Log In

Your email is not your username

Register

If you were a member of the old Bodybuilding.com forums and would like to reuse your previous username, you can request it below. We use your email only for registration and do not store it. For more information, please see our Privacy Policy.

Confirm your email

A registration code was sent to your email. Enter it here.

Welcome

You have successfully setup your account.

Sign in

Quick Navigation Bottom Misc
Forum » Trump's Underlying Charge
  1. Results 31 to 57 of 57
  2. Page 2 of 2
  3. First
  5. 1
  6. 2

Thread: Trump's Underlying Charge

post 1680209183 04-05-2023, 07:31 AM
-
#31
  1. Seatard
  1. Seatard
  3. Join Date: Sep 2012
  4. Posts: 19,153
  5. Subscribers: 3
  6. Rep Power: 98572
Originally Posted By DanteEdmond⏩
everything indicates that Bragg is trying to use election campaign finance violation as the underlying charge. There's the federal crime relating to campaign finance violation, but NY State also has its own election laws too. The issue is that Bragg has no jurisdiction to bring a federal crime in state court, and NY State laws concerning campaign finance may not apply to a federal election

The other issue, which doesn't get talked about often, is the "intent to defraud" language. To "defraud" means Trump had to take something or deprive someone of something. Is Bragg arguing that Trump deprived the voters of knowledge about the affairs? it's a stretch
I posted this in the other thread, New York State legal precedence has defined the term ‘intent to defraud’ as not requiring an intent to deprive the state of money or property, but rather intent to frustrate legitimate state interests and processes.

The election for POTUS is federal, but the state runs it.
post 1680210013 04-05-2023, 07:48 AM
-
#32
  1. semitope
  2. The Blob
  1. semitope
  2. The Blob
  3. Join Date: Jun 2011
  4. Posts: 7,908
  5. Rep Power: 0
so we all agree trump broke either state laws or federal laws, or even both. Just a question of who can indict him?



Anyway, seemed pretty clear here he's screwed.

It's this guyhttps://edition.cnn.com/2022/03/06/p...ion/index.html

He had decided not to indict and people were attacking him for it. Guess he wasn't corrupt
Is there no limit to what people will believe if it is prefaced by the phrase,
"Scientists say" ?

I rep back +0
post 1680210243 04-05-2023, 07:53 AM
-
#33
  1. Procta
  1. Procta
  3. Join Date: Feb 2006
  4. Location: Jacksonville, Florida, United States
  5. Posts: 132,798
  6. Subscribers: 8
  7. Rep Power: 1752821
Originally Posted By semitope⏩
so we all agree trump broke either state laws or federal laws, or even both. Just a question of who can indict him?
no.
Subscribe for extra premium content (no noodz sorry guys)
post 1680210453 04-05-2023, 07:56 AM
-
#34
  1. gwg77
  1. gwg77
  3. Join Date: Oct 2017
  4. Location: United States
  5. Posts: 20,534
  6. Subscribers: 19
  7. Rep Power: 1101272
How does falsifying business transactions in 2017 impact the 2016 election? How exactly does that work?
post 1680210763 04-05-2023, 08:02 AM
-
#35
  1. DuracellBunny
  2. Has new batteries!
  1. DuracellBunny
  2. Has new batteries!
  3. Join Date: Nov 2005
  4. Posts: 15,594
  5. Rep Power: 201320
Originally Posted By gwg77⏩
How does falsifying business transactions in 2017 impact the 2016 election? How exactly does that work?
My favourite thing that I have read so far is about Trump having a meeting with Cohen in the oval office to finalise the payments to Stormy Daniels.

If the meeting was in the oval office, he was already president. How were these payments to help him win an election?

What I haven't seen mentioned yet is do people really believe that Trump was making 5 figure entries in a ledger himself?

A count for the check, a count for the invoice etc

Trump doesn't handle invoices and I very much doubt he personally signs checks for that amount.

Doris in accounting gets an invoice from Cohen and pays it the same as she does for every other invoice from Cohen. She enters it in the ledger with a code next to it: Trump doesn't do that.

