╌>

A Perry Mason Moment

  

Category:  Op/Ed

By:  vic-eldred  •  4 weeks ago  •  82 comments

A Perry Mason Moment
"That was a lie, you did not talk to President Trump,” Blanche said.


A strange thing happened in the NY trial against Trump today. It seems that Michael Cohen was caught in another lie, one he told today. After hours of reciting the previous litany of Cohen's past lies under oath, defense attorney Todd Blanche nailed him.

Dating back to 2017, Blanche highlighted several instances where Cohen lied under oath, including to Congress about a Trump Tower Moscow project and federal investigators from special counsel Robert Mueller's office.

Blanche asked Cohen about the oath and whether he believed it changed depending on the setting. "No," Cohen responded.

Blanche also accused Cohen of lying about a phone call he allegedly made to Keith Schiller, Donald Trump's former bodyguard, to speak with Trump.

Cohen confirmed he called Schiller that evening. Blanche asked if Cohen testified the call was to speak with Trump about the Stormy deal. Cohen confirmed.

In a text, Cohen asked Schiller who he can speak with about harassing calls from an alleged 14-year-old prankster. Schiller responded, “Call me.”

Cohen testified Tuesday that the Oct. 24 phone call, which lasted for one minute and 36 seconds, was made to Schiller to talk to Trump.

Blanche asked if the testimony on Tuesday was a lie because Cohen said then that he called to speak with Trump.

Cohen said, “Part of it was the 14-year-old ... but I know Keith was with Mr. Trump."

Blanche again accused Cohen of lying and insists he never spoke with Trump that day.

Cohen responded, “I always ran everything by the boss immediately."

"That was a lie, you did not talk to President Trump,” Blanche said.

“I’m not certain that’s accurate,” Cohen responded.

Michael Cohen to face cross examination on Thursday, May 16 in NY v. Trump trial | Live Updates from Fox News Digital


OIP.kFkE9Gz3VwSuBMULF5rxegHaJW?w=138&h=180&c=7&r=0&o=5&pid=1.7

Does anyone believe that the 1 minute and 36 second phone call which followed a text to Schiller complaining that "I'm having harassing calls from an alleged 14-year-old prankster" had anything to do with talking with Trump?

Even CNN "news" anchors are saying Cohen got nailed. Of course there are those who won't accept facts.  I've called them out on a daily basis.

Tomorrow will be another tough morning for Michael Cohen.

 


Tags

jrDiscussion - desc
[]
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
1  author  Vic Eldred    4 weeks ago

The defense has their own witnesses ready to go.

The only question now after this devastating hit on the prosecution is whether to allow redirect examination or end it tomorrow.

 
 
 
devangelical
Professor Principal
1.1  devangelical  replied to  Vic Eldred @1    4 weeks ago
Tomorrow will be another tough morning for Michael Cohen.

how so? there's no court tomorrow so that trump can attend the graduation of his byproduct of a transactional marriage, which coincidentally, said byproduct was just a few months old when trump was banging the first witness and recipient of his $130K payoff to keep quiet about it before the election in his current NY criminal case. ... and then having his employees claim that laundered payoff was a legal expense for trumpco. un-indicted co-conspirator number one and the first ex-POTUS to face criminal charges. there's some maga family values ...

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
1.1.1  author  Vic Eldred  replied to  devangelical @1.1    4 weeks ago
how so?

Today he has to remember what he said yesterday.

 
 
 
devangelical
Professor Principal
1.1.2  devangelical  replied to  Vic Eldred @1.1.1    4 weeks ago

that seems like a common problem among the right. thank heaven for audio and video recordings...

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
1.1.3  author  Vic Eldred  replied to  devangelical @1.1.2    4 weeks ago
thank heaven for audio and video recordings...

Tell us why the Jan 6th committee destroyed so many?

 
 
 
devangelical
Professor Principal
1.1.4  devangelical  replied to  Vic Eldred @1.1.3    4 weeks ago

that doesn't seem to be mentioned anywhere in your article, but I'm sure all the facts will come out in a future trial, if the defendant lives that long. he seems to have lost his edge and is looking a lot more haggard lately, despite all his frequent naps in the court room.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
1.1.5  author  Vic Eldred  replied to  devangelical @1.1.4    4 weeks ago
that doesn't seem to be mentioned anywhere in your article,

Once you bring it up, I have the duty to respond:

House Jan. 6 Committee Deleted Files Days Before GOP Majority in House: Report (msn.com)

Another fact that some will not accept.


he seems to have lost his edge and is looking a lot more haggard lately, despite all his frequent naps in the court room.

He has been saddled with a daunting schedule, no doubt about it, but unlike his opponent, he seems to thrive on it.

 
 
 
devangelical
Professor Principal
1.1.6  devangelical  replied to  Vic Eldred @1.1.5    4 weeks ago
Once you bring it up, I have the duty to respond

please show me where I did that, because had I done so, we both know what would be left of that comment here.

