Can anyone explain the crime Trump did?

a reply to: JinMI

not until the DOJ is cleared out and real leadership is restored.

agenda 2025.

a reply to: network dude

I'll believe it when I see it

originally posted by: ByeByeAmericanPie
a reply to: network dude


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…

So the NDA itself was created for purpose of 'criminal intent to manipulate campaign/election' and not for Trump to save Face concerning 'escort services' rendered to him ? ... evil and salacious, on both side of the coin

insight on how leftist democrats reason....non-disclosure agreements, especially stormy-Trump NDA needs to be made public tto discover any conspiracy/criminal intent behind its' creation...or else the 'Thought Police' are in charge in NY

page 9 post touches on that aspect

a reply to: JinMI

I care only about the lost, beliefs in demi-gods who flat out profess evil, both old farts....
I am here to be the thorn in everyone elses side...TO MAKE YOU SEE.

This is the very end times prophecy that a great orator will deceive the people, and they will blindly follow him like lemming off the cliff. Then, he will reveal himself and it will be too late. And will be rich and grow up privileged and come from outside the political left-field.

Sound familiar w anyone we know? And MY actions don't match? Wake up. I got coffee.....

Peace anywho my brother....🫡

a reply to: ByeByeAmericanPie

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.

So what about all those payments to big tech and the media to cover up the Hunter Laptop in the lead up to the last election? How many millions did that one cost?

a reply to: kwaka

One felony....creates another x 34

a reply to: mysterioustranger

I'm not self absorbed enough to believe that the book of Revelation pertained to US politics in 2024.

Although I can appreciate the message it sends, to see it as prophecy would be you yourself directly contradicting The Bible.

My opinion is that your irrational hatred runs so deep that in order to justify it, you need to stretch a mere man to a tenet of your faith.


And that is the most disturbing action anyone can take. How many examples of history would you require to affirm my assertion?

originally posted by: mysterioustranger
a reply to: JinMI

I care only about the lost, beliefs in demi-gods who flat out profess evil, both old farts....
I am here to be the thorn in everyone elses side...TO MAKE YOU SEE.

This is the very end times prophecy that a great orator will deceive the people, and they will blindly follow him like lemming off the cliff. Then, he will reveal himself and it will be too late. And will be rich and grow up privileged and come from outside the political left-field.

Sound familiar w anyone we know? And MY actions don't match? Wake up. I got coffee.....

Peace anywho my brother....🫡

This is not biblical.
History is littered with tryrannical regimes who seize power over a country through it's political process and institutions.
The same is happening in the USA.
As for being too late - it's already too late.
The moment a regime is able to move their agenda to show trials of political opponents, including civilians, it's reached a stage which is basically irrecoverable.
The USA is going to have to live through what is coming before eventually coming out the other side.
Sanity prevails in the end, but history shows us that people have to suffer a LOT before they take a stand - and in every case in history there are those that cheer the tyranny on and even participate until they too realise what has happened and are directly affected by it.

Basically what I tried to post earlier is that campaign finance laws are there to hold politicians to a higher standard.

And the jury has ruled they were broken.

There is no way that all jurors were liberal and none conservative, IMO.

And looks like all the Trump boot lickers just can’t let it go, and Trump can’t admit defeat.

Also it looks like Biden in no way is trying keep his opponent off the ballot.

Hunter Biden trial starts next week. Lying about not being a drug user to get a gun.

a reply to: ByeByeAmericanPie

There was no criminal complaint, allegation nor charge of election violations.

No witness to it.

No expert testimony

originally posted by: ByeByeAmericanPie
Basically what I tried to post earlier is that campaign finance laws are there to hold politicians to a higher standard.

And the jury has ruled they were broken.

There is no way that all jurors were liberal and none conservative, IMO.

And looks like all the Trump boot lickers just can’t let it go, and Trump can’t admit defeat.

Also it looks like Biden in no way is trying keep his opponent off the ballot.

Hunter Biden trial starts next week. Lying about not being a drug user to get a gun.

These payments were already investigated by the FEC and they ruled that they did not violate any campaign laws - voting to not prosecute.
In other words - the people responsiblee for applying the 'higher standards' already assessed it.

It doesn't matter which way you cut it, there was simply no election finance crime at all.
No charge and no conviction.

Therefore, the jury were actually deliberating on a campaign violation the court had no business assessing and the entire case was bogus because there was no other crime in the first place to link to the bookkeeping charges.
The actual charge was no different to taking a bookkeeping error and bootstrapping it to a newspaper accusation/report of a crime instead of an actual crime.

Do you understand how dangerous that is and how it makes a mockery of the justice system?
Basically - we think you might have committed another crim so we're going to bootstrap that thought to a bookkeeping misdemeanor to turn into a felony. If you support that then you really are lost on this issue.

It's even worse too - the judge specifically disallowed the defense witness on Campaign Finance law to explain this to the jury.

a reply to: JinMI

The evidence presented was clear enough for the jury to say otherwise.

Hush money paid to save face for election.

Maybe there were jurors who like Trump, but they admitted defeat when they could not refute the evidence.

originally posted by: ByeByeAmericanPie
a reply to: JinMI

The evidence presented was clear enough for the jury to say otherwise.

Hush money paid to save face for election.

Maybe there were jurors who like Trump, but they admitted defeat when they could not refute the evidence.

Was it?

Ok, then what was the underlying crime then? You claim some election stuff. The FEC already declined to prosecute over this.

Even the witness was not permitted by the judge.

Try again?

originally posted by: ByeByeAmericanPie
a reply to: JinMI

The evidence presented was clear enough for the jury to say otherwise.

Hush money paid to save face for election.

Maybe there were jurors who like Trump, but they admitted defeat when they could not refute the evidence.

Hush money paid to save face in an election is not a crime.
Paying hush money is not a crime.

The issue was the bookkeeping violation - but that is just a misdemeanor and the statute of limitations had long since passed.
The 'saving face' part would have to be accompanied by a specific campaign finance law violation - and there was none.

Your arguments sound like emotional ones and are not in any way connected to the law.

a reply to: UKTruth

Like I said, higher standards for politicians running for office.

Misdemeanors become felonies when they violate campaign finance laws.

a reply to: JinMI

The FEC General Counsel did recommend further investigation. It was scuttled by 3 GOP commissioners who never once mentioned the finding that Trump violated campaign finance laws. They spoke only about Cohen's participation.

The witness was also allowed. With the scope of testimony to be the basics of the FEC and definitions of the law. What would not be allowed was anything beyond that scope. Blanche chose not to call him. Along with the "5 or 6" other witnesses that Trump is now claiming could have exonerated him. As well as calling Trump himself who said he would "absolutely" testify before the trial started.

When the defense team barely gives you any offset to the prosecution evidence, what is the jury supposed to do?