Did Trump Really Try To Implement a Coup?
I don't know where to post this, so posting here. I see no need to make a new thread.
Breaking News, today, May 7, 2024 from The Hill's Election Center. With their polling average of 686 polls through today the results are in:
Trump = 44.8%
Biden = 44.8%
Check it out! See the most recent polls for this month.
https://elections2024.thehill.com/natio … p-general/
There's more. What about the effect of Kennedy, Jr.? For 144 polls it works out to:
Trump = 41.2%
Biden = 40.1%
RFK, Jr. = 8.5%
The most recent poll, by I&I/TIPP Insights for May 1 - 3 it works out to be:
Biden = 39%
Trump = 38%
RFK, Jr. = 12%
Check it out!
https://elections2024.thehill.com/natio … k-general/So, at the moment, it is an even race. RFK Jr. seems to be drawing equally from both Trump and Biden.
Looking back many months, it is clear Biden has come from behind.
Not sure I would equate 'engaged in insurrection' to 'Trump was behind the insurrection.' What jurists stated was that Trump engaged in insurrection. Do I agree that his actions directly led to the insurrection - absolutely. Do I think he intended an insurrection - not necessarily. I think he intends to bully and intimidate people into giving him what he wants, and the insurrection was a byproduct of those goals, but not necessarily the intended activity that Trump wanted. Was he fine with it after it commenced, absolutely.
It may just be semantics, but his goal was to overturn the election through violent means in order for him to stay in power illegally. He called his supporters there and sent them to the Capitol to stop the certification. He knew they were armed and he used language that implied violence.
Personally, I can't draw any other conclusion that what happened was what he had in mind. And, for a while, it worked.
"In fifteen cases overseen by nine different judges appointed by Republican and Democratic presidents, courts have not minced words in declaring that Trump was the central cause of the January 6, 2021 insurrection, echoing the findings of the bipartisan January 6th Select Committee. "
https://www.citizensforethics.org/repor … nuary-6th/
I think "engaged" and "caused" is really a distinction without much difference.He certainly left open the idea of violence, but it's just as plausible that the intimidation angle was his intent.
And great, you found a link that backs your beliefs. That doesn't make it a truth, it just means you found some confirmation bias from a source that believes as you do.
And 'engaged in' is significantly different than 'being behind' (I noticed you tried to change the language to 'caused' to downplay your initial claim). There's not a single shred of actual evidence that Trump had planned for violence. He bears responsibility for it because his lies fueled it, his campaign organized it, and he had the secret plan to send his supporters to the Capitol. But 'being behind it' means he planned for there to be violence, and that's unsupported in my opinion.So, you would say that Charles Manson didn't "cause" the murders done on his behalf.
At least I offered solid logic and evidence. You have offered nothing of the sort. For me, it is easy to connect the dots.
If I were on a jury and presented with what we know to be true so far, finding him guilty of "causing", "leading", "engaging", "being behind" in the insurrection beyond a reasonable doubt would be an easy call. That is why so many justices have come to the same conclusion.Caused and planned are two very different claims. As for the logic claim, your logic omits that Trump's intent may have been simply to intimidate. There is no evidence tying him to any plan of violence, whereas there was plenty for groups such as the Oath Keepers and Proud Boys. It would not be hard for a defense attorney to shift the blame to those groups and away from Trump.
What evidence do you have that "intimidation" was his only goal. If that was only it, why call his army together? Why send them to the capitol knowing that they were armed? Why tell them to "fight like hell" over and over again?
The evidence is that he "incited" what went on, he lit the fuse and then watched it burn with full intent that it would cause the certification of Biden to fail - which it did.
I go with common sense and the judges on this one.Actually, I think you're going with partisan bias and changing the meaning of what the judges actually said to suit that bias.
The evidence that the goal was simply intimidation is right there in his speech when he tells his supporters that they are going down to the Capitol to patriotically and peacefully make their voices heard.
His army? You mean his supporters? And there's a big difference between knowing they are armed and not caring if they were armed because they weren't there to harm him, as he stated.