 
 
 
devangelical
Professor Principal
1.1.7  devangelical  replied to  Vic Eldred @1.1.5    4 weeks ago
He has been saddled with a daunting schedule, no doubt about it, but unlike his opponent, he seems to thrive on it.

he sits on his fat ass in a court room 4 days a week, sometimes plays a round of golf on the weekend, and recites his greatest false facts and tired comedy hits to his willfully ignorant sycophants. unless you think all caps truth social rants are considered part of his daunting schedule...

 
 
 
Ronin2
Professor Quiet
2  Ronin2    4 weeks ago

Will the judge find him in contempt of court and charge Cohen with perjury?

That is what this amounts to. Cohen lied yet again under oath.

This kangaroo court show trial is proving beyond a shadow of a doubt that Democrats/leftists don't give a shit about the law or the Constitution.

What else can we expect from the party that is still arguing over what the definition of "is" is; and whether or not a blow job is sex. 

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
2.1  author  Vic Eldred  replied to  Ronin2 @2    4 weeks ago
Will the judge charge Cohen with perjury?

My guess is no.


That is what this amounts to. Cohen lied yet again under oath.

Withour a doubt. The question is if the jury has any decency.


This kangaroo court show trial is proving beyond a shadow of a doubt that Democrats/leftists don't give a shit about the law or the Constitution.

They definitely do not.


What else can we expect from the party that is still arguing over what the definition of "is" is; and whether or not a blow job is sex. 

The party that told us at that time that we should separate character from policy.

 
 
 
MrFrost
Professor Guide
2.2  MrFrost  replied to  Ronin2 @2    4 weeks ago
This kangaroo court show trial is proving beyond a shadow of a doubt that Democrats/leftists don't give a shit about the law or the Constitution.

If you cared about the law, you would see that trump is guilty. The fact that the defense is attacking Cohen's credibility and not the facts of the case tells you all you need to know.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
2.2.1  author  Vic Eldred  replied to  MrFrost @2.2    4 weeks ago
trump is guilty.

Of what?

Let us in on it.

 
 
 
Ronin2
Professor Quiet
2.2.2  Ronin2  replied to  MrFrost @2.2    4 weeks ago

Democrat/Leftists version of the law has no basis in reality.

Prove what Trump did anything against the law; and you will need to do far better than TDS driven Manhattan DA Alvin Bragg.

 
 
 
Snuffy
Professor Participates
2.2.3  Snuffy  replied to  MrFrost @2.2    4 weeks ago

The prosecution has not proven their case. The 34 counts are basically useless as there's nothing that's been presented in evidence to show that there was any second crime that could be used to elevate the bookkeeping issues to a felony. And the prosecution has not proven any intent on Trump. This case should be dismissed but it's a New York court so nothing here will really surprise me.

But do provide something to prove that Trump is truly guilty. So far the prosecution has failed.

 
 
 
Ed-NavDoc
Professor Quiet
2.2.4  Ed-NavDoc  replied to  Vic Eldred @2.2.1    4 weeks ago

I will accept guilt on the part of Trump when a non biased judge and jury find him guilty of and convict him of said crimes. Thus far, that has failed to be accomplished. The "I just know he's guilty" of the get Trump at any cost crowd don't cut it with me. I believe in the rule of law and due process.

 
 
 
Sparty On
Professor Principal
2.2.5  Sparty On  replied to  MrFrost @2.2    4 weeks ago

“Credibility” speaks the veracity of one’s testimony.    Cross examination is often about revealing any lack of credibility of said persons testimony.

It is a bedrock principle of our legal system.    Proven liars do not have the same standing in that regard honest witnesses. 

 
 
 
Sparty On
Professor Principal
2.2.6  Sparty On  replied to  Ed-NavDoc @2.2.4    4 weeks ago

Yes, TDS is not a good basis for a prosecution.

 
 
 
Right Down the Center
Senior Guide
2.2.7  Right Down the Center  replied to  MrFrost @2.2    4 weeks ago
If you cared about the law, you would see that trump is guilty.

If you cared about the law you would not base your decision on what MSNBC has to say.  Or have you been at the trial?

 
 
 
MrFrost
Professor Guide
2.2.8  MrFrost  replied to  Right Down the Center @2.2.7    4 weeks ago
MSNBC has to say.

Haven't watched it in over 4 years. 

 
 
 
Right Down the Center
Senior Guide
2.2.9  Right Down the Center  replied to  MrFrost @2.2.8    4 weeks ago

[deleted][]

 
 
 
bugsy
Professor Participates
2.2.10  bugsy  replied to  MrFrost @2.2    4 weeks ago
you would see that trump is guilty

What is the felony he is charged with?