Unless they put Doris on the stand and she states "Mr Trump personally told me to classify it as that in the ledger", there is no case.
Screw nature; my body will do what I DAMN WELL tell it to do!

The only dangerous thing about an exercise is the person doing it.

They had the technology to rebuild me. They made me better, stronger, faster......
post 1680211303 04-05-2023, 08:12 AM
-
#36
  1. Seatard
  1. Seatard
  3. Join Date: Sep 2012
  4. Posts: 19,153
  5. Subscribers: 3
  6. Rep Power: 98572
Originally Posted By gwg77⏩
How does falsifying business transactions in 2017 impact the 2016 election? How exactly does that work?
Falsifying records in 2017 was potentially done to conceal crimes committed in 2016.
post 1680211403 04-05-2023, 08:15 AM
-
#37
  1. DanteEdmond
  2. Registered User
  1. DanteEdmond
  2. Registered User
  3. Join Date: Jun 2019
  4. Age: 56
  5. Posts: 6,521
  6. Rep Power: 29635
Originally Posted By metroins⏩
Nytimes says they are going to give the judge and jury multiple underlying crimes, including tax crimes. The easiest to prove is the overpayment to Michael cohen.
using tax crime as the second crime in 1st degree falsify business records isn't viable imo. The 1st degree falsify business records charge has an intent requirement ... on one hand, they're saying his intent was to hide the affairs and win the election. Now, they're saying his intent was to gain a tax benefit? Gotta' make up your mind about where you want to go with the charge

And nothing indicates that he was thinking tax gain when he wrote "legal expenses"
post 1680211433 04-05-2023, 08:15 AM
-
#38
  1. semitope
  2. The Blob
  1. semitope
  2. The Blob
  3. Join Date: Jun 2011
  4. Posts: 7,908
  5. Rep Power: 0
Originally Posted By gwg77⏩
How does falsifying business transactions in 2017 impact the 2016 election? How exactly does that work?
Originally Posted By Seatard⏩
Falsifying records in 2017 was potentially done to conceal crimes committed in 2016.
the fact someone has to explain this
Is there no limit to what people will believe if it is prefaced by the phrase,
"Scientists say" ?

I rep back +0
post 1680211723 04-05-2023, 08:22 AM
-
#39
  1. gwg77
  1. gwg77
  3. Join Date: Oct 2017
  4. Location: United States
  5. Posts: 20,534
  6. Subscribers: 19
  7. Rep Power: 1101272
Originally Posted By Seatard⏩
Falsifying records in 2017 was potentially done to conceal crimes committed in 2016.
Read the law carefully:
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.
An intent to commit another crime or to aid or conceal that crime. What is the other crime they are trying to conceal?

You falsified a record in 2017, with intent to promote or prevent an election in 2016? How do you apply NY election law 17-152? How does that work?

If you want to go with campaign contributions, that is a federal election law with no jurisdiction.
post 1680211783 04-05-2023, 08:23 AM
-
#40
  1. Seatard
  1. Seatard
  3. Join Date: Sep 2012
  4. Posts: 19,153
  5. Subscribers: 3
  6. Rep Power: 98572
Originally Posted By DuracellBunny⏩
My favourite thing that I have read so far is about Trump having a meeting with Cohen in the oval office to finalise the payments to Stormy Daniels.

If the meeting was in the oval office, he was already president. How were these payments to help him win an election?

What I haven't seen mentioned yet is do people really believe that Trump was making 5 figure entries in a ledger himself?

A count for the check, a count for the invoice etc

Trump doesn't handle invoices and I very much doubt he personally signs checks for that amount.

Doris in accounting gets an invoice from Cohen and pays it the same as she does for every other invoice from Cohen. She enters it in the ledger with a code next to it: Trump doesn't do that.

Unless they put Doris on the stand and she states "Mr Trump personally told me to classify it as that in the ledger", there is no case.
175.05 indicates someone just has to cause the falsification or omission of a true entry. Pretty sure it's well understood that Trump himself wouldn't be making any entries, so they'll have something showing he caused it.
post 1680212163 04-05-2023, 08:29 AM
-
#41
  1. DuracellBunny
  2. Has new batteries!
  1. DuracellBunny
  2. Has new batteries!
  3. Join Date: Nov 2005
  4. Posts: 15,594
  5. Rep Power: 201320
Originally Posted By Seatard⏩
175.05 indicates someone just has to cause the falsification or omission of a true entry. Pretty sure it's well understood that Trump himself wouldn't be making any entries, so they'll have something showing he caused it.
That's actually quite hard to do. Unless he specifically stated to classify X as Y, there is no case.