And your claim that he said 'fight like hell' over and over again is another gross exaggeration. He used the phrase 'fight like hell' three times - the first being in reference to Kavanaugh's nomination - which I do not recall Trump using violence to get approved - so that usage was non-violent. Then in back-to-back sentences near the end of his speech. He did use fight or fighting around twenty times, but not 'fight like hell,' as often as you claim. And the first time he used it, it was used in a non-violent way, undercutting your argument that it was a call to actual violence. Certainly, some of his supporters interpreted it to mean violence, but his usage of the phrase earlier in the speech does not preclude a non-violent intent.
Lastly, if his intent was violence, why did he plan to go to the Capitol? Wouldn't that have put himself in danger? Does Trump seem like the kind of guy that would want to be on-hand for a violent attack? He's very careful to keep distance between himself and actual illegal acts. Why on Earth would he want to be out front leading a crowd to commit illegal acts? Everything we know about the man undercuts the theory that he planned for violence based on him wanting to be in attendance.Just because my conclusions from the evidence I see leads me to an anti-Trump position, it doesn't mean I am biased. What it means is that is where the evidence leads.
Are you suggesting that because Trump wanted to be at the Capitol means he didn't want violence to happen? If that is true, why did he make sure his army was armed?First off all, I disagree with the 'army' label. Is everyone who shows up at a rally or protest to be called an army? That's a ridiculous leap.
Next, he did not 'make sure they were armed.' Again, you are arriving at a conclusion that is invention. He stated he did not care if they were armed...not that his people were encouraging or handing out weaponry. Maybe he made the determination that his people were smart enough not to bring weapons when they were sure to be searched by Secret Service as they had at every event prior to this one.
Next, I laid out plenty of evidence that Trump did not intend violence. The fact that you are still ignoring it backs my claim of a bias. I'm pretty far left, and looking at the scenario, I could not conclude that Trump's intent was violence.
I do think he's civilly culpable for the violence based on his campaign organizing the rally, inciting the crowd, failing to check for weapons, and then sending them to the Capitol without informing Capitol Police. But I wouldn't indict criminally because intent just cannot be proven.When people show up at almost all protests, violent or non-violent, they are not called there by a single person. Trump knows he has a cult of willing followers and he literally invited them to Washington to have a "wild" time. - Why did he do that? Did he trust them not to show up on their own?
His speech was clearly designed to inflame passions against the people certifying Biden - that was done with intent.
He literally TOLD them to go to the Capitol to FIGHT - that was done with intent.
He effectively TOLD the security to let his army keep their weapons knowing they would take them to the Capitol to FIGHT - that was done with intent.
Once the attack started, Trump purposefully let it continue and even fed the flames even more - that was done with intent.
All a jury needs is to conclude that based on the circumstantial evidence that Trump's own actions constitute a foreseeable likelihood that violence will take place and that he was the one leading people by the nose to commit the violence. There is no requirement, which you seem to be looking for, that Trump give an actual order to "go break into the Capitol, threaten to kill the people there, and hang Mike Pence". That kind of specificity is not needed for people to draw reasonable conclusions.
To be civilly culpable, all that is needed is a preponderance of the evidence and you have provided that in your own comment.
To be criminally liable, what is needed is proof beyond a reasonable doubt and that is available in abundance.
I don't go into a situation with any bias. Well, that is not true, I tend to think people are honest and above board which keeps getting me in trouble. But once the available evidence suggests otherwise then I make the appropriate conclusions and defend them until new information comes along. I think you are interpreting that as preconceived bias.Trump knows he has a cult of willing followers and he literally invited them to Washington to have a "wild" time. - Why did he do that?
(To show members of Congress how many rubes supported his lies, but that's not illegal, last I checked)
His speech was clearly designed to inflame passions against the people certifying Biden (Again, inflaming passions is not a crime)
He literally TOLD them to go to the Capitol to FIGHT (As so many of our far-right 'friends' always point out, fight can have non-violent connotations as they continuously show by quoting dozens of left-leaning politicians using the word. So, again, not a crime)
He effectively TOLD the security to let his army keep their weapons knowing they would take them to the Capitol to FIGHT (This one is comical as you are making two major assumptions - one that Trump assumed his supporters would be armed and what Trump knew his supporters would do - neither you can prove and this is part of your bias really showing itself)
Trump certainly sat on his hands after the violence started and engaged in the insurrection with his post telling his supporters that Pence was not going to stop the certification - but that was done after the violence had already commenced. That does not prove that Trump was 'behind it.'
