. That means this case is going nowhere before the election.

 

[yimyammer]

Yes, but I have made this point before. Cohen put up $130k to pay off Stormy. Trump repaid him well over $400k. How could Trump be guilty of all those transactions beyond the $130k? What were the rest of the payments for? Cohen was Trump's personal attorney at the time so claiming those payments were legal fees is perfectly legitimate. In fact, all the payment were legitimate in my mind.

But more importantly, the statute of limitations had run out on this crime anyway. Elevating it to a felony without an underlying crime was as crooked as you can get and a violation of the 6th amendment. This is why I think the NY law they used to elevate the misdemeanor charges is unconstitutional. It does not require the prosecutor to identify the underlying crime, as Alvin Bragg made so clear when he announced Trump's indictment.

My point was that I don’t think it’s a valid excuse to say the drop-down menu only gave them the choice of legal fees, therefore they had no other option. They definitely had other options but thats mute because there’s nothing wrong with classifying them as legal fees In the first place.