All he has to do is show that it could have been a fk up in accounting.Theyhave to show that it happened at his behest, not just on his behalf.

What we are basically talking about is did Trump order the code red? He's not going to come out and say "you're goddamn right I did!" It's not gonna happen.
Screw nature; my body will do what I DAMN WELL tell it to do!

The only dangerous thing about an exercise is the person doing it.

They had the technology to rebuild me. They made me better, stronger, faster......
post 1680212173 04-05-2023, 08:29 AM
-
#42
  1. Seatard
  1. Seatard
  3. Join Date: Sep 2012
  4. Posts: 19,153
  5. Subscribers: 3
  6. Rep Power: 98572
Originally Posted By gwg77⏩
Read the law carefully:



An intent to commit another crime or to aid or conceal that crime. What is the other crime they are trying to conceal?

You falsified a record in 2017, with intent to promote or prevent an election in 2016? How do you apply NY election law 17-152? How does that work?

If you want to go with campaign contributions, that is a federal election law with no jurisdiction.
We don't know what the other crime is yet so these questions can't be answered.

The law doesn't say the other crime has to be a state crime though. Just that it's illegal to falsify business records to conceal another crime.
post 1680212403 04-05-2023, 08:33 AM
-
#43
  1. Seatard
  1. Seatard
  3. Join Date: Sep 2012
  4. Posts: 19,153
  5. Subscribers: 3
  6. Rep Power: 98572
Originally Posted By DuracellBunny⏩
That's actually quite hard to do. Unless he specifically stated to classify X as Y, there is no case.

All he has to do is show that it could have been a fk up in accounting.Theyhave to show that it happened at his behest, not just on his behalf.
I agree. It's going to be difficult to even prove the misdemeanor.
post 1680212433 04-05-2023, 08:34 AM
-
#44
  1. gwg77
  1. gwg77
  3. Join Date: Oct 2017
  4. Location: United States
  5. Posts: 20,534
  6. Subscribers: 19
  7. Rep Power: 1101272
Originally Posted By Seatard⏩
We don't know what the other crime is yet so these questions can't be answered.

The law doesn't say the other crime has to be a state crime though. Just that it's illegal to falsify business records to conceal another crime.
LOL @ we don't know what the other crime is yet - NEITHER DOES BRAGG!!!


LOL @ the law doesn't say the other crime has to be a state crime though - BECAUSE THE STATE HAS FEDERAL JURISDICTION?


Never change, Seatard. <3


post 1680213013 04-05-2023, 08:44 AM
-
#45
  1. Seatard
  1. Seatard
  3. Join Date: Sep 2012
  4. Posts: 19,153
  5. Subscribers: 3
  6. Rep Power: 98572
Originally Posted By gwg77⏩
LOL @ we don't know what the other crime is yet - NEITHER DOES BRAGG!!!


LOL @ the law doesn't say the other crime has to be a state crime though - BECAUSE THE STATE HAS FEDERAL JURISDICTION?


Never change, Seatard. <3


I'm not saying you're wrong, it could very well be that there was no relevant underlying crime.

I think Trump is a terrible candidate for President but I can compartmentalize this and don't feel a need to defend or persecute him over this indictment. Serious, it could be any former POTUS and I'd find it just as interesting.
post 1680213233 04-05-2023, 08:48 AM
-
#46
  1. Retoaded
  2. He/Him
  1. Retoaded
  2. He/Him
  3. Join Date: Dec 2011
  4. Posts: 50,517
  5. Rep Power: 650393
So...they can escalate the misdemeanor to a felony based on an underlying crime(s) that they don't even have to get him convicted of? That is 100% banana republic.