 
 
 
MrFrost
Professor Guide
2.2.11  MrFrost  replied to  bugsy @2.2.10    4 weeks ago

What is the felony he is charged with?

You can't look up the charges yourself?

 
 
 
MrFrost
Professor Guide
2.2.12  MrFrost  replied to  Vic Eldred @2.2.1    4 weeks ago
Of what?

WTF? Have NONE of you looked at the actual charges? How can you claim his innocent if you don't even know what the fucking charges are? 

 
 
 
Ed-NavDoc
Professor Quiet
2.2.13  Ed-NavDoc  replied to  bugsy @2.2.10    4 weeks ago

Charges don't mean zip without a conviction. 

 
 
 
JBB
Professor Principal
2.2.14  JBB  replied to  Ed-NavDoc @2.2.13    4 weeks ago

Which has nothing to do with ignorance of the facts...

 
 
 
bugsy
Professor Participates
2.2.15  bugsy  replied to  MrFrost @2.2.11    4 weeks ago

These are misdemeanors that have already went past the statute of limitations without a felony charge.

What is the felony charge that makes these misdemeanors felonies and makes them election interference?

 
 
 
Snuffy
Professor Participates
2.2.16  Snuffy  replied to  bugsy @2.2.15    4 weeks ago
What is the felony charge that makes these misdemeanors felonies and makes them election interference?

Yeah, nobody ever can say what that second charge is. All they continue to say is go back and read the indictments. 

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
2.2.17  TᵢG  replied to  Snuffy @2.2.16    4 weeks ago

Per the indictment, the felony is fraudulently posting reimbursement payments to Cohen to cover his paying off Daniels as corporate legal expenses rather than as hush money payments (what they actually were).   Note that Cohen was found guilty of campaign finance violations because of his payoff of Daniels.   The fraudulent posting as legal expenses is covering up a crime.

Not sure why this confuses people, but this is the answer to the question.

Here is literally the opening paragraph of the indictment:

THE GRAND JURY OF THE COUNTY OF NEW YORK, by this indictment, accuses the defendant of the crime of FALSIFYING BUSINESS RECORDS IN THE FIRST DEGREE, in violation of Penal Law § 175.10, committed as follows:

Here is the profile of New York Penal Law § 175.10:

Under our law, a person is guilty of falsifying business records in the first degree when, with intent to defraud that includes an intent to commit another crime or to aid or conceal the commission thereof, that person:  Select appropriate alternative:  makes or causes a false entry in the business records of an enterprise; or alters, erases, obliterates, deletes, removes or destroys a true entry in the business records of an enterprise; or omits to make a true entry in the business records of an enterprise in violation of a duty to do so which he or she knows to be imposed upon him or her by law or by the nature of his or her position; or prevents the making of a true entry or causes the omission thereof in the business records of an enterprise.1 

As I routinely note, I have less concern about actions of citizen Trump than Trump acting as PotUS.   Citizen Trump is just another scoundrel.   President Trump, however, has set a horrible national precedent.   The only way to help reverse the damage of this precedent is to hold him accountable.   Citizen Trump lawsuits do not accomplish that.   Indeed, they only seem to increase the likelihood that this traitor might win the presidency.

 
 
 
bugsy
Professor Participates
2.2.18  bugsy  replied to  Snuffy @2.2.16    4 weeks ago
All they continue to say is go back and read the indictments. 

As I routinely note, and am correct in saying so, just because I say so, the reason why these charges have not been dismissed or the judge will not give a direct verdict, is because the judge does not want to give up his fifteen minutes of fame by possibly becoming the first judge to preside over a conviction of a former president, and one that he (1) hates, and (2) his daughter, and indirectly, he, is possibly making money off this case.

 A mistrial, dismissal or direct not guilty verdict will make all of that come to a screeching halt.

 
 
 
bugsy
Professor Participates
2.2.19  bugsy  replied to  TᵢG @2.2.17    4 weeks ago
an intent to commit another crime

Nobody knows what that other crime is. This is the supposed crime that makes these charges felonies, otherwise, they are misdemeanors that have gone past the statutes of limitations. Even legal "experts" on CNN have stated such.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
2.2.20  TᵢG  replied to  bugsy @2.2.19    4 weeks ago

Even with a direct answer and supporting details @2.2.17 you pretend as though the question has not been answered.

Crime 1:  illegal campaign finance contributions by Cohen

Crime 2:  coverup of first crime via falsified records by Trump

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Principal
2.2.21  Sean Treacy  replied to  TᵢG @2.2.20    4 weeks ago
  Note that Cohen was found guilty of campaign finance violations because of his payoff of Daniels

note that cohen's guilty plea to obtain leniency is not admissible evidence that Trump committed a campaign finance violation. He would have to be charged by the DOJ to be guilty of a campaign finance violation, and we all know the FEC declined to pursue it.

overup of first crime via falsified records by Trump

What criminal statute did Trump  supposedly violate for his   "first crime?"

