Trump NY court case closing arguments

The entire reason for an indictment under this NY statue (sic) is precisely because there are no victims....it is Mr. Trump committing FRAUD with his own statements and documents. Originally Posted by VitaMan

Sorry, but I think former federal prosecutor Andrew McCarthy knows more about that statue, er I mean statute, than you do.


"James knows (the lack of any victims) is a problem: Her reliance on prior New York precedents for the proposition that she needn’t show harm in order to disgorge profits could be attacked on appeal because she has brought an unprecedented case: The state has never before sued under §63(12) on a theory of overvalued assets (which is hardly unusual behavior) where no counterparty claims to have been defrauded — the first ever such case just happens to be this one, brought against the Democrats’ archnemesis by an elected Democratic AG who campaigned for office in heavily Democratic New York on a vow to get Trump on... something — anything."

https://eccie.net/showpost.php?p=1063349387&postcount=2

Trump is THE idiot. Why hire lawyers when you’re sure for $370 mil if you’re gonna do dumbshit. Originally Posted by 1blackman1

^^^ Could someone please translate the above post for me?

Thanks in advance!

Sorry, but I think former federal prosecutor Andrew McCarthy knows more about that statue, er I mean statute, than you do.


"James knows (the lack of any victims) is a problem: Her reliance on prior New York precedents for the proposition that she needn’t show harm in order to disgorge profits could be attacked on appeal because she has brought an unprecedented case: The state has never before sued under §63(12) on a theory of overvalued assets (which is hardly unusual behavior) where no counterparty claims to have been defrauded — the first ever such case just happens to be this one, brought against the Democrats’ archnemesis by an elected Democratic AG who campaigned for office in heavily Democratic New York on a vow to get Trump on... something — anything."

https://eccie.net/showpost.php?p=1063349387&postcount=2 Originally Posted by lustylad

bahahahaa as shaky as James' case is, Alvin Bragg's nonsense is even shakier. Bragg's claim is that Trump HAD to consider paying off Stormy Tits was a "Campaign expense" and thus violated election law. funny thing is, the FEC didn't consider it a violation.


who knew?

Election moneys cannot be used for the purpose that eventually was paid to silence Stormy. I don't give a shit he banged her, but the stupidity of paying for it from his niwit supporters is indeed improper and illegal.

Even like Santos used money improperly, the misuse of those funds should disqualify someone from ever using campaign money or doing fundraising. If you cannot be trusted to follow the rules then you don't get to play the game.

John Edwards and Hershel Walker got bonked for doing it and Trumps campaign funds should be forced to be returned to his donors.

It's truly disgusting how bad the GOP is it following the rules. It's somewhat expected in politics that there's rules that get bent, but not broken - like the GOP has been doing.

I have donated to Trump’s campaign and I do not want one penny back.

I have donated to Trump’s campaign and I do not want one penny back. Originally Posted by Jackie S

(Tell me you don't give a shit about campaign finance loss without telling me.)

Why is it that conservatives don't care about laws when it comes to Trump?

... No worrys there, mates... Whatever the Judge rules there
- appeals will be a different story.

#### Salty Originally Posted by Salty Again

Coleman Jr., a legal analyst, explained that "what Judge Engoron did in terms of letting Trump have a certain amount of space to speak in court was brilliant, because he gave him the space to hang himself and that's what he did."

He continued: "That's ultimately what Donald Trump does and it was smart of Judge Engoron to do that because, in the long run, it's going to benefit the court...I think the judge understands that Donald Trump is going to do whatever he can to avoid accountability for as long as he can.


According to the former prosecutor, by depriving Trump of the ability to argue that he was not allowed to speak in court, Engoron has made it so that any appeals in the future should be sorted "in short order."

Election moneys cannot be used for the purpose that eventually was paid to silence Stormy. I don't give a shit he banged her, but the stupidity of paying for it from his nitwit supporters is indeed improper and illegal. Originally Posted by eyecu2

Except that's not what happened. Trump's attorney Michael Cohen is the one who paid Stormy. Cohen then billed the Trump Organization via monthly legal retainer fees. (Trump may also have reimbursed some of it out of his own pocket.) No campaign money was used.

As I understand it, the allegation against Trump is that the payments benefited his campaign (as an "in-kind" donation) but were omitted from his 2016 federal campaign spending disclosure forms.

It's truly disgusting how bad the GOP is at following the rules. It's somewhat expected in politics that there's rules that get bent, but not broken - like the GOP has been doing. Originally Posted by eyecu2

The "rule" you are talking about was first alleged to have been violated by a Democrat, John Edwards. He was acquitted of the charge. Trump will be too. Legal precedents matter.