Can anyone explain the crime Trump did?

a reply to: DBCowboy

So saith the Horde....................*)

originally posted by: DBCowboy
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.

Yes! And now it doesn't even count when it happened because the statute of limitations don't count any more!

originally posted by: UKTruth

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.

We have everything from using other things Trump did in other places and time to outright fantasy being used to explain how this all sticks as a case an works

Well everything but facts that speak to illegality.

a reply to: network dude

I think It went like this.

He had his Consigliori pay off women with resentment against him before they could harm his presidential chances. This is standard for ALL politicians, well almost all. Mistresses come with power all around.

So he did the standard election run up thing, only unlike others he's the one they called it on, because they don't like him, and want him out of politics. Pretty obvious. So it's the finest of fine tooth combs in the HARSHEST letter of the law, and they combed out 34 charges. Every falsified document related was dug up and added to their list.

I think he absolutely did it, he's just the first politician to really get railroaded for it.

a reply to: Station27

The democrats have set precedent.

Brilliant!

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: Station27

The democrats have set precedent.

Brilliant!

Excellent indeed! Now, lets go after the rest that can be lawfully prosecuted am I right? One down, a whole swamp to go.

originally posted by: purplemer
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

I See No " Evidence " of that and I have been Watching Closely . Mr. Trump is a Bad Actor if what you Surmise is True........

originally posted by: EndTime

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: Station27

The democrats have set precedent.

Brilliant!

Excellent indeed! Now, lets go after the rest that can be lawfully prosecuted am I right? One down, a whole swamp to go.

Sparky, I have yet to see any republican with the stones to do so.

Trump did what Vince McMahon did.

Except with pee instead of poop.

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....

Must be the Mandela Effect - In another universe Trump did pay Cohen with campaign money and the New York DA and Judge persecuted him for campaign finance violations for using campaign money to pay off a personal NDA.

originally posted by: JinMI

originally posted by: UKTruth

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.

We have everything from using other things Trump did in other places and time to outright fantasy being used to explain how this all sticks as a case an works

Well everything but facts that speak to illegality.

The fact is that his action or lack thereof turned a nothing into a something because he is a target. The law broken has been displayed many times and it directly tells you or someone else the specific crime. Agree with the law or not, the crime has been layed out just as you would like.
Anymore discussion about what law was broken is a waste of time.

a reply to: budzprime69

" the crime has been layed out just as you would like."


Yet the " Evidence " for that was Never submitted to the Defense . You know Nothing of US Law i see..........hmm..

a reply to: Zanti Misfit

I believe the prosecution only has to disclose evidence that brought up the trial. That is part of discovery process, but evidence gathered after from the already present evidence does not have to be disclosed. I think I got that right so if not please bare with me, I am not legal expert.

a reply to: Zanti Misfit

I may not know much about law, but I know enough to know you don't know what your talking about.

originally posted by: budzprime69
a reply to: Zanti Misfit

I believe the prosecution only has to disclose evidence that brought up the trial. That is part of discovery process, but evidence gathered after from the already present evidence does not have to be disclosed. I think I got that right so if not please bare with me, I am not legal expert.

The Following Video , if you care to View it , explains in detail the Legal Irregularities in Mr, Trump's Trial by the Distinguished Constitutional Lawyer Robert Barnes .


.....





............

originally posted by: network dude

originally posted by: TzarChasm
And according to prosecutors via New York law 17 152, Trump conspired to promote his election by endorsing the Daniels bribe. Obviously using a notorious "fixer" in his organization was incredibly short sighted and he could easily have anticipated this would come back to bite him, but alas.

but that is where my problem lies. The "bribe" was a legal NDA. She had the choice to not take the cash, or to try to extort more from him, but she agreed to that number. She was supposed to not talk about it. She did, so she is guilty of breaking a contract, but unless there is a law against NDA's, where is the crime? that again is my question.

Maybe I missed it but where exactly was this contract? Was it a written contract that Stormy signed? Was the contract signed by Stormys lawyers as well? Was it an online contract that she was just supposed to read over and tick the box that said "agree"? What type of contract was it? Was it a pinky swear? I can't recall anybody talking about a contract before so I'm curious

As far as the crime as I understand it the crime is falsifying business records when the falsifying is intended to defraud, which is a New York state law, which is a misdemeanor. It got bumped up to a felony because the falsifying of the business records was done for another crime. That crime was another New York law that it is illegal for 2 or more people to promote someone for office by illegal means, with the illegal means being falsifying business records.

Basically it all came down to falsifying Stormys payment as "legal expenses" when they could have just wrote in the books "Stormys NDA money"

originally posted by: TheMisguidedAngel

originally posted by: network dude

originally posted by: TzarChasm
And according to prosecutors via New York law 17 152, Trump conspired to promote his election by endorsing the Daniels bribe. Obviously using a notorious "fixer" in his organization was incredibly short sighted and he could easily have anticipated this would come back to bite him, but alas.

but that is where my problem lies. The "bribe" was a legal NDA. She had the choice to not take the cash, or to try to extort more from him, but she agreed to that number. She was supposed to not talk about it. She did, so she is guilty of breaking a contract, but unless there is a law against NDA's, where is the crime? that again is my question.

Maybe I missed it but where exactly was this contract? Was it a written contract that Stormy signed? Was the contract signed by Stormys lawyers as well? Was it an online contract that she was just supposed to read over and tick the box that said "agree"? What type of contract was it? Was it a pinky swear? I can't recall anybody talking about a contract before so I'm curious

As far as the crime as I understand it the crime is falsifying business records when the falsifying is intended to defraud, which is a New York state law, which is a misdemeanor. It got bumped up to a felony because the falsifying of the business records was done for another crime. That crime was another New York law that it is illegal for 2 or more people to promote someone for office by illegal means, with the illegal means being falsifying business records.

Basically it all came down to falsifying Stormys payment as "legal expenses" when they could have just wrote in the books "Stormys NDA money"

And just to add to this "the promoting someone to office" was the silencing of Stormy, so the voting public didn't know Trump cheated on his wife with a Porn Star. That's why Trumps lawyers argued that the the payment wasn't to promote him for office it was to save face with his wife and his family. If the Jury would have believed the payment was just to save face with his wife and family and not for political reasons then it would have only been a misdemeanor for falsifying business records. The jury believed the payment to Stormy (and the falsifying) was done for Trumps political reasons though so that's why it got bumped up to a felony.

a reply to: TheMisguidedAngel

Wow; that's what happened? All this talk about civil war and the end of democracy.... and it's all because they wrote "legal experience" instead of "Stormys NDA money"? What schmucks.

a reply to: Zanti Misfit

If the Constitution was so black & white clear -- there wouldn't be hundreds of Constitutional lawyers.

They all have their opinion -- and they don't always agree.

Guess we'll have to wait and see.

a reply to: Zanti Misfit

I really don't think Trump will respond to this the way that you expect.

Trump has already announced that his plan is to get the economy right again to prove that they were wrong. I don't think (and he is not correct) that he is out for revenge.

the problem is that these tards have been using this lawfare approach since the 1990s. They did it to Newt Gingrich. They did it to Sarah Palin as Gov. of Alaska. Because it never come back on them, they keep doing it.

But I firmly believe that Trump is making deals with the powers that be to just move on and not stomp of these fascists