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
2.2.22  TᵢG  replied to  Sean Treacy @2.2.21    4 weeks ago

The criminal statute is for the coverup.   Read @2.2.17.   Trump's crime was the coverup of Cohen's crime.    Better still, read the indictment and the law.  

And if you question if Cohen was guilty for violating campaign finance laws then familiarize yourself with his case.

 
 
 
bugsy
Professor Participates
2.2.23  bugsy  replied to  TᵢG @2.2.20    4 weeks ago

Both of which are federal crimes, not state crimes. The feds decided there is no "there" there, so the state of New York has no jurisdiction to bring these crimes. Even Bragg declined the first time to bring charges, but because of Biden DOJ pressure, he changed his mind and decided to make state crimes that are no longer in statute limitations into federal crimes.

Problem you have is the prosecutor has shown zip in evidence and the defense has eaten them for lunch every day.

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Principal
2.2.24  Sean Treacy  replied to  TᵢG @2.2.22    4 weeks ago
ump's crime was the coverup of Cohen's crime.    Better still, read the indictment and the law. 

Where in the indictment does it say  that?  

d if you question if Cohen was guilty for violating campaign finance laws then familiarize yourself with his case.

As I said, he plead guilty in hopes of lenient treatment.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
2.2.25  TᵢG  replied to  Sean Treacy @2.2.24    4 weeks ago
Where in the indictment does it say  that?  

Look, if you are not even going to read the indictment then you clearly are not interested in the truth.   The indictment references Cohen's checks multiple times.

And if you have followed the trial you would know that this is exactly what the case is dealing with.   The other crime that you et. al. pretend to not see is the campaign finance violations of Cohen.   Simple.

As I said, he plead guilty in hopes of lenient treatment.

So what?   

 
 
 
bugsy
Professor Participates
2.2.26  bugsy  replied to  TᵢG @2.2.25    4 weeks ago
campaign finance violations of Cohen. 

Federal crimes. Bragg has no jurisdiction.

What is it you don't understand?

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
2.2.27  TᵢG  replied to  bugsy @2.2.23    4 weeks ago
Both of which are federal crimes, not state crimes.

What confuses you about  New York Penal Law  § 175.10?   New York is a state.

Problem you have is the prosecutor has shown zip in evidence and the defense has eaten them for lunch every day.

The claim that nobody can answer the question of which crimes has been demonstrated false @2.2.17 .   You cannot deny my answer @2.2.17 so now you are delivering claims in incredulity on the case itself.

The jury will decide the case, not you.   If the prosecution has not done its job, they will make that call.

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Principal
2.2.28  Sean Treacy  replied to  TᵢG @2.2.25    4 weeks ago
if you are not even going to read the indictment then you clearly are not interested in the truth.

Of course I've read the indictment. IT does not  state Trump tried to cover up a campaign finance crime, either his or Cohens. To claim it does is just rank dishonesty. Because Bragg has no jurisdiction over an alleged federal crime, it's not spelled out.  No different than  Bragg using a violation of  Sharia law, or a statute in  England as the "other crime" to bring it within the sphere of New York law.   

 nd if you have followed the trial you would know that this is exactly what the case is dealing with.

Here's the thing. In the american system of justice the crimes the defendant is alleged to have committed are spelled out to him so he can prepare a proper defense. He isn't supposed to "follow along" with the prosecution to find out what, exactly, he's accused of doing as the trial is going on.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
2.2.29  TᵢG  replied to  bugsy @2.2.26    4 weeks ago
What is it you don't understand?

It is clear what you do not understand no matter how many times it is explained to you (even with supporting legal documentation).    Trump's crime is the falsified records coverup of the payments to Cohen to reimburse Cohen for his (Cohen's) crime which he committed for the benefit of Trump.

Further, if Bragg has no jurisdiction to prosecute Trump then this case would have been thrown out at the onset.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
2.2.30  TᵢG  replied to  Sean Treacy @2.2.28    4 weeks ago
IT does not  state Trump tried to cover up a campaign finance crime, either his or Cohens.

It references Cohen's checks and the trial is about Cohen's checks to pay off Daniels which violated campaign finance law.

To claim this is not part of the trial is blatant dishonesty.

Here's the thing. In the american system of justice the crimes the defendant is alleged to have committed are spelled out to him so he can prepare a proper defense. He isn't supposed to "follow along" with the prosecution to find out what, exactly, he's accused of doing as the trial is going on.

Trump and his attorneys are not confused about the charges.  

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Principal
2.2.31  Sean Treacy  replied to  TᵢG @2.2.30    4 weeks ago
It references Cohen's checks and the trial is about Cohen's checks to pay off Daniels which violated campaign finance law

You keep  obfuscating. Just be honest and admit it does not state what crime Trump is alleged to have covered up. 

