Can anyone explain the crime Trump did?

I think this sums it up;

Closing arguments:
"During the marathon argument, we finally heard the prosecution’s case in full against Trump, and it is even more outrageous than we knew. There is a reason Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg was playing cutesy with us on what this case was built upon from the moment he indicted the former president. We heard that reason for the first time during the closing arguments in this trial.

Let me remind you what we heard from Bragg right after he indicted Trump last March. He came out and said, ‘I’m indicting him for falsification of business records.’ People said, ‘That’s a misdemeanor and that statute of limitations has expired. How can you bring that?’ He said, ‘Well, it becomes a felony with a longer statute of limitations if it was done in falsification to cover up an underlying crime.’ Then the press asked the question we all had on our minds: ‘What was the underlying crime? What was he trying to cover up?’

Bragg’s response at the time? “The indictment doesn’t specify it because the law does not so require.” Basically, he doesn’t have to tell you.

So, it wasn’t until closing arguments yesterday when the defense attorney had already sat down – because under New York law, unlike in most places, the defense has to go first and the prosecution goes second – that we finally learned what the underlying crime was.

The Big Reveal
While Steinglass got up there and still cast a wide net by saying it could have been a tax violation or it could have been falsification of ‘other records,’ he really hung his hat on the violation of the federal election law known as FECA (short for Federal Election Campaign Act).

That is what the prosecution drove home. That is the principal basis for this entire case. Bragg did not want us to know because that is a federal statute and he does not have the jurisdiction to enforce federal election law.

The federal Department of Justice had already said there is no case here. The Federal Election Commission (FEC) had already said there is no case here. Only Alvin Bragg resurrected this alleged violation as the underlying basis for this entire criminal case."

www.megynkelly.com...

originally posted by: rickymouse

originally posted by: xuenchen

originally posted by: rickymouse
Trump's lawyer should have told him not to hide the money trail in the first place. He was the professional who was supposed to advise his client to do things legally. Trump had ideas when he was president and his presidential legal council told him he could not do things and he didn't do them. But his lawyer he had for years did not say no to Trump so Trump believed he was right with what he was doing.

I put the blame on Cohen, he was supposed to know the law and make sure Trump followed it....that was his responsibility to do it right. He should have quit if Trump wanted him to do something improper.

Then who do they have testify against Trump? The guy who was supposed to be telling him no, you cannot legally do that.

Boy, is our legal system messed up in this country, I think we need to redo the whole legal system and make sure lawyers are not paid to let people get away with doing wrong things. It was Trump's responsibility to get lawyers to make sure things were done correctly, which is what he did do.....go after the lawyers and also any judges who do not follow our laws. WE live in a country where deceivers have all the power now.

Does anybody think if Cohen intended to defraud Trump, he would have done exactly what he did? Isn't it obvious by now? 😃

I wonder how much Cohen is profiting from testifying against Trump? I know many Democrats would give Cohen substantial money for what he did. Maybe they should look at any money transferred to him outside the country.

They are smarter than the average dumbbell. Cash and valuables are hard to trace and prove who's they are. 💥

a reply to: rickymouse

" I wonder how much Cohen is profiting from testifying against Trump? I know many Democrats would give Cohen substantial money for what he did."


Yeah , I hear Cohen just Bought the Biggest Bestest T shirt Printing Machine Made in China . I Wonder what he will do with That Now.......? ..Hmm...

a reply to: Zanti Misfit

That meme is based on an actual (and real) legal principle.

It is known as the "Liar's Paradox". Just FYI.

originally posted by: ElitePlebeian2
I think this sums it up;

Closing arguments:
"During the marathon argument, we finally heard the prosecution’s case in full against Trump, and it is even more outrageous than we knew. There is a reason Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg was playing cutesy with us on what this case was built upon from the moment he indicted the former president. We heard that reason for the first time during the closing arguments in this trial.

Let me remind you what we heard from Bragg right after he indicted Trump last March. He came out and said, ‘I’m indicting him for falsification of business records.’ People said, ‘That’s a misdemeanor and that statute of limitations has expired. How can you bring that?’ He said, ‘Well, it becomes a felony with a longer statute of limitations if it was done in falsification to cover up an underlying crime.’ Then the press asked the question we all had on our minds: ‘What was the underlying crime? What was he trying to cover up?’

Bragg’s response at the time? “The indictment doesn’t specify it because the law does not so require.” Basically, he doesn’t have to tell you.

So, it wasn’t until closing arguments yesterday when the defense attorney had already sat down – because under New York law, unlike in most places, the defense has to go first and the prosecution goes second – that we finally learned what the underlying crime was.

The Big Reveal
While Steinglass got up there and still cast a wide net by saying it could have been a tax violation or it could have been falsification of ‘other records,’ he really hung his hat on the violation of the federal election law known as FECA (short for Federal Election Campaign Act).

That is what the prosecution drove home. That is the principal basis for this entire case. Bragg did not want us to know because that is a federal statute and he does not have the jurisdiction to enforce federal election law.

The federal Department of Justice had already said there is no case here. The Federal Election Commission (FEC) had already said there is no case here. Only Alvin Bragg resurrected this alleged violation as the underlying basis for this entire criminal case."

www.megynkelly.com...

Hmm............In that Case............

originally posted by: Flyingclaydisk
a reply to: Zanti Misfit

That meme is based on an actual (and real) legal principle.

It is known as the "Liar's Paradox". Just FYI.

Which in normal legal recourse is fatal to a case....

a reply to: Zanti Misfit

In that case there shouldnt have been one... but then you look at the state, the district and jury, the judge and the da and you know why it could turn into one.