Again, all your evidence is circumstantial, at best, and easily explained by a defense lawyer as Trump trying to show Congress that many Americans supported his position and he wanted them to passionately, peacefully and patriotically be at the Capitol to make their voices heard - as he stated.
And please find me one jurist who state Trump was 'behind the insurrection.' My contention is that they stated he engaged in insurrection. Certainly, some of the actions they found to be engagement helped to create the environment that led to the insurrection, but those charged with seditious conspiracy are the ones that had the bigger part in the insurrection as they planned the violence. You'd think if Jack Smith had the evidence to prove Trump was behind it, he would have included the charge for seditious conspiracy in his DC case.Who was responsible for sicing (how do you spell that?) the Proud Boys, the 2%ers, and the other domestic terrorists on the Capitol? They clearly didn't go their on their own volition. They came because Trump told the to.
Of course it is circumstantial, what else could it be. But, it is so overwhelming that any reasonable person will conclude that Trump is guilty of causing, leading, engaging in, starting an insurrection.Personally, I think Smith should have, and he may well still. But it seems he took what he thought was the safer way out.
Which is another piece of evidence to suggest that the evidence is not there to prove Trump was 'behind the insurrection.'
How does it do that? Don't both charges have about the same outcome? Why take the harder one?
And a pressure campaign on Pence would have achieved the same outcome. Sending his followers to the Capitol in protest to intimidate Pence easily could have been shown to be the goal. It's like the 'fight' analogy. It was reckless, but the two sides of the aisle can both show how the word fits their views of what Trump's intent was by using it. Is that proof beyond a doubt? Not even close.
So, you appear to be of the opinion that there is no amount of circumstantial evidence that would convince you that Trump incited the insurrection. Do I have that right?
But, if there is some amount of circumstantial evidence that would convince you, what would it be?It would be communication between Trump's Campaign and the Oath Keepers and Proud Boys, who instigated the violence.
"Trump's Dec. 19 tweet, which read: "Statistically impossible to have lost the 2020 election. Big protest in D.C. on January 6th. Be there, will be wild!" spread like wildfire among far-right groups, said Rep. Jamie Raskin, D-Md.
In the hours after that tweet was posted, Kelly Meggs, the head of the Florida Oath Keepers, posted a message on Facebook pledging that his group would "work together" with the Three-Percenters and Proud Boys, two other right-wing extremist groups."
Then
"In a clip of video testimony, Donell Harvin, former D.C. homeland security chief, said his agency had intelligence of "very, very violent individuals" from these groups organizing to come to Washington, D.C. on Jan. 6.
"These non-aligned groups were aligning, and all the red flags went up at that point," he said. "When you have armed militia collaborating with white supremacy groups, collaborating with conspiracy theory groups online, all for the common goal, you start seeing what we call in terrorism a blended ideology, and that's a very, very bad sign."
And
"The committee laid out evidence that people in Trump's orbit were involved with these extremist groups.
Here's what we know about links between extremists and Trump allies
POLITICS
Here's what we know about links between extremists and Trump allies
The panel pointed to one-time Trump National Security Advisor Michael Flynn being photographed with members of the Oath Keepers outside the Capitol six days before he was in an Oval Office meeting about overturning the election.
The committee also revealed an encrypted chat called F.O.S. (Friends of Roger Stone), a Trump associate, that included leaders of the Proud Boys and Oath Keepers as well as the organizer of Trump's Jan. 6 rally.
A Twitter employee who testified anonymously said that in the aftermath of Trump's tweet, "It felt as if a mob was being organized, and they were gathering together their weaponry, their logic and their reasoning behind why they were prepared to fight."
And there is much more than that. Any one of those things doesn't say much, but when put together and viewed as a whole, it presents a very damning and convincing tale.
https://www.npr.org/2022/07/12/11111324 … proud-boysMichael Flynn and Roger Stone were in no way with the Trump Campaign or linked with Trump in 2020. You're reaching. If it was 2016, those points would have some credibility because both were. Your theory is about four years too late.
Give me a break, Flynn was, is, embedded with Trump and, if I remember right, wasn't Stone at the rally encouraging things along? It is not me you are saying is too late, it is the entire Jan 6 committee that you are poo-pawing.