You, Joe Schmoe, are being tried for a crime with a maximum sentence of 30 days in jail. But because you committed this crime while committing another crime, you can get life in prison. But we don't need to even charge you, much less convict you, with that other crime. That is what is happening here...escalating a misdemeanor to something that can be life in prison.
post 1680213633 04-05-2023, 08:56 AM
-
#47
  1. gwg77
  1. gwg77
  3. Join Date: Oct 2017
  4. Location: United States
  5. Posts: 20,534
  6. Subscribers: 19
  7. Rep Power: 1101272
Originally Posted By Retoaded⏩
So...they can escalate the misdemeanor to a felony based on an underlying crime(s) that they don't even have to get him convicted of? That is 100% banana republic.

You, Joe Schmoe, are being tried for a crime with a maximum sentence of 30 days in jail. But because you committed this crime while committing another crime, you can get life in prison. But we don't need to even charge you, much less convict you, with that other crime. That is what is happening here...escalating a misdemeanor to something that can be life in prison.
Yeah, I'm really finding it hard to believe that they wouldn't have to charge or convict for the underlying crime. Those are claims from the NY Times.

Jonathan Turley said he will eventually need to name the underlying crime in the bill of particulars. Why would you have an underlying crime that you don't charge?
post 1680214003 04-05-2023, 09:02 AM
-
#48
  1. DuracellBunny
  2. Has new batteries!
  1. DuracellBunny
  2. Has new batteries!
  3. Join Date: Nov 2005
  4. Posts: 15,594
  5. Rep Power: 201320
Originally Posted By gwg77⏩
Yeah, I'm really finding it hard to believe that they wouldn't have to charge or convict for the underlying crime. Those are claims from the NY Times.

Jonathan Turley said he will eventually need to name the underlying crime in the bill of particulars. Why would you have an underlying crime that you don't charge?
Look, there was an underlying crime. We aren't going to tell you what it is, because it's asecret, but therewasone, trust me and it was very, very bad.
Screw nature; my body will do what I DAMN WELL tell it to do!

The only dangerous thing about an exercise is the person doing it.

They had the technology to rebuild me. They made me better, stronger, faster......
post 1680214153 04-05-2023, 09:05 AM
-
#49
  1. Procta
  1. Procta
  3. Join Date: Feb 2006
  4. Location: Jacksonville, Florida, United States
  5. Posts: 132,798
  6. Subscribers: 8
  7. Rep Power: 1752821
Originally Posted By Retoaded⏩
So...they can escalate the misdemeanor to a felony based on an underlying crime(s) that they don't even have to get him convicted of? That is 100% banana republic.

You, Joe Schmoe, are being tried for a crime with a maximum sentence of 30 days in jail. But because you committed this crime while committing another crime, you can get life in prison. But we don't need to even charge you, much less convict you, with that other crime. That is what is happening here...escalating a misdemeanor to something that can be life in prison.
legally it is even more stupid than it sounds in your post
Subscribe for extra premium content (no noodz sorry guys)
post 1680214363 04-05-2023, 09:09 AM
-
#50
  1. gwg77
  1. gwg77
  3. Join Date: Oct 2017
  4. Location: United States
  5. Posts: 20,534
  6. Subscribers: 19
  7. Rep Power: 1101272
Originally Posted By DuracellBunny⏩
Look, there was an underlying crime. We aren't going to tell you what it is, because it's asecret, but therewasone, trust me and it was very, very bad.
If the law says intent to commit another crime or aid or conceal that crime, then did you commit the crime or not? If you're aiding or concealing a crime, then you must have committed it, no? Why would you not even have to charge them or even prove that the crime was committed, as the NY Times claims?

What is this nonsense?
post 1680214553 04-05-2023, 09:12 AM
-
#51
  1. Stizzel
  2. Rothbardian
  1. Stizzel
  2. Rothbardian
  3. Join Date: Apr 2008
  4. Location: Your Mom
  5. Posts: 83,764
  6. Subscribers: 1
  7. Rep Power: 384419
Originally Posted By DuracellBunny⏩
Look, there was an underlying crime. We aren't going to tell you what it is, because it's asecret, but therewasone, trust me and it was very, very bad.
I'm sure this is essentially what they told the grand jury in their closed door hearing lmao. Most likely they lied to the jury about what's needed to bring charges as well.

