NY vs. Trump: Bragg's own witness, Hope Hicks, implodes case against Trump

[Callen]

What crime did he conceal?

Read this...pg 11 on

The three crimes are listed and explained there,

DocumentCloud

www.documentcloud.org

 

[Grand Mal]

You think Trump would be prosecuted if he wasn't running now?

You got it backwards. Trump is running now to try to get some slack from his legal problems.
Trump declared in November 2022, two years before the election, because the investigations were starting to snowball. He immediately played the 'election interference' card, long before campaign season, long before candidates were even nominated.
Campaign season starts after candidates are nominated. Till then Trump is just another white collar with a past catching up to him fast. All this 'election interference' crap is just more bs. being spoon-fed to his followers. Who slurp it up with gusto.

 

[diz]

He falsified business records (34! counts) to conceal the truth about the payment, and thereby committed another crime of election interference, in which the conspiracy acted to conceal the information from getting to voters. We should have all the facts when voting.

The payment isn’t a crime.

 

[Callen]

The payment isn’t a crime.

Probably why he isn't charged with that.

 

[diz]

If a business puts in a fraudulent entry it can effect personal income taxes, business taxes, artificially boost a companies profits or make them look worse effecting the returns to shareholders.

So it is fraud regardless of the effect on the federal election,

So he’s being charged with tax fraud? If he’s not why are we talking about this?

 

[Lord Tammerlain]

So he’s being charged with tax fraud? If he’s not why are we talking about this?

That is not what his is being charged with in this case. It is fraud in general

 

[diz]

Probably why he isn't charged with that.

So it’s not “the other crime” then, right?

 

[Callen]

So it’s not “the other crime” then, right?

I provided you the document and the specific page numbers that describe the specific charges in post #76.. If you can't be bothered to read it I can't be bothered to discuss anything with you....facts bother you?

 

[Deuce]

He’s being tried on those other crimes?

I think you might just be confused about how this works. There's no separate conviction here.

 

[Callen]

I think you might just be confused about how this works. There's no separate conviction here.

I provided him a document describing the three underlying crimes that it is alleged were being covered up in this conspiracy to illegally influence an election. Apparently he really isn't interested in facts just in jousting.

If you haven't read the document please do. It goes through the judges pretrial rulings on all the issues that come up here on a regular basis...its facinating and informative. It's the link in post #76.

 

[ColdHardTruth]

Rut-Roh. Tell us again weirdos how well this trial is going for the prosecution! (but Trump farts in court!)

In an epic miscalculation that backfired spectacularly, prosecutors in the Manhattan hush money trial of Donald Trump called Hope Hicks to the witness stand. The moment cross-examination began, their misbegotten case against the former president began to collapse.

click for story

Nonsensical bullshit.

 

[US&THEM]

So it’s not “the other crime” then, right?

This is the MAGA conversations “I just have questions”
Constant questions without acknowledging facts.
Fun times

 

[Paradoxical]

If a business puts in a fraudulent entry it can effect personal income taxes, business taxes, artificially boost a companies profits or make them look worse effecting the returns to shareholders.

So it is fraud regardless of the effect on the federal election,

Those hypotheticals do not apply here.

Now what?

 

[Luce]

and why not Hillary?

Because - despite the right obsessively going after her for 25 years - you have found nothing actionable.

 

[Luce]

Those hypotheticals do not apply here.

Now what?

The law still applies.

Get all pissed off about it. Nobody cares.

 

[US&THEM]

Those hypotheticals do not apply here.

Now what?

Hold on I will print out all of your posts and send to Trump’s team. You’re brilliant.

 

[Nickyjo]

She validated most of Cohen's testimony.

Yes, and her put down of him while confirming much of what he claims might actually help the prosecution.

 

[diz]

I provided him a document describing the three underlying crimes that it is alleged were being covered up in this conspiracy to illegally influence an election. Apparently he really isn't interested in facts just in jousting.

If you haven't read the document please do. It goes through the judges pretrial rulings on all the issues that come up here on a regular basis...its facinating and informative. It's the link in post #76.

The document is not “facts”. I can put unfiltered garbage in a document.

Crimes must be proven beyond a reasonable doubt. So, you can’t just say “he committed tax fraud” without very specific evidence. Well, you and I can just say it, but a prosecutor is not supposed to bring charges unless he has evidence beyond a reasonable doubt. Trials are not supposed to be fishing expeditions - if you have evidence that Trump committed tax fraud, put him on trial for tax fraud.

If you have evidence beyond a reasonable doubt that Trump committed these “other crimes”, why not convict him of these other crimes? Why this fiasco?

 

[diz]

Because - despite the right obsessively going after her for 25 years - you have found nothing actionable.

If you believe a Trump committed multiple felonies here, then she did too. She’s guilty of falsifying business records in an attempt to influence an election, or whatever.

FEC fines Hillary Clinton campaign and DNC over Trump-Russia dossier research | CNN Politics

Federal election regulators fined Hillary Clinton's 2016 presidential campaign and the Democratic National Committee earlier this month for not properly disclosing the money they spent on controversial opposition research that led to the infamous Trump-Russia dossier.

www.cnn.com

The ever popular “called something legal services” felony stiles again.

 

[Callen]

he document is not “facts”. I can put unfiltered garbage in a document

They are absolutely the facts of the case. The document does not say he is guilty of anything it simply outlines the charges. .Proving them beyond a reasonable doubt is another thing. For you to suggest you can put your unfiltered garbage into a legal court document tells me all ail I need to know .

 

[diz]

They are absolutely the facts of the case. Proving them beyond a reasonable doubt is another thing. For you to suggest you can put your unfiltered garbage into a legal court document tells me all ail I need to know .

So, what facts specifically prove beyond reasonable doubt Trump committed one of these “other crimes”. Might help to say which crime we’re talking about first, then the facts.

 

[Callen]

So, what facts specifically prove beyond reasonable doubt Trump committed one of these “other crimes”. Might help to say which crime we’re talking about first, then the facts.

The document outlines the parameters of the case. The trial establishes, or not, guilt beyond a b reasonable doubt..

 

[diz]

The document outlines the parameters of the case. The trial establishes, or not, guilt beyond a b reasonable doubt..

I guess you’re using the word “parameters” instead of “evidence” because there isn’t any evidence?

You’re “parameters” suggest the state has several theories Trump intended to commit some other crime but no evidence he committed a crime? And also no evidence he intended to?

The tax fraud one seems particularly astonishing to me as there’s no evidence of tax fraud. And no evidence of intent to commit tax fraud. I know enough about taxes to know grossing up a payment is not intent to commit tax fraud. It’s a fairly common practice.

 

[Callen]

I guess you’re using the word “parameters” instead of “evidence” because there isn’t any evidence?

I'm using the word parameters because the document is pretrial rulings made by the judge it is not evidence. Judges don't give evidence they set parameters.

 

[Callen]

You’re “parameters” suggest the state has several theories Trump intended to commit some other crime but no evidence he committed a crime? And also no evidence he intended to?

The underlying crimes do not have to be committed by Trump. He is accuse of conspiring to cover them up not committing them.

The tax fraud one seems particularly astonishing to me as there’s no evidence of tax fraud. And no evidence of intent to commit tax fraud. I know enough about taxes to know grossing up a payment is not intent to commit tax fraud. It’s a fairly common practice

They haven't presented that part of the case yet.