"For months, he (Roger Stone) coordinated with far-right leaders and urged allies to join the “Stop the Steal” movement. When it all fell apart, he lobbied the former president for a pardon for himself and “the entire MAGA movement,” up until the day Trump left office."
https://www.washingtonpost.com/podcasts … out-jan-6/Yeah, I'm getting a lot wrong this week. Flynn was in the meeting the night Trump set the date of the rally. And according to Hutchinson, Trump told Meadows to call Stone and Flynn on the night of January 5th. She believes he made those calls. It would be interesting to hear Meadows under oath about the content of those calls.
This so called Trump 'insurrection' case is an anathema or curse. Those involved and catched, and tried, and found guilty are limboing jail. But Trump, whom many accursing fingers is pointed at still moves here and there. Why was not Trump, arrest along with those already jailed? I find this as an anathama too.
Nothing "so-called" about it.
First, Trump didn't physically invade the Capitol or directly lead a faction that did and 2) he is currently under indictment for his role in it.The word under indictment should stand out here... He has not been convicted of the crimes against him on Jan 6th. Some in our society have adopted the sad ideology that they can pronounce one Guilty until proven innocent. An ideology that is popular in countries that have dictators.
Or one could understand that to be under indictment, there had to be a solid trove of evidence against a person to warrant a grand jury to indict. Even more so in a federal case, where federal prosecutors typically only bring indictments in cases they have the highest probabilities of winning (unless you're John Durham).
And that is a point I failed to make - a jury of reasonable people found enough evidence to recommend an indictment.
Not to be argumentative, but isn't that the whole concept behind the 'Soap Opera' entertainment industry? Seems that has been popular well before TV was invented. Guilty before proven so? You don't prove guilt nor innocence in our court of laws. You prove reasonable doubt. Or, at least that is how I see it. Maybe deluded, maybe not.
While it's true that soap operas often play into familiar storylines to captivate audiences, not all viewers are unable to discern between reality and fiction.
Ultimately, enjoying soap operas doesn't equate to being unintelligent or easily misled. People can appreciate dramatic storytelling without losing sight of reality or critical thinking. I mean some can... So, while soap operas may fulfill certain desires for some segments of society, it doesn't mean that everyone who enjoys them necessarily should bring the same mindset to believing guilt before guilt is proven.
Regarding "reasonable doubt" this has always been my take, Embedded within American values, the cornerstone principle of "innocent until proven guilty" resonates throughout the legal framework, embodying the overarching societal ethos of fairness, justice, and individual rights. Within this framework, the burden of proof squarely lies upon the prosecution, mandated to substantiate the defendant's culpability beyond any reasonable doubt. Should a jury unearth a crack, a reasonable doubt regarding the commission of a crime, they are charged by the court to deliberate with their conscience and render a verdict accordingly.BTW, have you ever wondered why you can only be found guilty or not guilty in a criminal trial? You are never found innocent.
It seems to me you are simply moving the goal posts again. Before he was indicted, your side's mantra was "But he hasn't been in indicted!! How dare you besmirch his character."
Well, now that he has been indicted with all sorts of multiple crimes, you move the goal post to "well, he hasn't been convicted yet". This in spite of the fact that prosecutors do not indict unless they truly believe they have the evidence to convict beyond a reasonable doubt.
That is why Mueller didn't pursue the conspiracy with the Russians angle for the Trump campaign. He clearly showed he had plenty of evidence of "collusion"; enough, I suspect, to clear the preponderance of evidence bar for civil trials, but not enough for the reasonable doubt bar for criminal trials.
As to your "innocent until proven guilty argument", that only works for criminal trials. Unless you prefer that people simply not think and reason, then it fails when you are talking about people forming opinions based on available evidence. A nuance reasoned people can appreciate but not those who only see black and white.
So the aurgument is now going ding-dong, ding-dong? Quo bono?
This was interesting....The Day a Porn Star Saved Democracy.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OFsQG4GBFF4ROFL - She sure put Trump and his poor defense team in their place! (I say "poor" because they have to suffer the, what did Stormy call him, "the Orange Turd.")
Really --- Bill Maher unleashes on Stormy Daniels’ testimony in Trump trial: 'She's a bad witness!'
Maher highlighted his 2018 interview with Daniels, pointing out what she told him was quite different than what she said in the courtroom
"Real Time" host Bill Maher wasn't particularly thrilled with the testimony of adult film actress Stormy Daniels this week in the New York trial against former President Trump.