This isn't up for debate. 

Trump and his attorneys are not confused about the charges.  

Of course they are. They've objected numerous times to the prosecutions' complete refusal to name the "other crime" Trump is alleged to have violated.

 
 
 
bugsy
Professor Participates
2.2.32  bugsy  replied to  TᵢG @2.2.29    4 weeks ago
if Bragg has no jurisdiction to prosecute Trump then this case would have been thrown out at the onset.

As I have noted correctly and repeatedly, you have a judge that does not want to give up his fifteen minutes of fame, financial compensation for his daughter, and, possibly indirectly for him. No way he will throw out the charges if that means everything coming to an end.

BTW.....as noted correctly by Sean, nowhere in the indictment does it state anything about Trump trying to cover a campaign finance crime, and even if it did, as I have noted repeatedly, it would be a fed crime, not state crime, so Bragg has no jurisdiction.

 
 
 
bugsy
Professor Participates
2.2.33  bugsy  replied to  Sean Treacy @2.2.31    4 weeks ago
They've objected numerous times to the prosecutions' complete refusal to name the "other crime" Trump is alleged to have violated.

There have been legal experts opining the same thing, even on liberal networks.

I don't know where the confusion is.

 
 
 
Snuffy
Professor Participates
2.2.34  Snuffy  replied to  TᵢG @2.2.17    4 weeks ago
the felony is fraudulently posting reimbursement payments to Cohen to cover his paying off Daniels as corporate legal expenses rather than as hush money payments (what they actually were)

But that is a misdemeanor under New York law, not a felony. There needs to be a second crime that the first was the coverup for, in order to elevate that misdemeanor to a felony. The prosecution has never stated the second crime. Your own copy/paste of penal law 175.10 lays it out. Where is the intent to commit another crime or aid or conceal the commission thereof. 

Prosecution has tried to tie it to campaign finance issues but never charged that or even showed any evidence for it. We're just supposed to take their word for it?

Note that Cohen was found guilty of campaign finance violations because of his payoff of Daniels.

That is a crime of Cohen's, not Trump's. 

 
 
 
Snuffy
Professor Participates
2.2.35  Snuffy  replied to  TᵢG @2.2.30    4 weeks ago
It references Cohen's checks and the trial is about Cohen's checks to pay off Daniels which violated campaign finance law.

If that's truly what it is, then Cohen should be on trial here rather than Trump. This crime was committed by Cohen alone. Why do you ignore that?

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
2.2.36  TᵢG  replied to  Snuffy @2.2.34    4 weeks ago
But that is a misdemeanor under New York law, not a felony. There needs to be a second crime that the first was the coverup for, in order to elevate that misdemeanor to a felony.

The crime that is being covered up is the illegal campaign contribution where Cohen was the agent (and was found guilty for same).   

That is a crime of Cohen's, not Trump's. 

The law does not require Trump to be the agent who directly committed the crime (the crime where Cohen was the agent).   What needs to be done is to show that the coverup was committed with Trump's knowledge and approval.   That has been a key focus of the trial.

If that's truly what it is, then Cohen should be on trial here rather than Trump. This crime was committed by Cohen alone. Why do you ignore that?

Thing is, I am not the one ignoring facts.   I have already addressed this issue;  that is the opposite of ignoring it.


Bottom line.   Falsifying business records to coverup another crime (regardless of whether the defendant was the direct agent of that crime) is what raises this to a felony.

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Principal
2.2.37  Sean Treacy  replied to  TᵢG @2.2.36    4 weeks ago
crime that is being covered up is the illegal campaign contribution where Cohen was the agent (and was found guilty for same). 

Really? The prosecution  told the jury it's a conspiracy to steal an election case and that trump violated a completely different New York state statute than the federal crime you've assured us all is the actual second crime at issue.   

Trump’s lawyers have objected all along to prosecutors couching Trump’s relationship with Pecker and Michael Cohen as a conspiracy — after all, Trump is not facing a conspiracy charge. But Joshua Steinglass, one of the prosecutors, just noted for the first time in court that one of the election statutes the case is based on does in fact have a conspiracy provision.

You've done a great job of highlighting what the joke the case is.  Because there's no actual listing of a second crime in the indictment, you are free to create your own theory, which you've done. Meanwhile, the prosecution has argued something completely different to the jury.  If you can't see how that prejudices Trump, you really don't understand our legal system. 

The trial is Kafkaesque. The rules and theories change by the witness.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
2.2.38  TᵢG  replied to  Sean Treacy @2.2.37    4 weeks ago
Because there's no actual listing of a second crime in the indictment, you are free to create your own theory, which you've done.

All I am seeing from you is bullshit.

I have described the law as it applies to this case.   I have not invented anything.  

Clearly you do not like the reality of what is actually taking place.   But denying both the indictment and New York with your nuh'uh objections is not an argument.   

