A 24 year Navy vet, cancer survivor, father, grandfather, assistant caregiver for my live-in mother-in-law. Enjoys golf, football (real and fantasy), being the best grandfather I can, supporting the endeavors of my children (both involved in the education of our younger generations) and tormenting my wife of 34 years. Also prefer bourbon over scotch, but will drink both, just not at the same time. Discovering craft beers and trying trying hard to get to a consistent golf swing.
View all posts by Adam Green
Published
45 thoughts on “34 FELONY Counts?”
I wonder if any of our fellow forum participants are chagrinned that they repeatedly spread the LIE that Michael Cohen always received $35,000 a month to deal with “nuisance settlements” and paying off Stormy Daniels was just one of those. Probably not. If you are a MAGAT you get used to spreading lies.
Aside from the sheer sleaziness on display, I am struck by the absurd lengths these creeps went to to disguise what they were doing. Why in the world did this supposed multi-billionaire just not write a personal check and call it a gift. I am afraid the answer is obvious stupidity and the desire to squeeze some business expense tax deductions out of the payment.
Here is a direct link to the Statement of Facts . . .
“I’m afraid all this will do is further divide the country.”
You should have thought of that before offering your unconditional support to a deliberately divisive con man and huckster in our highest office. If you actually cared about it. And if you do actually care, you could stop pushing all the racist and homophobic bull that is now the stock-in- trade of the “conservative” movement.
“Bragg has not divulged what that crime would be.”
Yes, he did.
The crimes that sent Cohen to prison and which AMI admitted to while Trump remained an unindicted co-conspirator.
See The Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971, as amended, Title 52, United States Code, Section 30101, et seq., (the “Election Act”), which regulates the influence of money on politics.
RE: “Father evidence that you are NOT a legal expert. You’re not even good at reading.”
Further evidence that you, Mr. Green, run your mouth without knowing what you are talking about. Dr. Tabor is in fact correct that former federal prosecutors have criticized the indictment for making multiple charges from a single occurrence. Read Andrew Mccarthy’s piece at NRO today to see just one example.
…”run your mouth without knowing what you are talking about.”
My comment was directed at his claim that it was the same thing 34 times. The indictment alleges that on 34 different occasions, similar actions were taken by Mr. Trump and his minions n an attempt to cover up wat was done.
It does remind me of the statement concerning Watergate. It wasn’t the crime, it was the coverup.
I can’t understand how intelligent people such as yourself and Dr. Tabor can be so blind to the ACTUAL WORDS used in the indictment and supporting of facts document
And just ss many prosecutors have stated that the multiple charges are accurate.
But you guys and live in your delusional little worlds. You seem quite happy there.
RE: “The indictment alleges that on 34 different occasions, similar actions were taken by Mr. Trump and his minions n an attempt to cover up wat was done.”
Really? Are you so lacking in reading comprehension that you don’t see the different dates when the actions took place? Or is that just to inconvenient for you to realize?
RE: “Are you so lacking in reading comprehension that you don’t see the different dates when the actions took place?”
Are you so lacking in reading comprehension that you don’t know the difference between an invoice, a voucher and a check, or that all three relate to paying off the same debt in installments?
Brit Hume just gave the best analogy for the Democrat’s glee today, and I am embarrassed it didn’t occur to me first.
At the beginning of the Civil War, DC residents drove their carriages out into the countryside to watch the First Battle of Bull Run, expecting great entertainment. They brought picnic baskets and their opera glasses to watch the spectacle.
An hour later they were fleeing for their lives as the retreating Union Troops overran them.
“The indictment says the entries were made in 2017.”
Uh, yes. The federal crime occurred in 2016 when Lawyer A used his personal funds to buy the silence of Woman 2. That was an illegal and felonious campaign contribution. The series of fraudulent invoices in 2017 was the criminal attempt to cover up that 2016 crime.
Now that you have seen the facts, are you ready to appologize to the forum for spreading bullshit about the so-called discretionary nuisance settlement fund? You repeated that particular LIE several times even after the facts were provided to you.
RE: “That was an illegal and felonious campaign contribution.”
Not necessarily. You may be thinking that Trump’s lawyer pleaded guilty to a federal charge, but the charge isn’t named in the indictment and the guilty plea doesn’t mean the charge was proved on the merits.
They show a deliberate and ongoing pattern of fraud and deception. The number of the fraudulent records removes any doubt that this was just some sort of book keeping error. Also, I think it is typical that a prosecutor charge on all possible counts. In normal practice, the long list of charges would be the opening position in a plea bargain.