During a panel discussion Friday night, Maher reiterated his frustrations with how the criminal charges against Trump have been stalled, noting the recent developments with the Georgia and classified documents cases.
"So it's Stormy or bust," Maher quipped
He then got serious, declaring "She's a bad witness!" He backed up his argument by playing clips of his own interview with Daniels in 2018 while discussing her alleged affair with Trump, something Trump has long denied.
"You say it's not a Me Too case," Maher said to her at the time.
"It's not a Me Too case," Daniels responded. "I wasn't assaulted. I wasn't attacked, or raped, or coerced or blackmailed…. They tried to shove me in the Me Too box to further their own agenda. And first of all, I didn't want to be part of that because it's not the truth and I'm not a victim in that regard."
Maher reacted to the clip, "That's not what she's saying now."
"She's talking about ‘he was bigger and blocking the way.’ It's all the Me Too buzzwords. She said, ‘There was an imbalance of power for sure.’ ‘My hands were shaking so hard.’ She said she blacked out. Blacked out? She's a porn star!… Do you really think she blacked out? A porn star is used to having sex with people she doesn't [like]… I just think she's not a good witness."
The HBO host was previously cheery at the beginning of the trial, hyping how it could be a real game changer in the presidential election.
"This one, I got to say I was always against [it] because I thought of all the ones you're bringing, this is the least serious. … Now I think Trump could lose," Maher said two weeks ago. "I'm turning on this one because it's not what I thought it was going to be. And this David Pecker – I mean, brought down by a Pecker, this guy."
"And by the way, if this goes that way and Trump loses, it's going to change the whole election," Maher later said. "A number of independents, a significant number, and Republicans say their vote will change if he is a convicted criminal. And he'll look like a loser, not that he doesn't already, but you know."
"And Alvin Bragg is going to be the rising star of the Democratic Party because everyone said, ‘Not a good idea,’ including me. So, we'll see," he added. https://www.foxnews.com/media/bill-mahe … ad-witness
In my view, she helped Trump's case immensely.How so? It's a documets case. I'm surprised that stormy was called as a witness at all. She wasn't needed. It appeared that the decision to put her on the stand was made when Trump's attorney Blanche in his opening statement denied the affair. That, is what opened the door for the testimony we heard. Trump's attorney shouldn't have made that statement. Whether they had an affair or not has nothing to do with the case. I think he botched his chances of overturning on appeal if there is a conviction.
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/donald … rcna151378I'm in agreement with you. I wasn't planning to delve into specifics with my last brief statement, as it was merely my personal opinion. However, after taking the time to listen and read articles from various legal experts, I've come to think that the prosecutor's line of questioning with Stormy Daniels could potentially be advantageous if the case reaches the appeal stage or even the Supreme Court, particularly concerning the issue of jury tainting. It's just my perspective after examining the viewpoints of some legal professionals.
I would think he will lose the case in New York. However, I do believe it will be overturned. I am just going as I said what some legal touts are saying.
I sense the prosecutor's aim was to subtly convey to the jury that Trump is morally questionable, even resorting to using Stormy Daniels' past involvement in adult entertainment as a visual aid. It's disheartening to see her unwittingly pulled into this spectacle. I wholeheartedly agree that her presence on the stand was unnecessary. In the grand scheme of things, it may very well be her testimony that tips the scales in Trump's favor upon appeal.
Hey Maher seemed to just be smearing her character by comparing his interview with her, and what she said on the stand.
When LYING TRUMP whines about not being able to get on the campaign trail - KEEP IN MIND that he doesn't really want to.
https://www.cnn.com/2024/05/11/politics … index.htmlMaher reacted to the clip, "That's not what she's saying now."
Apparently, Maher turned it off before the cross-examination where she specifically stated there was no assault. As usual, a post here only tells half the story in a way to try and paint a false narrative.The whole thing seems a mud smear. Let it go to the Appeal Court, or the USA Supreme Court.
It will, and justice will occur, most likely in the appeals court.
Here is another good reason MAGA thinks Trump is, lol, "fit" to be president - he cheats on his taxes. But not the everyday petty cheating many Americans do, he does it on a grand scale.