Worse, still, you are entirely bypassing common sense by acting as though this judge and the state of New York is so incompetent that they are adjudicating a case against a former PotUS as a felony when it can only be a misdemeanor.    That alone should give you pause.

And if you did pause and did just the most basic research you would find that falsifying business records to coverup another crime (regardless of whether the defendant was the direct agent of that crime) is what raises this to a felony in the state of New York.

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Principal
2.2.39  Sean Treacy  replied to  TᵢG @2.2.38    4 weeks ago
ll I am seeing from you is bullshit.

Lol.. Such a Trump argument. When you get proven wrong you just keep doubling down.  It's like an imitation of Trump's election denial claims.

Here  is an  undisputable factual summary of reality. It's not opinion.  It's not debatable.

1. The indictment does  not specify a second crime that Trump committed.  Your claim that crime 1:  illegal campaign finance contributions by Cohen is not specified by the prosecution in the indictment. Your continuing refusal to admit that simple fact is  baffling. Anyone who's read the indictment can see how wrong you are. 

2.  Despite your repeated and incessant claims to know what the other crime is, the prosecution has now actually told the judge and jury during the trial that it  is a completely different statute they are relying on than the one you repeatedly told us comprised  the second crime. 

And yet you persist in doubling down and pretending you've been correct all the time.  Just like Trump will tell you he won Georgia in the face of all the evidence that he didn't.

You were wrong. End of story. 

gh this judge and the state of New York is so incompetent that they are adjudicating a case against a former PotUS as a felony when it can only be a misdemeanor

Nobody said they are incompetent. They've said their dishonest. Its pretty obvious Bragg took the not unreasonable gamble that he'd be assigned a partisan Judge who'd give him carte blanche to bring Trump before a jury and not worry about due process or the New York Constitution. He hit the jackpot.  And if the case get overturned on appeal in a year or two, who cares? Mission accomplished. 

use and did just the most basic research you would find that falsifying business records to coverup another crime (regardless of whether the defendant was the direct agent of that crime) is what raises this to a felony in the state of New York.

Lol.  no shit.  So now you are doing that thing where you pivot to  "proving" something that everyone already knows and pretend like you've scored some sort of point? Just read the thread. Everyone already understands that and has moved on to discussing what the OTHER unspecified crime is supposed to be.  Your guess was wrong. 

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
2.2.40  TᵢG  replied to  Sean Treacy @2.2.39    4 weeks ago
Everyone already understands that and has moved on to discussing what the OTHER unspecified crime is supposed to be.  Your guess was wrong. 

That is how this started.   And I answered the other crime @2.2.17 and in subsequent posts.

Clearly you want a different reality.   Too bad.   Best to deal with actual reality rather than waste your time pushing a fantasy.

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Principal
2.2.41  Sean Treacy  replied to  TᵢG @2.2.40    4 weeks ago
nd I answered the other crime @2.2.17 and in subsequent posts.

Lol. no you didn't. Your gaslighting is so transparent.  No one is disputing that the indictment references    §  175.10,     Pretending you've proven something with that is just another example of  doing that thing where you pivot to  "proving" something that everyone already knows and pretend like you've scored some sort of point.

The entire debate is about the failure  of the State to specify the identify of the second crime that 175.1  requires.  That's the issue.

No matter who much you dissemble or deflect your claim that the indictment specifies "i llegal campaign finance contributions by Cohen" as that second  crime is manifestly, 100% false and anyone whose read the indictment knows how false it is. That you continue in your trump style denial of reality is simply bizarre. 

   Best to deal with actual reality rather than waste your time trying pushing a fantasy.

Let's review:

Bugsy, Snuffy and I have all repeatedly and and correctly  said the other crime is not specified in the indictment and you continue to deny that reality.

The  prosecutors have now told the judge and jury in court that "other crime"  is not the one you repeatedly claimed it was (Cohen's guilty plea to a federal campaign finance statute) but rather a conspiracy charge based on New York state law. So not only is what you claimed about the other crime being listed in the indictment demonstrably false, but the other crime you falsely claim is listed in the indictment isn't the crime the prosecutors are relying on to satisfy 175.10.  

Everything thing you've said is wrong and all your Trumpesqe bloviations won't change that fact. 

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
2.2.42  TᵢG  replied to  Sean Treacy @2.2.41    4 weeks ago
The entire debate is about the failure  of the State to specify the identify of the second crime that 175.1  requires. 

The 'second crime' is the paying of hush money (as an illegal campaign contribution, an illegal attempt to promote a candidate) to hide the Daniels affair from the voters.   Trump does not need to be the active agent of the transaction.   He need only approve it.  

The felony crime is the subsequent coverup of the hush money payment via false records.

This has been documented and discussed for over a year and you are denying these most basic factors of the case.

