Can anyone explain the crime Trump did?

originally posted by: frogs453
a reply to: JinMI

It was not. However Stormi testified that she was approached in 2011 for her story, was paid 15g for an interview but the story never ran. She was never paid by Trump until after the access Hollywood recording got out and there was interest from the National Enquirer for her story before the election. Trump had Cohen pay her off then.

Ah, so paying for the NDA was illegal.

originally posted by: frogs453
a reply to: JinMI

It was not. However Stormi testified that she was approached in 2011 for her story, was paid 15g for an interview but the story never ran. She was never paid by Trump until after the access Hollywood recording got out and there was interest from the National Enquirer for her story before the election. Trump had Cohen pay her off then.

Right, it was not. Therefore it could not play a part in the jurors decision obstencibly (sp).

She's also flip flopped back and forth on weather or not the affair happened. That too was not allowed in.

But what was allowed in was how she was very motivated by money and knew that her story would likely be worth the most in the run up to the election after the Access Hollywood story.

Also, to be clear, she was paid by Cohen. I know, semantics but it is important because it speaks directly to the motives. Not only of legality and lack of mens rea but to Cohens roll in the Trumpishere.

Also, the statement of "Trump had Cohen pay her off" isn't backed up by any evidence. Infact by Trump and Cohens own words, Cohen upon his own initiative took care of it and Trump later found out.

You may not believe that, yet I've seen no evidence to the contrary.

originally posted by: network dude

originally posted by: frogs453
a reply to: JinMI

It was not. However Stormi testified that she was approached in 2011 for her story, was paid 15g for an interview but the story never ran. She was never paid by Trump until after the access Hollywood recording got out and there was interest from the National Enquirer for her story before the election. Trump had Cohen pay her off then.

Ah, so paying for the NDA was illegal.

How times must we go in a circle. Falsifying business records is illegal, made worse by the attempt to conceal a form of funding that may relate to a federal campaign

originally posted by: EndTime

originally posted by: network dude

originally posted by: frogs453
a reply to: JinMI

It was not. However Stormi testified that she was approached in 2011 for her story, was paid 15g for an interview but the story never ran. She was never paid by Trump until after the access Hollywood recording got out and there was interest from the National Enquirer for her story before the election. Trump had Cohen pay her off then.

Ah, so paying for the NDA was illegal.

How times must we go in a circle. Falsifying business records is illegal, made worse by the attempt to conceal a form of funding that may relate to a federal campaign

This is just pure stupidity and it keeps getting repeated.

Falseifying business records is a misdemeanor. In order to make it a felony charge there must be an underlying crime.

That crime is not named. Nor is it in the jury verdict form.

You say campaign issues. Well, that's FEC territory where they had their investigation into the case and exonerated the campaign. The judge did not allow that information or witness into the trial. Yet the prosecution was allowed to allege it in their closing argument without rebuttal.

Stop spreading ignorance.

a reply to: JinMI

Trump certainly could have taken the stand to clear this all up, as he claimed he would. The jury had to rely on the testimony they were given. They requested transcripts of both Pecker and Cohen during deliberations.

I am not privy to what the jury discussed or their final thoughts on the matter beyond the guilty determination.

a reply to: frogs453

A former president being tried in 4 jurisdictions with 90 some charges and pending SCOTUS cases should take the stand?

Hehe.....ok.

If you were in Braggs shoes, would you have charges Trump with 34 felonies as well?

How much time should he get?

originally posted by: EndTime

originally posted by: network dude

originally posted by: frogs453
a reply to: JinMI

It was not. However Stormi testified that she was approached in 2011 for her story, was paid 15g for an interview but the story never ran. She was never paid by Trump until after the access Hollywood recording got out and there was interest from the National Enquirer for her story before the election. Trump had Cohen pay her off then.

Ah, so paying for the NDA was illegal.

How times must we go in a circle. Falsifying business records is illegal, made worse by the attempt to conceal a form of funding that may relate to a federal campaign

OK, so what records were falsified? and how were they "falsified"?
thanks in advance for your knowledgeable answer.

a reply to: network dude

The Trump records were falsified. How?

Because it was Trump who falsified them!


C'mon Duuuuude, how can you argue with that airtight logi

a reply to: JinMI

If you were in Braggs shoes, would you have charges Trump with 34 felonies as well?

...for the same crime no less! Not (34) different crimes, but the same one? AND...with (34) felonies where not even (1) of them is applicable under the law as a 'felony'?

And you are correct; the defense will rarely, if ever, call the defendant to take the stand in their own defense. Not only is it just a bad idea, but it also lets the prosecution get a 2nd crack at the defendant. This allows the prosecution to do two things, one is dismantle the defense's arguments, and two is using the defendant's own testimony to do it.

Plus, Trump is way too volatile to put on the stand anyway; he could, and very likely would, say way more than he should.

a reply to: Flyingclaydisk

There been lots of back and forth over the mundane things.

What Id like to get to is the substance of the OP with any of the folks that agree that this was their definition of justice.

Because at the end of that discussion would provoke the question of how can the defense be expected to defend and argue against the entire penal code as that is essentially what the judge allowed in order to make the prosecutions charges legitimate. And yes I'm using that term in it's loosest sense.

originally posted by: JinMI
a reply to: Flyingclaydisk

There been lots of back and forth over the mundane things.