FACT - Trump claimed as "worthless" his Chicago Trump Tower, and wrote off $651 million on his 2008 taxes. Now, tax experts claim that should have been investigated as not legitimate, but for some strange reason, it was not. Well, apparently thought that if he could do it once, he could do it again.
So this honorable, ethical, honest, upstanding citizen (if you missed it, that was sarcasm) changed ownership of the property to an LLC he owned and DID IT AGAIN!!! on his 2010 by declaring another $168 million in losses. Well, the IRS has been slow rolling this audit ever since but is now bringing it to a close. If the audit finds against Trump as it ought to (even MAGA people should know you can't claim the same deduction twice), then Trump might be on the hook for another $100 MILLION plus, I suspect, penalties and interest.
MAGA must be proud.
BTW - why did such a business savvy real estate investor claim his 92-story building worthless? Because of huge cost overruns in its construction and he couldn't rent the units.
In fact, what is the source of Trump's wealth? It certainly isn't his business acumen is it, most of those deals went south into bankruptcy. No, it turns out to be four things: 1) his father's inheritance, 2) being an entertainer with The Apprentice, 3) getting lenders to write off his debt), and 4) licensing his name. It appears he is a very poor businessman (along with defrauding people where he continually had to settle out of court and cheating on his taxes).
"If the I.R.S. prevails, Mr. Trump’s tax returns would look very different, especially those from 2011 to 2017. During those years, he reported $184 million in income from “The Apprentice” and agreements to license his name, along with $219 million from canceled debts. But he paid only $643,431 in income taxes thanks to huge losses on his businesses, including the Chicago tower. "
(That $219 million in cancelled debt is reportable as income, but, true to form and much like Hunter Biden, he failed to report or pay taxes on it when he was supposed to have. Again, like Hunter Biden who is facing a criminal trial for it, Trump finally STARTED to declare it two years too late. (But is he getting charged for it? Of course not.)
That, along with being a convicted sexual predator, is the kind of man several here on this forum want to be president.
https://www.nytimes.com/2024/05/11/us/t … icago.htmlROFL. Even pro-Trump donors are sick of listening to the lies MAGA believes about 2020 election. The owner of the radio station the much indicted Rudy Giuliani uses to spew his garbage had had enough. He told Rudy to stop spreading lies about the 2020 election and Rudy did it anyway. So, the owner pulled the plug on Rudy's ability to spread lies over the airways.
https://www.cnn.com/2024/05/11/business … ies-digvid
Speaking of Republicans who are sick of Trump, the former #2 in Georgia is saying he is not only NOT going to vote for Trump, but he WILL vote for Joe Biden. Other smart Republicans need to follow his lead.This #2 Georgian is not smarter than the late James Galagham of England. Late Galagham said he will vote for Magarreth Tharcher, and did just that, and lost the prime ministership by one vote, his vote that he cast for Maggie. Smartness like a phone or AI demand specification. The whole thing smarks of double-speak.
Where is the so-called "double-speak"? He said he was going to vote for Biden because Trump is unfit for the presidency. Presumably he will vote for Biden and his rational is self-evident.
His "smartness" is obvious - he avoided coming under the spell of the master conman Trump.Now the clarity and specification is apparent. If I were that #2 Georgian, I would said: 'I'll vote for biden. I'll not vote for Trump'. Seriously, we're discussing a very critical issue that pertain to the Law and the Courts. So it's more gentlemanly to go specific, instead of beating about the bush. If Trump had speak so as the #2, the Dem, and Rep leaning Left would start to imagine any negatively or evil related thing under the Sun against 'real' Donald Trump.
That is what he said, he won't for Trump, he will vote for Biden. Geoff Duncan, former Lieutenant Governor of Georgia, a very Conservative fellow. All I could remember was his last name when I wrote the original post.
But he kept others wondering, or in a limbo. That state of smartness is not homely under the circumstances.
Can some Trump supporter explain why virtually nobody is showing up in support of Trump at his criminal trial? Consider:
* The ONLY family member to show up is his son Eric, three times in two weeks I think.
* Average MAGA-type's are there in single digits, if at all.
* His political cult members are few and far between as well. Only those shooting for a VP or Cabinet post shoed their faces recently.
* Melania is staying as far away as she can.
He must feel very lonely.We should start a thread called, 'Ask a Trump supporter...'