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Principal
2.2.43  Sean Treacy  replied to  TᵢG @2.2.42    4 weeks ago

The 'second crime' is the paying of hush money (

Paying “hush money” when extorted by a hooker is not a crime.  NDAs are perfectly legal. Bill Clinton with his  "Bimbo Eruption Squad" ley by Hillary,  spent years obtaining them from Bill's dalliances  and was never charged for paying "hush money." 

AGAIN, instead of making these unsupported claims, point out the specific criminal statute identified in the indictment  that details  the second crime trump allegedly committed. 

an illegal attempt to promote a candidate) to hide the Daniels affair from the voters. 

Attempting to keep damaging   information  private is not illegal. Every candidate in history has done this. What’s even more ridiculous about this theory is that the supposed illegal act didn’t even occur until 2017, after the election.  And if trump had followed “brags imaginary law” instead of the real, legitimate federal law, which he did, the result would have been the same.  The payment would not have been disclosed prior to the election. 

AGAIN, instead of making these unsupported claims, point out the specific criminal statute identified in the indictment  that details  the second crime trump allegedly committed.

That's all you have to do. 

You've made mine and everyone else's case for them with these posts. Because, as you were told from the beginning, that the second crime is not identified in the indictment, you've followed the media spin and prosecution talking points by asserting a whole bunch of things that sound "criminal" but have zero relevance.  This is exactly what everyone has been telling you you are doing. 

From the start, Bragg has  hid the ball (because there's no actual legitimate second crime he can point to) by using words like "hush money" and "conspiracy" that have no legal basis as a crime to charge Trump with in New York. He implies any number of things are the second crime without specifically identifying the  statutory basis of that crime because he lacks evidence to actually indict Trump for the second crime. Instead, with the help of a judge who's lets him run wild, he plans to hoodwink an ignorant jury into believing Trump violated some unproven crime as the necessary second crime.   

 
 
 
bugsy
Professor Participates
2.2.44  bugsy  replied to  Sean Treacy @2.2.43    4 weeks ago
Attempting to keep damaging   information  private is not illegal.

You can ask John Edwards and Hillary this. They both did it and neither saw any repercussions.

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Principal
2.2.45  Sean Treacy  replied to  bugsy @2.2.44    4 weeks ago
ou can ask John Edwards and Hillary this. They both did it and neither saw any repercussions.

The LA Times suppressed video of Obama meeting Rashid Khalidi. The LA Times wasn't charged with election interference. Biden is trying to hide the video of his deposition from the public. Apparently, he can be arrested for that. Obama hid his grades. Illegal! 

 Every Presidential  campaign, ever, works and "conspires"  to keep the things it wants private kept private. Criminalizing that is unworkable and insane. 

 
 
 
bugsy
Professor Participates
2.2.46  bugsy  replied to  Sean Treacy @2.2.43    4 weeks ago
with the help of a judge

Whose daughter, and possibly indirectly himself, will benefit financially if Bragg gets a guilty verdict. This is, after all, New York.

 
 
 
Tacos!
Professor Guide
3  Tacos!    4 weeks ago
Does anyone believe that the 1 minute and 36 second phone call which followed a text to Schiller complaining that "I'm having harassing calls from an alleged 14-year-old prankster" had anything to do with talking with Trump?

I think you can talk about more than one thing in a conversation - even in a short conversation.

 
 
 
Ronin2
Professor Quiet
3.1  Ronin2  replied to  Tacos! @3    4 weeks ago

Not when one of the people in the conversation say nothing else occurred under oath; and the other is Cohen a serial perjurer.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
3.2  author  Vic Eldred  replied to  Tacos! @3    4 weeks ago

The call went to Trump's bodyguard.

 
 
 
Tacos!
Professor Guide
3.2.1  Tacos!  replied to  Vic Eldred @3.2    4 weeks ago

You’re right. It would be impossible for him to also slip in, “Tell the boss I took care of that Stormy Daniels thing.” 

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
3.2.2  author  Vic Eldred  replied to  Tacos! @3.2.1    4 weeks ago

It would be about as logical as you calling your wife to tell her you got a promotion, but first told her you stepped on gum on the way to work in a 1-minute conversation.

 
 
 
Tacos!
Professor Guide
3.2.3  Tacos!  replied to  Vic Eldred @3.2.2    4 weeks ago

So your argument is that a phone call can have one - and only one - topic for discussion?

This exchange wasn’t great for the prosecution, but I very much doubt it will be as devastating as you hope. It’s certainly no “Perry Mason moment.”

 
 
 
MrFrost
Professor Guide
3.2.4  MrFrost  replied to  Tacos! @3.2.3    4 weeks ago
So your argument is that a phone call can have one - and only one - topic for discussion?

Exactly. 

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
3.2.5  author  Vic Eldred  replied to  Tacos! @3.2.3    4 weeks ago

My argument is that :

1) He never spoke to Trump that day

2) He likely never spoke of the issue he claims to have reported on that day.