RE: “They show a deliberate and ongoing pattern of fraud and deception.”
That’s ridiculous.
“The ’34 counts’ arise out of the fact that by agreement, Cohen got reimbursed by sending monthly invoices to Trump or his revocable trust. So for each monthly bill from Cohen, we get three counts of falsifying documents: one for the invoice, one for the ledger entry, and one for the check stub. Pathetic.”
Yes, paying for sex is kind of pathetic. Criminal conspiracies to hide the truth of degeneracy are also pathetic. And what could be more pathetic than stupidly committing 34 crimes?
Seriously, do you think that known and documented crimes should go un-prosecuted? Is that the MAGATS idea of law and order? Maybe when other shady and corrupt business people see that even an ex-President has to pay, they will think twice before committing their next fraud.
RE: “Seriously, do you think that known and documented crimes should go un-prosecuted?”
One of the problems with the indictment is that it doesn’t name the “known and documented” crime on which it is based. So, if one believes in the rule of law and presumptive innocence one is bound to see the indictment as pathetic.
Of course you are. You are also NOT well versed in legal proceedings and your contempt for the idea of your orange-haired hero being indicted just wads your panties like the little right wing snowflake you are.
Shoddy? Seems rather well-documented to actual legal minds that believe the rule of law applies no matter who you are.
The point, of course, is that there are actual legal minds that don’t agree with you, which matters in case you are trying to pass yourself off as knowledgable.
I don’t deny that. Unlike you, I understand that people can disagree. In your world, disagreement means there is absolute proof that only YOUR beliefs are accurate.
There are other legal minds that see the positive the indictment as legitimate.
Are you denying that “the rule of law applies no matter who you are”?
The Manhattan office has prosecuted plenty of businessmen who committed financial fraud through cooking the books, fraudulent entries, etc.
Do you think that they should’ve been prosecuted? If so, why not Trump?
My father used to say that those in positions of legislative, judicial, administrative and policing powers in governance should pay double for the same crimes as civilians. Why? First, because the know better. Next, they are charged with enforcing the law. Finally, they erode trust when they act as if above the law.
No reason to expect special treatment for a man because he is very wealthy or used to hold office. Treat him the same as any other would be for fraudulent accounting.
What exactly is inaccurate about my characterizations? I said there were legal scholars and minds who disagree with your “four horsemen of the Trump butt kissing brigade.”
And yet you do indicate by your constant drumbeat that Mr. Trump is above the law.
In case you didn’t notice, the site is VOX who are hardly GOP friendly. There are plenty more sites and law scholars who say the same thing. Just because you don’t like facts doesn’t make anyone else averse to rule of law. In fact THAT is what is being presented against this case. Even CNN last night said the indictment was extremely risky, lowered the bar on charging a president and cheapened the legal process so Biden is now fair game.
As far as Biden being fair game, what exactly is he “fair game” for? Are you on the Tabor Train about the Biden Crime Family? I don’t hear of ANY criminal investigations into Joe. Hunter’s actions have been under investigation by the FBI (which SOMEONE screamed last night should be “defunded” Funny how when BLM was talking about defunding LE, you right wing snowflakes got your panties so wadded you couldn’t pee straight) and have been for a few years. Nothing has come of it yet, but we shall see.
The double standard being pushed by right wingers is astonishing at times. Defund the FBI and DOJ when they did not do the NY investigation? Misplaced rage. Blaming the judicial system for doing its job when it runs afoul of right wing politicians is about as idiotic as you can get. “I wouldn’t have been indicted if the DA hadn’t done his job.”
It addresses the statute of limitations issue. NY State law has a “tolling” feature for defendants who are out of state after the alleged crime. That time does not count towards the statute.
Trump not only left NY for the White House, he moved his official residence to Florida.
The article addresses the other hurdles also. Some have precedence and others do not, but that does not mean they are insurmountable or even a problem.
Finally, Cohen is probably a better witness than critics think. First he has already served his time, so there is no benefit of reduced sentencing for his testimony. Next, there are audio tapes of he and Trump discussing the payoffs. Finally, Trump was not indicted by the feds at the same time as Cohen because his DOJ refused to indict.
I think many are underestimating Bragg. Except Trump, who seems quite nervous.
A good example of why Scott Adams might be correct that it is in the best interests of white people to stop trying to help blacks? They just stab you in the back for no reason but being racists with a tude?
