Candidate TRUMP Now Has Crazy Judge JUAN MERCHAN After Him - The Stormy Daniels Hush-Money Case.

a reply to: Threadbarer

Not sure about in NY, but over here, without any retainer he wouldn't have to pay anything.

Report: EVIL Judge Juan Murchan won't let Donald Trump's legal team have the names of the first 3 witnesses for the Prosecution.

Source: gettr.com...

Digging his hole deeper, right from the start.

originally posted by: Threadbarer
a reply to: Vermilion

Why would a frugal businessman be paying a lawyer regular payments without any kind of retainer agreement in place?

That now convicted liar, mushbrained from his time with bubba, was his lawyer at the time.
Is that sketchy or illegal?
Why would the defense offer it as evidence if it was either?
Desperate.

a reply to: WeMustCare

How is this legal?

a reply to: WeMustCare

They are being provided the names but only the day before they're set to testify. This is due to Trump's penchant for attacking witnesses on social media. Once again, he only has himself to blame.

a reply to: matafuchs

Because it is a judge's responsibility to keep order in the court. Trump's legal team has all the names of the witnesses the prosecution will be calling so this doesn't affect their ability to prepare their case.

a reply to: Oldcarpy2

What is in the indictment? There is no crime.

a reply to: matafuchs

Jeez. False accounting. Etc.

Why ask me?

originally posted by: Threadbarer
a reply to: WeMustCare

They are being provided the names but only the day before they're set to testify. This is due to Trump's penchant for attacking witnesses on social media. Once again, he only has himself to blame.

While the prosecution does all it can to slam Trump on social media to sway public opinion?

a reply to: Oldcarpy2

I am not just asking you. I asked EVERYONE to show what is the actual crime. You had replied so I started a convo with you. I just want to know thoughts.

There is no false accounting if you have an invoice, a check and a GL Entry. If one of those was missing, then yes, you would have an accounting error. Which falls to the CFO and your accounting team.

a reply to: matafuchs

Falsifying Business Records in the First Degree. Which in New York is a felony.

a reply to: Threadbarer

Name one person hurt or injured since his first indictment?

a reply to: matafuchs

It wasn't payment for legal fees? False accounting.

a reply to: Lazy88

The last post on the Manhattan DA's Twitter page mentioning Trump is over a year ago when Trump was indicted.

a reply to: matafuchs

Logical fallacy. No one has to be hurt or injured.

a reply to: Threadbarer

No, it is not a felony. It was bumped to a felony when Bragg said it was tied to a Federal Crime.

The issue is no one can say what it was that was done wrong. Again, A check, an invoice and a Business GL Entry. None of this is illegal.

Trump charged with 34 counts of falsifying business records in the first degree Former President Donald Trump surrendered to authorities Tuesday in Manhattan, N.Y. He was charged with 34 counts of falsifying business records in the first degree

Falsifying business records is actually forgery. There is no forgery. It is all recorded. All and any payment.

NY PL 175.10 and 175.15

The legal language establishing the degrees of Falsifying Business Records have specifically defined elements and terms that not merely may but will have an impact on your case. Two of these words, "enterprise" and "business record," for example, have specific meanings that you must discuss with your counsel. Simply, if you delete, alter or make a false entry in the business records of an enterprise and you do so with the intent to defraud, you have run afoul of the misdemeanor crime. If when you do so, you also have the intent to further or conceal another criminal offense, then you have committed the felony crime

a reply to: Oldcarpy2

That was a reply to why the prosecution does not have to tell the witnesses until the day before....if you want to keep talking about it keep up.

a reply to: matafuchs

I said nothing about the witnesses.

originally posted by: Threadbarer
a reply to: Lazy88

The last post on the Manhattan DA's Twitter page mentioning Trump is over a year ago when Trump was indicted.

Shrugs

Dem clients of daughter of NY judge in Trump hush-money trial raised $93M off the case

nypost.com...

Anyway. It’s been shown time and time again social media conspires with democrat elected officials….

Lets go back even farther....

In the Trump indictment, Bragg didn't specify the underlying law Trump attempted to break when he allegedly falsified business records. "The indictment doesn't specify it because the law does not so require," Bragg said at a press conference on Tuesday, later mentioning possible secondary crimes that include illegal promotion of a political campaign and an attempt to make false claims on tax forms.

Link

They are just hoping to get a jury to convict. That's it.