What Id like to get to is the substance of the OP with any of the folks that agree that this was their definition of justice.

Because at the end of that discussion would provoke the question of how can the defense be expected to defend and argue against the entire penal code as that is essentially what the judge allowed in order to make the prosecutions charges legitimate. And yes I'm using that term in it's loosest sense.

that's just it. Theses idiots don't know the answer, but they have been taught by MSNBC to say "it's already been explained" and try to make you feel stupid for asking. it's just a trick #tards like to play, but when called out, they kind of have to come up with something, or face the fact that they are indeed #tard idiots.

You can see it multiple times in most of these threads.

What was the second crime? "its been posted multiple times", OK, show me where. "I don't have time to do your homework". LOL, it's so comically inept that it provides comedy even before the real comedy starts.

a reply to: network dude

Furthermore I'd like to see if anyone supporting this also supports jail time. There may be a couple few but they've yet come across my screen

I mean they did it. They got him on 34 felony charges. Why are they now so hesitant to put him behind bars. I thought no one was above the law?

a reply to: JinMI

34 felony counts. Guilty of all charges. How does that not equal jail time? He's a threat to the world. Just think, what if he whipped up another NDA? MY GOD! And He's running for president again. Hell, he went to a UFC fight, all to influence his election. if he isn't jailed, he might continue to do things like this to influence his election.

He needs to be put away.

Just that one picture of him in the orange jumpsuit behind bars would be all that's needed to solidify this. Until then, justice has not been served.

a reply to: network dude

Which begs the question.

Why the sudden change of heart and kid gloves?

For years this is exactly what theyve claim to have wanted.

a reply to: JinMI

What Id like to get to is the substance of the OP with any of the folks that agree that this was their definition of justice.

Okay, I'll butt-out, but before I do that, I'd like to summarize a few points:

1. No charges were ever identified against Trump during the trial. There were charges listed in the indictment, but not laid out in the trial.

2. Relevant defense cross-examination testimony was excluded by the judge, and irrelevant prosecution testimony was allowed by the same judge from the same witness (Daniels).

3. Key relevant witnesses for the defense were disallowed / severely restricted by the judge, and irrelevant witnesses were allowed to testify at length for the prosecution (with irrelevant testimony, conjecture and speculation). (Smith, Daniels)

4. The key relevant witness (Smith) for the defense would have addressed campaign finance matters. Bragg's case was built entirely around the fallacy that it was a campaign finance issue which allowed him to elevate the charges from misdemeanor to felony status. Testimony from this expert witness was severely limited by the judge.

5. The defense was forced to issue their closing statements before any charges were announced. Therefore, it was impossible for the defense to formulate proper closing arguments. And, while having the defense close before the prosecution is common in NYC, this is only allowable when the prosecution has clearly laid out charges before the defense's closing arguments.

6. There was no prior conviction, or even trial, of Trump for campaign finance violations. The FEC threw any allegations of the same out.

7. The jury was instructed that they need not find a crime, any crime, to be proven in order to return a guilty verdict. (I have a hard time even writing those words. Like, WTF, really????)

8. Any and all Statute of Limitations for the allegation of misdemeanor crimes had long since expired prior to the indictment being brought. Even though the very notion of even a misdemeanor is laughable, regardless, any Statute of Limitations had expired.

9. A request for change of venue to more neutral ground was denied by the judge (probably should have been item #1, but my points weren't in any particular sequential order anyway).

a reply to: Flyingclaydisk

You're not bothering nor interfering. You're helping elevate the conversation.

Your points illustrate all of what the discussion should be about.

Yet being currently tossed out is everything but.

Well done FCD

a reply to: JinMI

I mean they did it. They got him on 34 felony charges. Why are they now so hesitant to put him behind bars. I thought no one was above the law?

You already know the answer to this question. And, you will never get a straight answer here. But the reality is...because it 'looks bad', and it 'looks vindictive', and it 'looks like revenge' (which it does, it already is, in spades, and it absolutely is, also in spades, but jailing Trump takes it to the next level, and this strips away any veil of 'justice' (completely), and lays bare their true motivations (unbridled revenge politics without regard to anything else) at a time when the democrats desperately cannot afford to lose votes).

This is a classic case of...watch out what you wish for, because your wishes just might come true!

Remember, the blood-thirsty democrats with pure venom in their veins don't live in the real world. Their world is one of fantasy, lies and their own imagination. Jail is real. And the knife of reality cuts both ways.

a reply to: Flyingclaydisk

I'm currently of two minds about it. The smart ones know that not only is turnabout fair play but that the pendulum does swing eventually.

The rest fall into your description.

originally posted by: JinMI

Also, the statement of "Trump had Cohen pay her off" isn't backed up by any evidence. Infact by Trump and Cohens own words, Cohen upon his own initiative took care of it and Trump later found out.

You may not believe that, yet I've seen no evidence to the contrary.

Cohen said in court that he used his own money and didn't tell Trump until later. At the time Trump had no clue and Cohen did it on his own and then stole money from Trump. This was their one and only Star witness.

a reply to: Xtrozero

Exactly.

What did I say?

When is Cohens charges for the admitted grand larceny?