Could your comment be any more racist? A District Attorney, who happens to be a Harvard grad AND Black is doing his job in upholding the laws of HIS state and you call it backstabbing?
Scott Adams cut his own professional throat by taking a BAD Rasmussen Poll and turning into something that is grossly inaccurate.
Tidewater News and Opinion Forum 
I wonder if any of our fellow forum participants are chagrinned that they repeatedly spread the LIE that Michael Cohen always received $35,000 a month to deal with “nuisance settlements” and paying off Stormy Daniels was just one of those. Probably not. If you are a MAGAT you get used to spreading lies.
Aside from the sheer sleaziness on display, I am struck by the absurd lengths these creeps went to to disguise what they were doing. Why in the world did this supposed multi-billionaire just not write a personal check and call it a gift. I am afraid the answer is obvious stupidity and the desire to squeeze some business expense tax deductions out of the payment.
Here is a direct link to the Statement of Facts . . .
https://www.politico.com/f/?id=00000187-4dd5-dfdf-af9f-4dfda6e80000
LikeLiked by 1 person
It appears to be one count 34 times, or at least that’s what former federal prosecutors say.
But if any or all are reduced to misdemeanors, they are moot. The statute of limitations for misdemeanors in NY is 2 years.
Falsification of records is a misdemeanor unless it is to conceal some other crime, and Bragg has not divulged what that crime would be.
I’m afraid all this will do is further divide the country.
LikeLike
“I’m afraid all this will do is further divide the country.”
You should have thought of that before offering your unconditional support to a deliberately divisive con man and huckster in our highest office. If you actually cared about it. And if you do actually care, you could stop pushing all the racist and homophobic bull that is now the stock-in- trade of the “conservative” movement.
LikeLiked by 1 person
“Bragg has not divulged what that crime would be.”
Yes, he did.
The crimes that sent Cohen to prison and which AMI admitted to while Trump remained an unindicted co-conspirator.
See The Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971, as amended, Title 52, United States Code, Section 30101, et seq., (the “Election Act”), which regulates the influence of money on politics.
LikeLiked by 1 person
“It appears to be one count 34 times”…
Father evidence that you are NOT a legal expert. You’re not even good at reading.
34 counts because there were 34 instances of similar activity. If you do it 34 times, there are 34 charges.
LikeLiked by 1 person
RE: “Father evidence that you are NOT a legal expert. You’re not even good at reading.”
Further evidence that you, Mr. Green, run your mouth without knowing what you are talking about. Dr. Tabor is in fact correct that former federal prosecutors have criticized the indictment for making multiple charges from a single occurrence. Read Andrew Mccarthy’s piece at NRO today to see just one example.
LikeLike
…”run your mouth without knowing what you are talking about.”
My comment was directed at his claim that it was the same thing 34 times. The indictment alleges that on 34 different occasions, similar actions were taken by Mr. Trump and his minions n an attempt to cover up wat was done.
It does remind me of the statement concerning Watergate. It wasn’t the crime, it was the coverup.
I can’t understand how intelligent people such as yourself and Dr. Tabor can be so blind to the ACTUAL WORDS used in the indictment and supporting of facts document
And just ss many prosecutors have stated that the multiple charges are accurate.
But you guys and live in your delusional little worlds. You seem quite happy there.
LikeLike
“I can’t understand how intelligent people . . .”
Ah, there’s the rub.
What part of their being Trump supporters do you not understand? 😉
LikeLiked by 1 person
RE: “The indictment alleges that on 34 different occasions, similar actions were taken by Mr. Trump and his minions n an attempt to cover up wat was done.”
No, it doesn’t.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Really? Are you so lacking in reading comprehension that you don’t see the different dates when the actions took place? Or is that just to inconvenient for you to realize?
LikeLiked by 1 person
RE: “Are you so lacking in reading comprehension that you don’t see the different dates when the actions took place?”
Are you so lacking in reading comprehension that you don’t know the difference between an invoice, a voucher and a check, or that all three relate to paying off the same debt in installments?
LikeLike
And when you fraudulently make the same report on 34 different occasions, it is 34 counts of the same offense.
Stick to pushing your pro-Putin, anti-democracy crap. You really have zero understanding of the judicial process.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Brit Hume just gave the best analogy for the Democrat’s glee today, and I am embarrassed it didn’t occur to me first.
At the beginning of the Civil War, DC residents drove their carriages out into the countryside to watch the First Battle of Bull Run, expecting great entertainment. They brought picnic baskets and their opera glasses to watch the spectacle.