If you want to make excuses for him it would have been better to have said it was a long time ago and maybe he got his dates mixed up. That was the explanation of one MSNBC anchor.

 
 
 
Tacos!
Professor Guide
3.2.6  Tacos!  replied to  Vic Eldred @3.2.5    4 weeks ago
He never spoke to Trump that day

Entirely possible. It’s also possible he was handed the phone and did speak to him for a few seconds. 

He likely never spoke of the issue he claims to have reported on that day.

That day? Who knows? But it seems impossible that they didn’t discuss the details of this operation multiple times over a long period. Ultimately, that is what will matter, and not whether or not this witness accurately remembers the precise date of one conversation out of many that took place several years ago.

 
 
 
devangelical
Professor Principal
3.2.7  devangelical  replied to  Tacos! @3.2.6    4 weeks ago

I wish I could remember the content of a phone call I made on a certain date almost 8 years ago. I can't remember what I had for breakfast on any given day last month.

 
 
 
Tacos!
Professor Guide
3.2.8  Tacos!  replied to  devangelical @3.2.7    4 weeks ago

Hell, I don’t remember who I talked to yesterday.

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
3.2.9  Tessylo  replied to  Tacos! @3.2.1    4 weeks ago

"Tell the boos I took care of that Stormy Daniels thing."

....."on his orders"

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Principal
4  Sean Treacy    4 weeks ago

This case is such a farce and relying on the word of a serial perjurer to be the sole method of establishing trumps intent to commit an unknown and unstated crime is just the cherry on top. 

 
 
 
Robert in Ohio
Professor Guide
5  Robert in Ohio    4 weeks ago

I know not how this trial will end - each side is representative of a group of scallywags ne'er do wells of the lowest sort the dregs of society as it were.

One of the most comical aspects of this trial is that Trump or anyone representing Trump would have the audacity to call someone a liar (though in Cohen's case it is true) is a modern day illustration of the "pot calling the kettle black".

jrSmiley_10_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
devangelical
Professor Principal
5.1  devangelical  replied to  Robert in Ohio @5    4 weeks ago
each side is representative of a group of scallywags ne'er do wells of the lowest sort the dregs of society as it were

trump and his diehard sycophants versus ex-diehard sycophants that trump has burned ...

One of the most comical aspects of this trial is that Trump or anyone representing Trump would have the audacity to call someone a liar (though in Cohen's case it is true) is a modern day illustration of the "pot calling the kettle black"

gee, what happened to honor among liars and thieves...

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
5.2  author  Vic Eldred  replied to  Robert in Ohio @5    4 weeks ago

How do you compare a defendant with somebody testifying under oath?

 
 
 
Robert in Ohio
Professor Guide
5.2.1  Robert in Ohio  replied to  Vic Eldred @5.2    4 weeks ago

I never compared the two other than to state that millions of people are convinced that  both of them are, have been and will continue to be liars of the despicable kind.

 
 
 
MrFrost
Professor Guide
5.2.2  MrFrost  replied to  Vic Eldred @5.2    4 weeks ago

How do you compare a defendant with somebody testifying under oath?

Trump's lawyers will never put him on the stand because they know he is incapable of telling the truth. 

 
 
 
devangelical
Professor Principal
5.2.3  devangelical  replied to  Robert in Ohio @5.2.1    4 weeks ago
both of them are, have been and will continue to be liars of the despicable kind.

equally? it might be best for some to hold off on their inevitable starboard tack until after the rwnj convention ...

 
 
 
bugsy
Professor Participates
5.2.4  bugsy  replied to  MrFrost @5.2.2    4 weeks ago
Trump's lawyers will never put him on the stand because they know he is incapable of telling the truth. 

They won't put him on the stand because they have already handed all of Bragg's prosecutors their asses.

Probably the easiest case they have ever defended.

 
 
 
Hallux
PhD Principal
6  Hallux    4 weeks ago

Mr. Cohen, is it not true that 8 years ago you ate your salad with a dessert fork? Gotta lurv those gotcha moments.

 
 
 
Hallux
PhD Principal
7  Hallux    4 weeks ago

And now for a short(ish) message about the real Perry Mason, Earl Rogers:

 
 
 
charger 383
Professor Silent
7.1  charger 383  replied to  Hallux @7    4 weeks ago

Thanks, I found that interesting. Years. ago, I wrote a college English class term paper comparing the TV Perry Mason and the Book Perry Mason  

 
 
 
Hallux
PhD Principal
7.1.1  Hallux  replied to  charger 383 @7.1    4 weeks ago

I doubt if a TV series about Earl Rogers in the late 50s thru the early 60s would have survived beyond a season. Perry Mason was a myth suitable to the times.

 
 

Who is online

JBB
CB
arkpdx


64 visitors