Can anyone explain the crime Trump did?

originally posted by: budzprime69
a reply to: JinMI

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

And what is your evidence of that?

Especially since it is in testimony that he did this activity before running and allegedly paid after he was already president?

originally posted by: Flyingclaydisk
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'?

I am just Over All the Propagandist Lies the Criminal Leftist Biden Administration has been Pumping Out to a Gullible Public since this Feeble Demented Minded Moron Ahass Clown took Supreme Power in America's SACRED Office ! I Pray Every Night to the Supreme Creator of Our Universe that this Muttafooker WILL be Held Responsable for his Part in Destroying the Personal Freedoms this Country Bestowed on ALL Of US . ..............Geez , WTF .I haven't been this Pissed in Years...............Oh , and it Kinda Feels GREAT !



Paybacks are a Bee Otch , Long Time Comin' ...........

Trump was charged with '34 Counts' .

Understanding that is the first step to unlocking the 'lawfare' nature of this Democrat Ploy.

11 Counts are invoices sent from Michael Cohen to Trump's Business for legal services rendered.
11 Counts are checks written to Michael Cohen from Trump's Payables Accounts for legal services rendered.
12 Counts are the Journal Entries entered into Trump's Business Ledgers accounting for the checks.

34 Counts. All based on one premise: It was illegal to pay Michael Cohen, an attorney for 'Legal Services' when Cohen was using that money to pay (supposedly) Stormy Daniels as part of a Non-Disclosure Agreement.

Now this single accounting issue is a misdemeanor that should have been past the statute of limitations. The Internal Revenue Service had looked at this issue and did not charge Trump within 5 years.

So the Biden team of Colangelo and Bragg made an assertion in court that Trump had violated Federal Law. They didn't specify what law. The judge in his instructions admitted that and gave the Jury 3 different supposed Federal Law violations, without specifying any particular code or law. If Trump had committed these accounting errors in 2017, perhaps he was interfering with the 2016 election is one example. Another was the Hush Payment to Daniels was 'election interference'. But in no case was there a citation of specific Federal Code.

So there are 3 things to take away from these facts. The first is that this case is going to be overturned sometime in the future by a Federal Court. The second is that the goal of this trial was to smear Trump and waste his time and resources (just like to two faked impeachments during his term, and the 84 phony charges brought against Newt Gingrich (for which he was exonerated - 3 years after the fact). It is Lawfare. The final point that this is clearly Election Interference. And it is being coordinated by the Biden Administration and a pattern that goes back to the Fake story about the laptop and the things done to Trump.

originally posted by: cherokeetroy

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.

to a degree yes that's true, that's why some level of corruption is allowed, recognizing that people will always act in their own interest and that if laws overly restrict those in powerful positions they will act in harmful ways that only benefit them, like using violence or rerouting funds for public works or whatever, so despite the allowances why couldn't he bribe the legal way? is he an idiot or just lazy? to be charged for corruption in the US takes effort or willful disregard of the law, wonder what other laws he broke and got away with in the past, seems like a pattern.

originally posted by: Dandandat3
He was found guilty of paying off a porn star using campaign money - a clear violation of campaign finance law. He should never have defrauded his donners by using campaign money for personal matters, such as keeping past lovers silent.

Which, according to federal law is a misdemeanor and punishable by a fine.

Precedent was set when Hillary did the same thing with the Steele Dossier and Obama did with campaign finances.

originally posted by: DBCowboy
I'm afraid now. I once taped a Cubs game to watch later without the expressed consent of Major League Baseball.

Oh, no! I did the same thing and taped a Cardinals game back in 1982. Plus, I voted for Trump. I'm doomed.

We're (sane people) all doomed!

originally posted by: Dandandat3
He was found guilty of paying off a porn star using campaign money - a clear violation of campaign finance law. He should never have defrauded his donners by using campaign money for personal matters, such as keeping past lovers silent.

Wow.

You got like every aspect of the case wrong.


Just thought you should know, probably would have helped before you established an opinion....

a reply to: namehere

Why put all the focus on Trump? How about we zoom out and start questioning the criminal behavior of everyone in the higher eschelons of authority.

originally posted by: JinMI

originally posted by: Dandandat3
He was found guilty of paying off a porn star using campaign money - a clear violation of campaign finance law. He should never have defrauded his donners by using campaign money for personal matters, such as keeping past lovers silent.

Wow.

You got like every aspect of the case wrong.


Just thought you should know, probably would have helped before you established an opinion....

It's actually quite scary how much ignorance is out there about this case.
You are right - that guy literally got eveything about the case wrong.
This is why censorshop and control of information is so important to radicals.

This is why no one knows the real charges.

Cohen and Trump, 77, later concocted an illegal scheme to falsify business records to cover up the reimbursement of the payment to the lawyer. During the trial’s closing arguments, prosecutor Joshua Steinglass told the jury that paying to silence Stormy could have “very well” been what “got President Trump elected.”

Link

Really? And you sheep eat it up.

a reply to: Poopele

' So there are 3 things to take away from these facts. The first is that this case is going to be overturned sometime in the future by a Federal Court. The second is that the goal of this trial was to smear Trump and waste his time and resources (just like to two faked impeachments during his term, and the 84 phony charges brought against Newt Gingrich (for which he was exonerated - 3 years after the fact). It is Lawfare. The final point that this is clearly Election Interference. And it is being coordinated by the Biden Administration and a pattern that goes back to the Fake story about the laptop and the things done to Trump."