Because not only why if Trump is so popular, as all the Trump supporters always claim here, is no one supporting him at trial...but why the heck is Trump running on Hannibal Lecter as an issue?So you pick on where his attorney err? Okay, ask the lawyer. I'm an outsider.
Well, it is becoming very clear that the prosecution has what it needs to convict Trump on 34 felony counts. Today, they introduced documentary evidence that links Trump himself with knowing the repayment arraignments were not for so-called "legal fees". While I agree with the CNN pundits that the DA at least needs to make the attempt to get Wiessleburg to testify, they do have his written instructions on what the repayment consisted of and why.
This evidence appears to corroborate the testimony of Cohen that the monies he was getting was to reimburse him for fronting Trump the Stormy Daniels hush-money payments plus extra for taxes and a bonus Trump stiffed Cohen on.
This puts a dent in Trump's attempt to discredit Cohen because it seems the jury no longer has to rely JUST on Cohen's word that this was the scheme he, Wiessleburg, and Trump cooked up.
https://www.cnn.com/politics/live-news/ … index.htmlGod, how embarrassing - Trump has to resort to GoFundMe to pay his legal bills so that he doesn't have to spend his own money. He abuses every system he comes in contact with.
Isn't it nice to have a man on the inside? "An upside-down American flag – a symbol used by some supporters of former President Donald Trump who challenged the legitimacy of Joe Biden’s 2020 victory – hung outside the home of Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito after the election, The New York Times reported Thursday."
TWO men actually since unJustice Thomas's wife and counselor aided and abetted in the overthrow of a lawful election.ESO, I saw that, Alito should recuse himself from cases dealing with Donald Trump immunity for crimes committed in office. It was pretty stupid of Alito to allow such a blatant display on his property as a supposedly impartial member of the Supreme Court.
He has never been impartial - always anti-gov't.
I suspect we will see a post saying the other Justices should recuse themselves because they don't support Trump, lol. (sort of like, if you oppose discrimination, that means you are a racist)
Has the prosecution met its burden of proof where the jury "should" convict Trump on some or all of the felony counts against him?,
WHAT ARE THE CHARGES?
There are two sets, one set, falsifying business records, a misdemeanor in New York.
The other set are felonies where the state is saying Trump falsified the records in furtherance of another crime, in this case violating New York's campaign finance laws by hiding payments made to Stormy Daniels to keep her silent about their sexual encounter in order to improve his chances of winning the election in New York
Each charge the 34 charges is associated with a payment made to Michael Cohen that was mischaracterized as a "legal" expensive They break down as follows:
11 Falsified Invoices
12 Falsified General Ledger entries
11 Checks Falsely Recording Hush Money Payments as "Retainers"
(§ 175.05)
All these are Misdemeanors.
The state is claiming that each one of the 34 violations was in furtherance of illegal campaign contributions in Trump's 2020 election. (§ 175.10)
If proven, that makes all 34 counts Felonies in the State of New York.
WHAT ARE THE ELEMENTS OF PROOF?
This is interesting, the prosecution only charged § 175.10, the "stepped-up" charge from § 175.05. In New York, the prosecution only needs to prove 1) the records were falsified and 2) that Trump only "intended" violate the Federal Election Campaign (FECA) law, the New York equivalent to FECA, 17-152, and/OR federal/state tax laws. The focus has been on the first two, but the last is also in play.
Also, of note, the underlying "falsification" charges are lesser included offenses, but not charged in their own right.
Elements of Proof for 175-10
Falsified Business Records
1) That Trump made or caused a false entry in the business records
of an enterprise; or
2) omitted to make a true entry in the business records
of an enterprise in violation of a duty to do so which
the defendant knew to be imposed upon him/her by
law or by the nature of his/her position; or
3) Prevents the making of a true entry or causes the omission thereof
in the business records of an enterprise.
Intent to Commit another Crime
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.
These must be proved "beyond a reasonable doubt". That is not to mean beyond ANY doubt, but beyond a Reasonable doubt. In other words, is there a realistic alternative possibility that could be considered?
SO WHAT HAS THE PROSECUTION PRESENTED?