An hour later they were fleeing for their lives as the retreating Union Troops overran them.
LikeLike
I have not seen many expressions of glee. More like satisfaction that the law and order principle that no one is above the law has been upheld.
LikeLiked by 1 person
…” the Democrat’s glee today,”
Show me where there is glee form any one in this.
LikeLike
I see a small problem.
Bragg is alleging Trump made the false entries(or approved them) to influence the 2016 election.
The indictment says the entries were made in 2017.
LikeLike
“The indictment says the entries were made in 2017.”
Uh, yes. The federal crime occurred in 2016 when Lawyer A used his personal funds to buy the silence of Woman 2. That was an illegal and felonious campaign contribution. The series of fraudulent invoices in 2017 was the criminal attempt to cover up that 2016 crime.
Now that you have seen the facts, are you ready to appologize to the forum for spreading bullshit about the so-called discretionary nuisance settlement fund? You repeated that particular LIE several times even after the facts were provided to you.
LikeLiked by 1 person
RE: “That was an illegal and felonious campaign contribution.”
Not necessarily. You may be thinking that Trump’s lawyer pleaded guilty to a federal charge, but the charge isn’t named in the indictment and the guilty plea doesn’t mean the charge was proved on the merits.
LikeLike
…” the charge isn’t named in the indictment ”
Flashback to Chen’s indictment for one second. Individual 1. Ring any bells?
LikeLike
Further divide? We have legislators talking secession.
LikeLiked by 2 people
RE: “No comment concerning guilt or innocence. Just amazed by the numbers, really.”
You shouldn’t be. The numbers don’t mean a thing.
LikeLike
“The numbers don’t mean a thing.”
They show a deliberate and ongoing pattern of fraud and deception. The number of the fraudulent records removes any doubt that this was just some sort of book keeping error. Also, I think it is typical that a prosecutor charge on all possible counts. In normal practice, the long list of charges would be the opening position in a plea bargain.
LikeLiked by 1 person
RE: “They show a deliberate and ongoing pattern of fraud and deception.”
That’s ridiculous.
“The ’34 counts’ arise out of the fact that by agreement, Cohen got reimbursed by sending monthly invoices to Trump or his revocable trust. So for each monthly bill from Cohen, we get three counts of falsifying documents: one for the invoice, one for the ledger entry, and one for the check stub. Pathetic.”
https://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2023/04/trump-indictment-as-bad-as-we-thought.php
LikeLike
Pathetic?
Yes, paying for sex is kind of pathetic. Criminal conspiracies to hide the truth of degeneracy are also pathetic. And what could be more pathetic than stupidly committing 34 crimes?
Seriously, do you think that known and documented crimes should go un-prosecuted? Is that the MAGATS idea of law and order? Maybe when other shady and corrupt business people see that even an ex-President has to pay, they will think twice before committing their next fraud.
LikeLiked by 1 person
RE: “Seriously, do you think that known and documented crimes should go un-prosecuted?”
One of the problems with the indictment is that it doesn’t name the “known and documented” crime on which it is based. So, if one believes in the rule of law and presumptive innocence one is bound to see the indictment as pathetic.
LikeLike
Just read a comment that brings an interesting perspective on the indictment.
Weak versus strong, that is legal technicalities, not criminality.
More in depth commentary from which tis was taken
https://tinyurl.com/2pr7s9m8
LikeLike
Based on pre-release reporting, I was amazed that it was 34 FELONY counts.
LikeLike
Based on pre-release reporting, I am amazed that the filing is so shoddy.
LikeLike
Of course you are. You are also NOT well versed in legal proceedings and your contempt for the idea of your orange-haired hero being indicted just wads your panties like the little right wing snowflake you are.
Shoddy? Seems rather well-documented to actual legal minds that believe the rule of law applies no matter who you are.
LikeLiked by 1 person
RE: “Seems rather well-documented to actual legal minds that believe the rule of law applies no matter who you are.”
Is that a fact? Here are some actual legal minds who don’t think so:
LikeLike
Barr – toady who has attempted to redeem himself in Trump’s eyes for not making election fraud charges when there was NO election fraud to charge.
Turley was one of Trump’s Impeachment lawyers and tried to say that the VP COULD overturn the election results.
The other two I really don’t give a rat’s ass about as two of the four have been known to spew questionable legal opinions.
LikeLiked by 1 person
The point, of course, is that there are actual legal minds that don’t agree with you, which matters in case you are trying to pass yourself off as knowledgable.