The judge donated to the biden campaign and an anti Republican/Trump organisation, his daughter collects funds for a leftist organisation. The DA literally ran on get Trump any way possible. The jury was picked from the bluest district in the country and the jury instructions were basically pick something u dont like and together it will count as unanimous.

The trial was indeed unprecedented, but lets add illegal and corrupt to it.

a reply to: ElitePlebeian2

So, as I pointed out earlier, and this further confirms is...the judge basically instructed the jury...

Even if no specific crime has been proven, or even alleged, if the prosecution's arguments even just 'sound' scary and ominous, then it's okay to return a guilty verdict...regardless of any specific crime not having been proven.

And, let's not forget, this is a "Criminal" case, and not just a minor one either, a Felony (not a misdemeanor). So, the burden of proof is..."Proof beyond any shadow of a doubt". In a Civil case, the burden of proof is...'preponderance of evidence'. So, the judge instructed the jury in essence to use the criteria for a Civil trial to determine the innocence or guilt in a Criminal Felony trial.

a reply to: network dude

Can anyone explain the crime Trump did?

Trumps crime is taking on the globalist agenda and elite..

a reply to: Flyingclaydisk

" It is known as the "Liar's Paradox". "


Ah Yeah , and I am Freakin' over that Sheit , but What goes Around.............

a reply to: Zanti Misfit

I guess I am not following your reply. What are you 'over', and what do you mean by 'what goes around'?

originally posted by: purplemer
a reply to: network dude

Can anyone explain the crime Trump did?

Trumps crime is taking on the globalist agenda and elite..

Yes , and he is Either Playing a " Part " in that Or he is Not . A Man Against Many Needs Allies to Prevail in Life , for the Tide Can be Turned at a Specific Point in Time with the Timely Help of Others............. NOW's the Time IMO.....



Our Country Needs " Guidence " Right Now , but We All Know we are all Victims of Circumstance Here.........We have All been Seduced by the Wrong Seduction , No ?

a reply to: Zanti Misfit

He is playing a role. Look at the Executive orders he put in.. Election fraud.. / Continuation of government under military rule..The evidence is there.. The US military shilling 5th gen warfare..

Hope im right.. anyways

originally posted by: purplemer
a reply to: network dude

Can anyone explain the crime Trump did?

Trumps crime is taking on the globalist agenda and elite..

I agree, but I think you left about 4 (erm, 5) words out there...

"...like he promised he would."

I've always been puzzled, but not surprised, by this.

a reply to: network dude

I’m late to the party . I don’t intend to read through 11 pages of commiserating crapola to see if somebody already answered.

Though it’s not a crime to pay someone hush money, it is a crime to falsify business transactions to disguise the payment.

That falsification of business transactions is a misdemeanor.

However, making the payment to cover up the sordid transaction, to save face for the election, violated campaign finance laws, and bumped the offense up to felony.

I think that’s about the jist of it. I look forward to the replies…

originally posted by: ElitePlebeian2
a reply to: Zanti Misfit

In that case there shouldnt have been one... but then you look at the state, the district and jury, the judge and the da and you know why it could turn into one.

The judge donated to the biden campaign and an anti Republican/Trump organisation, his daughter collects funds for a leftist organisation. The DA literally ran on get Trump any way possible. The jury was picked from the bluest district in the country and the jury instructions were basically pick something u dont like and together it will count as unanimous.

The trial was indeed unprecedented, but lets add illegal, corrupt and a disgusting travesty to it.

Look Man , I Don't Know Anything about You Personally , but I Have a SERIOUS PROBLEM with Injustice Rearing it's Ugly Head in my Beloved Country of the United States Of America that I Fortunately was Born into in this World , and I would Literally Fight and Die for the Constitutional Freedoms I Inherited from the Actual Founders of this Country and the Principles they Professed . No Sheit ! If America is Threatened , then I Am . Oh , and I Feel Freakin' Threatened Right Now by the Way with what has Transpired in this last Month . Youz Maybe Got a Problem with that Goomba > ?.......

a reply to: ByeByeAmericanPie

Let's say you're right.

What should a legal NDA being paid through legal council be identified as?

a reply to: JinMI

If the reason for that NDA was to benefit the campaign then it should be marked accordingly.

originally posted by: network dude
I have asked, I have seen others ask. And I have seen many DERP's say, "it's been posted/explained many times", in order to skirt the part where they haven't a clue either. It seems as if all the haters just sucked up whatever toejam the MSM told them, and that's all they need.

I can accept that Trump may have done something wrong with his books. I doubt he makes the journal entries, but explain the crime and we can all see how horrible it is. The problem is, nobody has done that. We had to rely on second hand information with the trial, since there were no cameras (outside) And there has been much talk about the 34 counts of falsifying business records. He was found guilty in a court of law. Knowing that's the case, why is it nobody can explain what was done that was illegal. Did he change numbers on entries? Change dates on entries? Call a payment to his dick fluffer a re-embursable item? There must be an explanation as to what horrible crime he did. It's a #ing felony for sh!ts sake. You don't get found guilty of a felony, but nobody can say what that felony is. That would be the dumbest thing ever. yet that appears to be what we have here.

So if you are going to link to some court document that you don't understand either, save that. And if you don't know, say that. But if you claim to know, be sure you do, because when you act as if you are "in the know", but can't back that up, you are showing your ignorance to all, and it's ugly.

its called blackmail and bribery, you know, corruption.

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,

Can anyone explain the crime Trump did?

Does it even matter? When we live in a world where any behavior can be twisted to fit the definition of a crime while true crimes are conveniently swept under the rug.

People want to believe we have rules. There are no rules. Power is the rule.

Anyone remember this? The 5 bucket reveal of secret information that never happened?



Will the corruption ever be exposed.