1. The prosecution painfully entered into evidence each of the 11 invoices, 12 ledger entries, and 11 checks that were produced by the Trump Organization or accounts controlled by Trump
2. Each of the invoices submitted by Cohen and accepted by the Trump Organization (TO) were notated "pursuant to a retainer agreement". Testimony from the TO comptroller established these invoices were required for Cohen to receive payment.
3. The comptroller also testified that each of the general ledger entries associated with the payments to Cohen were for "legal" expenses. (The defense tried a "the dog ate my homework" defense by blaming the accounting system for this.)
4. Each of the checks issued to Cohen that were submitted into evidence stated they were for a "Retainer".
Up to this point, the testimony of Michael Cohen has not been needed, but now the prosecution must show how these were "False" records.
The bottom line is that none of these documents were for or about "legal" fees. And, if the prosecution can show they were not, then by default, that are False Records. So, what do we have then?
1. Cohen testified (corroborated) the money he was paid was not for legal expenses, that there was no "retainer" agreement. That he was required to submit invoices (corroborated) in order to get repaid the money he spent to keep Stormy Daniels quiet. He wrote in his emails and and on some invoices that they were for "legal" fees.
2. All the general ledger entries regarding the payments listed them as legal fees when they were not. (documentary evidence)
3. The prosecution presented a bank statement Cohen used to set up the shell company used to pay Stormy Daniels which showed how Cohen was to be "reimbursed", not for legal fees, but for the $130,000 that Cohen had paid to Daniels, another $130,000 to cover the taxes (another falsification since repayment of expenses is not taxable), $60,000 in a bonus Cohen felt Trump stiffed him on, and the remainder for reimbursement for money paid to company called Red Finch. All total, this was $420,000 which was paid out monthly and equals the 12 $35,000 checks, most of which were signed by Trump, where the stubs said "RETAINER FEES" (a lie). This is the "smoking gun" that ties Weisselberg, Trump, and Cohen together.
4. The above also corroborates Cohen's testimony that Trump knew and approved what was going on.
5. Cohen also testified, uncorroborated, that he spoke to Trump and told him the deal was struck with Stormy Daniels.
6. The prosecution introduced an extreme amount of testimony from Trump staff that shows, when the amounts are above $10,000, Trump is very involved and must approve such transactions.
7. The testimony from multiple witnesses overwhelmingly show that Trump was worried about his fling with Daniels (true or not) getting out and hurting his chances to become president.
In my mind, the jury has all that it needs now to find beyond a reasonable doubt that Trump as least allowed false records to be produced that tried to hide his payments to Stormy Daniels under the guise of legal fees in order to assist in his becoming president, which is illegal.
Related Discussions
- 89
Paul Manafort Indictment Not For Collusion
by ga anderson 6 years ago
This should be a hot one. The much anticipated Special Counsel's first indictments have been unsealed - and they aren't about Pres. Trump and Russian election collusion, (yet???)But like a lyric from a song; 'whoo eee, whoo eee babyyy...' It sure paints an ugly picture. And one that seems to be a...
- 24
Bombshell Durham Report. Hillary paid to spy on Trump Campaign
by Readmikenow 10 months ago
Some journalists, Republican lawmakers, and other notable public figures responded to an explosive report from over the weekend involving Special Counsel John Durham’s investigation into the FBI’s Trump-Russia probe by saying that the Trump White House was spied on.Durham said in the court filing...
- 43
Is THIS One of the Examples of Trump Obstruction of Justice"?
by Scott Belford 20 months ago
There can be know doubt that the Trump Jr. meeting with various Russians connected with Putin was collusion. It is not important that the those on the Russian side ended up only talking about influencing Donald Trump to end a set of 2012 sanctions against Russia. What is important is that...
- 246
President Obama and his administration spied on President elect Trump?
by Jack Lee 6 years ago
This is a shocking relvelation, if true, undermines our whole democratic process...Why is this not headline news?
- 19
Manafort to Cooperate with Mueller
by J Conn 5 years ago
If he's going to cooperate, that would assume that there's something of value to the investigation in there. Should be interesting to see what he shares.
- 16
The Trump Dossier revisited.
by Randy Godwin 6 years ago
Today Sen. Diane Feinstein released the transcripts of the Richard Steele interview against the wishes of Republican committee members. Steel was worried about Trump being possibly blackmailed if he became POTUS and contacted the FBI as he should have. This was before the election and before the...