LikeLike
I don’t deny that. Unlike you, I understand that people can disagree. In your world, disagreement means there is absolute proof that only YOUR beliefs are accurate.
There are other legal minds that see the positive the indictment as legitimate.
LikeLike
Are you denying that “the rule of law applies no matter who you are”?
The Manhattan office has prosecuted plenty of businessmen who committed financial fraud through cooking the books, fraudulent entries, etc.
Do you think that they should’ve been prosecuted? If so, why not Trump?
My father used to say that those in positions of legislative, judicial, administrative and policing powers in governance should pay double for the same crimes as civilians. Why? First, because the know better. Next, they are charged with enforcing the law. Finally, they erode trust when they act as if above the law.
No reason to expect special treatment for a man because he is very wealthy or used to hold office. Treat him the same as any other would be for fraudulent accounting.
LikeLiked by 1 person
“Are you denying that “the rule of law applies no matter who you are”?”
Yes. Duh.
LikeLike
RE: “Are you denying that ‘the rule of law applies no matter who you are’?”
Not at all. I am disputing Mr. Green’s inaccurate characterizations.
LikeLike
What exactly is inaccurate about my characterizations? I said there were legal scholars and minds who disagree with your “four horsemen of the Trump butt kissing brigade.”
And yet you do indicate by your constant drumbeat that Mr. Trump is above the law.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Here is a summary of the stupidity of this case. Spoiler alert, it isn’t even clear if Bragg can legally bring this case because he references federal crimes and the statute of limitations has expired for even felonies.
All dubious at best and clearly nothing but election intereference.
https://www.vox.com/politics/2023/4/4/23648390/trump-indictment-supreme-court-stormy-daniels-manhattan-alvin-bragg
LikeLike
Another voice claiming the rule of law only applies when they want it to.
LikeLiked by 1 person
In case you didn’t notice, the site is VOX who are hardly GOP friendly. There are plenty more sites and law scholars who say the same thing. Just because you don’t like facts doesn’t make anyone else averse to rule of law. In fact THAT is what is being presented against this case. Even CNN last night said the indictment was extremely risky, lowered the bar on charging a president and cheapened the legal process so Biden is now fair game.
LikeLike
I was talking about YOUR voice, not VOX’s.
As far as Biden being fair game, what exactly is he “fair game” for? Are you on the Tabor Train about the Biden Crime Family? I don’t hear of ANY criminal investigations into Joe. Hunter’s actions have been under investigation by the FBI (which SOMEONE screamed last night should be “defunded” Funny how when BLM was talking about defunding LE, you right wing snowflakes got your panties so wadded you couldn’t pee straight) and have been for a few years. Nothing has come of it yet, but we shall see.
The double standard being pushed by right wingers is astonishing at times. Defund the FBI and DOJ when they did not do the NY investigation? Misplaced rage. Blaming the judicial system for doing its job when it runs afoul of right wing politicians is about as idiotic as you can get. “I wouldn’t have been indicted if the DA hadn’t done his job.”
LikeLiked by 1 person
Another take on the strengths and challenges of the Trump case in NY.
https://www.justsecurity.org/85029/trumps-hush-money-is-news-again-heres-why-we-should-care/
It addresses the statute of limitations issue. NY State law has a “tolling” feature for defendants who are out of state after the alleged crime. That time does not count towards the statute.
Trump not only left NY for the White House, he moved his official residence to Florida.
The article addresses the other hurdles also. Some have precedence and others do not, but that does not mean they are insurmountable or even a problem.
Finally, Cohen is probably a better witness than critics think. First he has already served his time, so there is no benefit of reduced sentencing for his testimony. Next, there are audio tapes of he and Trump discussing the payoffs. Finally, Trump was not indicted by the feds at the same time as Cohen because his DOJ refused to indict.
I think many are underestimating Bragg. Except Trump, who seems quite nervous.
LikeLiked by 2 people
“I think many are underestimating Bragg.”
The several folks here who have questioned his legal ability come to mind. Damn those affirmative action Harvard grads. 😇
LikeLiked by 1 person
A good example of why Scott Adams might be correct that it is in the best interests of white people to stop trying to help blacks? They just stab you in the back for no reason but being racists with a tude?
LikeLike
Could your comment be any more racist? A District Attorney, who happens to be a Harvard grad AND Black is doing his job in upholding the laws of HIS state and you call it backstabbing?
Scott Adams cut his own professional throat by taking a BAD Rasmussen Poll and turning into something that is grossly inaccurate.
LikeLiked by 1 person