The left seems to be split 50/50 on this. Some of them are bracing for the impact of a massive surge in support for Trump from this, the other half think that the fact that a grand jury is indicting him means he's definitely guilty and going to prison.
“It’s the bill of rights, not the bill of requests. Rights are not up for negotiations.” Thomas Massie, MAGA enemy #1
post 1680215393 04-05-2023, 09:28 AM
-
#52
  1. gwg77
  1. gwg77
  3. Join Date: Oct 2017
  4. Location: United States
  5. Posts: 20,534
  6. Subscribers: 19
  7. Rep Power: 1101272
Originally Posted By Stizzel⏩
I'm sure this is essentially what they told the grand jury in their closed door hearing lmao. Most likely they lied to the jury about what's needed to bring charges as well.

The left seems to be split 50/50 on this. Some of them are bracing for the impact of a massive surge in support for Trump from this, the other half think that the fact that a grand jury is indicting him means he's definitely guilty and going to prison.
That is another point Turley brought up. How did the grand jury understand enough to indict if Bragg couldn't even explain what the underlying charge was?


post 1680220753 04-05-2023, 10:57 AM
-
#53
  1. NitrogenWidget
  1. NitrogenWidget
  3. Join Date: Dec 2010
  4. Location: United States
  5. Posts: 43,261
  6. Subscribers: 1
  7. Rep Power: 349299
Originally Posted By gwg77⏩
That is another point Turley brought up. How did the grand jury understand enough to indict if Bragg couldn't even explain what the underlying charge was?


post 1680222743 04-05-2023, 11:34 AM
-
#54
  1. GreatOldOne
  2. Cthulhu fhtagn
  1. GreatOldOne
  2. Cthulhu fhtagn
  3. Join Date: Jan 2013
  4. Posts: 39,712
  5. Rep Power: 210947
Originally Posted By gwg77⏩
That is another point Turley brought up. How did the grand jury understand enough to indict if Bragg couldn't even explain what the underlying charge was?


Maybe he did.

It could be that he's avoiding letting Trump's defense know exactly what they're up against until he absolutely has to spell it out in court.

And maybe he has no idea what he's doing, but you would think he might know how this could backfire in his face if he didn't have it all squared away.
post 1680228603 04-05-2023, 01:16 PM
-
#55
  1. hackerwacker
  2. Registered User
  1. hackerwacker
  2. Registered User
  3. Join Date: Sep 2011
  4. Age: 35
  5. Posts: 11,669
  6. Rep Power: 62380
It's the definition of "show me the man I'll find you the crime"

We are a joke country. It's over.
post 1680233223 04-05-2023, 02:36 PM
-
#56
  1. NYPat
  2. Registered User
  1. NYPat
  2. Registered User
  3. Join Date: Dec 2010
  4. Posts: 43,432
  5. Rep Power: 198579
Didn't even read this thread but just lol at thinking Bragg is going to indict a former president if he didn't have a leg to stand on. Everyone just take a breath and accept reality.. Trump is going to court in December and until then just sit back and watch all the other court cases Trump has to deal with in the coming weeks and months.
post 1680241313 04-05-2023, 05:06 PM
-
#57
  1. NitrogenWidget
  1. NitrogenWidget
  3. Join Date: Dec 2010
  4. Location: United States
  5. Posts: 43,261
  6. Subscribers: 1
  7. Rep Power: 349299
Originally Posted By NYPat⏩
Didn't even read this thread but just lol at thinking Bragg is going to indict a former president if he didn't have a leg to stand on. Everyone just take a breath and accept reality.. Trump is going to court in December and until then just sit back and watch all the other court cases Trump has to deal with in the coming weeks and months.
ok groomer.
Quick Navigation Top Misc
Bookmarks
Digg.com
Digg
del.icio.us
del.icio.us
Stumbleupon.com
StumbleUpon
Google.com
Google
Facebook.com
Facebook
Posting Permissions
  1. You may not post new threads
  2. You may not post replies
  3. You may not post attachments
  4. You may not edit your posts