Correct , and If Mr. Trump Happens to be Fortunate Enough to become Americas Next 47th POTUS , he Will Rain Gods Holy Rain of Righteousness on the Wicked and Rejoice for a Thankful American Populaces Confidence .

originally posted by: matafuchs
This is why no one knows the real charges.

Cohen and Trump, 77, later concocted an illegal scheme to falsify business records to cover up the reimbursement of the payment to the lawyer. During the trial’s closing arguments, prosecutor Joshua Steinglass told the jury that paying to silence Stormy could have “very well” been what “got President Trump elected.”

Link

Really? And you sheep eat it up.

...and here was me thinking that it was Russia that got Trump elected.
I guess it was the payments to Stormy 3 months after the election that did it after all.

a reply to: JinMI

I thought we established, these business transactions were falsified, a misdemeanor.

originally posted by: DBCowboy

originally posted by: Dandandat3
He was found guilty of paying off a porn star using campaign money - a clear violation of campaign finance law. He should never have defrauded his donners by using campaign money for personal matters, such as keeping past lovers silent.

Which, according to federal law is a misdemeanor and punishable by a fine.

Precedent was set when Hillary did the same thing with the Steele Dossier and Obama did with campaign finances.

"A person is guilty of falsifying business
records in the first degree when he commits the crime of falsifying
business records in the second degree, and when his intent to defraud
includes an intent to commit another crime or to aid or conceal the
commission thereof."

that's why its a felony, because the misdemeanor was committed to hide another crime, like fraud, blackmail, bribery, destroying records of a crime, making threats, adultery, etc.

a reply to: namehere

So you just proved the case against Hillary and Obama and Biden!

originally posted by: namehere

originally posted by: DBCowboy

originally posted by: Dandandat3
He was found guilty of paying off a porn star using campaign money - a clear violation of campaign finance law. He should never have defrauded his donners by using campaign money for personal matters, such as keeping past lovers silent.

Which, according to federal law is a misdemeanor and punishable by a fine.

Precedent was set when Hillary did the same thing with the Steele Dossier and Obama did with campaign finances.

"A person is guilty of falsifying business
records in the first degree when he commits the crime of falsifying
business records in the second degree, and when his intent to defraud
includes an intent to commit another crime or to aid or conceal the
commission thereof."

that's why its a felony, because the misdemeanor was committed to hide another crime, like fraud, blackmail, bribery, destroying records of a crime, making threats, adultery, etc.

Thats the problem - there was no other crime.
The jurors were specifically instructed that they didn't even have to agree on what the other crime might have been and all through the trial the prosecution only pointed to the nebulous accusation that it was to influence an election by hiding the payment.
Influencing an election is not a crime.

Campaign finance laws being broken would be a crime - but the payments were already investigated in that respect and no charges were brought.
So, what was the other crime - specifically - that Trump was guilty of?

If they were trying to establish guilt of that other crime in this case, then:
1) why did they not very specifically identify it for the jurors to assess and why were witnesses on campaign finance fraud not allowed to testify?
2) why was a state court trying to establish guilt on an accusation of a Federal offence that Trump had not even been charged with?

Makes no sense - to cover up another crime there has to be another crime.
Not an accusation. Not a suspicion of a crime, but an actual established crime.

Creates the mess or exposes the mess.

Sh!ts crazy.

a reply to: UKTruth

a reply to: network dude

That's because there's no crime.

It's a political smear campaign, showing the lefts desperate attempt to distract the low informed voters.

If the congressional hush fund isn't being investigated, why is a private paid incident that's not even a crime?

There's no crime committed by DJT, other than he cares about America.

The dems obviously hate America.

Any one denying that, is in denial of reality.

a reply to: ADVISOR

The congressional hush fund is well known, which is ironic because based on Trumps case, anyone who used it is now guilty of a felony.

originally posted by: ADVISOR
a reply to: network dude

That's because there's no crime.

It's a political smear campaign, showing the lefts desperate attempt to distract the low informed voters.

If the congressional hush fund isn't being investigated, why is a private paid incident that's not even a crime?

There's no crime committed by DJT, other than he cares about America.

The dems obviously hate America.

Any one denying that, is in denial of reality.

If the jurors decided that there was a knowing false booking keeping entry then that IS a crime - a misdemeanor.
This is exactly what Hillary Clinton did when she falsely entered the creation of the Steele Dossier as a legal expense.
She was fined for it - and there was never any indictment for 'covering up a campaign contribution and committing election fraud'. Just like every other case of incorrect accounting entries has never been turned into 'election fraud'.

That said, for Trump's case - the statute of limitations had long since passed so no indictment should have been brought even for the book keeping entry.

That is what is happening with low information people - they are being fooled by the book keeping entry. It's easier to grasp and the media they consume will make it sound horrendous as opposed to the insignificant issue it really was.

The reality is that the entire case was predicated on the accusation that the book keeping entry was cover up another crime - but that crime was never laid out for the jury to assess and indeed the court never had the jurisdiction to try a campaign finance indictment and the DA never had the remit to indict on a federal campaign crime.

It's the most egregious case of a political sham trial in the history of the USA.
It's absurd on its face.