Posted on 04/22/2024 11:36:00 AM PDT by Red Badger
Key documents lacking former President Donald Trump’s signature may pose issues for Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg’s case, criminal defense attorney Arthur Aidala told CNN on Monday.
Trump is confronting 34 felony counts for allegedly falsifying business documents relating to payments to porn star Stormy Daniels for her silence regarding an alleged affair ahead of the 2016 election. Aidala noted that Trump’s signature is present on a check while other key documents were never personally signed by the former president, suggesting the possibility a jury could find “reasonable doubt” over Trump’s involvement when compared to former attorney Michael Cohen, a key witness in Bragg’s case.
VIDEO AT LINK................
“You just have to attack, attack, attack those witnesses and look, what you’ve got to say is, Michael Cohen should be a co-defendant,” Aidala told host Anderson Cooper. “If you believe what the prosecutors just said, Michael Cohen should be a co-defendant, not a witness. He has so many reasons to lie, so many reasons to pin this on someone else, to keep himself out of jail, which he was unable to do in the federal case.”
Cohen, who is a crucial witness for prosecutors, pleaded guilty to giving false statements, as well as charges like tax evasion and campaign finance violations in 2018. Cohen first said he paid Daniels with his personal funds and that neither the Trump campaign nor the Trump Organization paid him back, but he subsequently testified to Congress that the former president directed him to make the payment, which he received reimbursement for, according to Reuters.
“I think [Cohen’s credibility] has a tremendous impact,” he added. “Look, there is paperwork that corroborates the people‘s evidence, and that‘s obviously hurtful for the president. But my understanding is, it’s not paperwork with Donald Trump‘s handwriting on it or his signature on it, except for a check. So the defense could merely be, hey, Michael Cohen did all of this. He never told his client. He just said, look, I need money for this, I need money for that. And you know, one of the witnesses who is going to testify at this trial testified for the feds and he said that the money that was given to Michael Cohen was for Stormy Daniels and for legal fees. That’s a reasonable doubt.”
Trump was also indicted in June 2023 over his alleged mishandling of classified documents retained at his residence in Mar-a-Lago. In early August 2023, the former president was hit with another indictment over his alleged attempt to interfere in the 2020 election and alleged role in the Jan. 6 Capitol riot.
I know a certain woman who watches ‘The View’ and believes every word they say, simply because they WOMEN AND ARE ON TV......................Trump is the epitome of EVIL in her book..................
Here’s another NY defense attorney, but his website correctly cites NY law as it is being charged against PDT.
https://www.new-york-lawyers.org/falsifying-business-records-ny-pl-175-10-and-175-15.html
But we know the fraud. Trump is trying to steal an election by runnning for office and getting elected when the deep state has found that this is a fraud because he is not qualified to be President because well he is a fraud.
This isn’t about the law so it really doesn’t matter.
Cohen also testified that he was hired to hunt down the sources of the many rumors in the leaked “dossier”; in particular I remember he gave an interview that they searched high and low trying to get their hands on a copy of this so called “pee tape” which they knew didn’t exist. But it was in the dossier, so they wanted to see what the heck it was.
Point being, Trump was shoveling money at lawyers to hire private investigators to find as much information as he could gather. So it would not be unreasonable to think Cohen would take it upon himself to buy up all kinds of information - without necessarily specifying what it was or how valid or reliable it was - and then asking for reimbursement or replenishment of his retainer.
I read his site.
” If you are an employee acting by order of a supervisor and you are obtaining no benefit to alter the records in question, then you have not committed this crime.”
In otherwords there must be a fraud. That is an element of the crime. What has not been made clear is what benefit was there for calling it a legal expense instead of any other accounting lable. If this is not given to anyone how on earth can there be fraud?
In the newspaper today the first paragraph talked about how this trial should be a slam dunk for the prosecution.
And the case is called the “People of the State of New York v. Donald J. Trump.”
Quote: “And for now, the people have the stronger hand: They have insider witnesses, a favorably jury pool and a lurid set of facts about a presidential candidate, a payoff and a porn actor.”
I get a kick out of the rag emphasizing “the people”.
And I thought the jury was supposed to be neutral - not favorable to the prosecution?
And the “facts”!? Isn’t that what the trial is supposed to determine!!!???
I’ve noticed in a lot of articles lately about anything they talk about FACTS.
“The fact that CO2 increases the threat of climate change brings about new laws that....”
“Denies the fact that the 2020 election was the most secure...”
Yes the Trump trials were scheduled from the day he was elected to the office the stench of democrats always lingers.
No act is to low for them
Vince Foster raps box
And I am starting to think that Cohen gave money to Daniels because they were having an affair. He was most worried about his wife finding out about it.
It would be extremely funny if Daniels came into court and testified to that.
They don’t need any real evidence to railroad Trump in NY city. They’re just going to play to the Trump haters on the jury. These whole get Trump tactics are wrong on every level.
There was a story a couple of weeks ago that Cohen and Daniels were in fact having an affair and they plotted to extort money out of Trump.................
As for the “facts” that allegedly satisfy the elements of the statutes cited in the indictment, take at look at the “Statement of Facts” in this case
https://manhattanda.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/04/2023-04-04-SOF.pdf
After reviewing the Indictment and the Statement of Facts, it appears that the prosecution's case is both legally and substantively untenable. Keep in mind that the Statement of Facts is generally the bare minimum needed to satisfy the elements of the salient statutes. However here, the bare minimum is not enough to satisfy due process- the State must have both a legal and factual basis for its claims against the defendant.
I hope that helps. Cheers!
All the lawfare cases depend on low information biased jurors.
You notice his first concern was about HIS wife finding out.
I worked in corporate for a long time and as the accountant and auditor I knew many personal secrets. When you know where the money goes you know just about everything. I never cared if my husband knew about the peccadilloes of my bosses. I did not talk about them because it was private but if he had found out about it I would not have cared.
So either his wife has the biggest mouth east of the Mississippi or there was some other reason why his first goal was to keep his wife in the dark about this one thing.
NYC is a really small town......................
This has been known from the beginning. Only Cohen and Daniels signed the agreement. And when Daniels realized there could be a problem with the fact that Trump’s signature wasn’t on the agreement, she sued to have the agreement voided, and lost the case.
But still you normally would have phrased that worry as "We did not want Melania to find out so I kept it from my wife."
Primary goal, keep Melania from finding out.
Way to help reach primary goal, keep wife from finding out.
But that was not the way he put it. And as a lawyer he is quite precise in how he would phrase things. Specificity!
It does all fit. But I am not the second coming of Miss Marple. I may be totally off base.
If it was known, then how can Bragg even show he has a case to present?................
His wife and Melania could be ‘friends’ on Facebook!.............
Ask Avenatti. He was her lawyer for that case.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.