Can anyone explain the crime Trump did?

a reply to: UKTruth

I'm not saying it makes perfect sense or that they were justified in prosecuting him. I'm simply answering the question. 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.

originally posted by: network dude

originally posted by: TzarChasm
a reply to: network dude

Trump was charged with 34 counts of falsification of business records in the first degree, which is a felony in New York. He pleaded not guilty when he was arraigned last year.

In 2017, Cohen and Allen Weisselberg, an executive at the Trump Organization, reached an agreement about how Cohen would be repaid for the $130,000 that he sent to Daniels in exchange for her silence. Weisselberg detailed the calculations in handwritten notes that were shown to the jury at trial. 

Cohen would receive $130,000 for the Daniels payment, plus $50,000 intended for a technology company that did unrelated work for Trump. That amount was doubled to account for taxes that Cohen would have to pay on the income. Weisselberg then tacked on an extra $60,000 as a bonus for Cohen, who was upset that his regular year-end award had been cut. The total worked out to $420,000.

Prosecutors said Trump knew the payments were to reimburse Cohen for the Daniels payment, not for his legal expenses.

Under New York law, falsification of business records is a crime when the records are altered with an intent to defraud. To be charged as a felony, prosecutors must also show that the offender intended to "commit another crime" or "aid or conceal" another crime when falsifying records.

In Trump's case, prosecutors said that other crime was a violation of a New York election law that makes it illegal for "any two or more persons" to "conspire to promote or prevent the election of any person to a public office by unlawful means," as Justice Juan Merchan explained in his instructions to the jury.

What exactly those "unlawful means" were in this case was up to the jury to decide. Prosecutors put forth three areas that they could consider: a violation of federal campaign finance laws, falsification of other business records or a violation of tax laws.

www.cbsnews.com...

that explains what we know as fact, but not where the crime is. That is the part I want to know.

An NDA is leagal. paying a whore to not talk with an NDA is legal. Listing the work your lawyer did for you as legal expenses is legal. If any of that is wrong, then that's where my disconect is.

Even if he knew everything that was taking place, as it happened, I just don't see the part that's illegal. THAT is where the issue is for me and apparently many others.

I don't think anyone disagrees with the chain of events. Only where the crime is.

See above.

a reply to: TzarChasm

But shouldn't there be a crime that can be pointed to? Like a statue about not paying for NDA's, or that paying a lawyer and calling it leagal services is against the law? Again, not disputing the events, only the illegal part. I have read the explaination, and if I missed it, just bold the part that expains the crime and I'll have been schooled and stop with this line of inquiry.

a reply to: UKTruth

This adds absolutely nothing of any value to the discussion on the recent events.

Neither does this thread as exemplified by the first line.

That Trump used a metaphor, years ago, to describe his support is not in any way relevant to this case, the charges or the way the trial was conducted.

Trump spoke as he sees it , and on the evidence of the last few years it's probably one of the few things I agree with him on , Trump committed electoral fraud and got caught but because he's Trump he can do no wrong in the eyes of some.

If anything, it just highlights the extremity of the anti-Trump sentiment by some that played a pivotal role in the corruption of the justice system.

I think it exemplifies the corruption of Trump .... Part one.

If there was a report button, I'd be hitting it.

There is , it's the little body under your stats in your avatar panel , feel free to use it.

a reply to: network dude

I can only traslate that to "DERP"

Why doesn't that surprise me.

This case is just another nothing burger in a long list of them for Trump. This one was made with some 7 year old moldy bread and a strongly tossed word salad, no meat. So what is the real crime as these legal assaults' have been going strong from the time he first got into office?

When Trump got Banned of Twitter was one turning point of bad getting worst.

a reply to: gortex

the corruption of Trump. What did he do? Well, he's Trump, he's orange, and he's bad. Therefore, guilty of ......well, just guilty. DERP.

originally posted by: gortex
a reply to: network dude

I can only traslate that to "DERP"

Why doesn't that surprise me.

it shouldn't. You can't answer the question, but continue to act as if you know and those who don't are stupid. LOL, this is the #ing definition of DERP. Maybe don't be a DERP? always an option.

originally posted by: gortex
a reply to: network dude

I have asked, I have seen others ask. And I have seen many DERP's say,

Got that far and stopped , too busy laughing to read on , DERP's you say ....

There is no crime Trump can commit , at least in the eyes of his faithful followers , this we know.

Guessing you know what he did and why he did it but as it's Trump dishonesty gets a free pass , your faith is touching ... misplaced but yeah , touching.

At least he didn't shoot anyone yet.

Come on then smart arse,tell us what the felony was .Think of me as a retard and please explain.

originally posted by: network dude
a reply to: TzarChasm

But shouldn't there be a crime that can be pointed to? Like a statue about not paying for NDA's, or that paying a lawyer and calling it leagal services is against the law? Again, not disputing the events, only the illegal part. I have read the explaination, and if I missed it, just bold the part that expains the crime and I'll have been schooled and stop with this line of inquiry.

As previously quoted:

Prosecutors said Trump knew the payments were to reimburse Cohen for the Daniels payment, not for his legal expenses.

Under New York law, falsification of business records is a crime when the records are altered with an intent to defraud. To be charged as a felony, prosecutors must also show that the offender intended to "commit another crime" or "aid or conceal" another crime when falsifying records.

In Trump's case, prosecutors said that other crime was a violation of a New York election law that makes it illegal for "any two or more persons" to "conspire to promote or prevent the election of any person to a public office by unlawful means,"

Fraud (lying about bribes) and conspiracy (promoting his election via fraud aka bribes).

That's all I got. 🤷

originally posted by: TzarChasm

originally posted by: network dude
a reply to: TzarChasm

But shouldn't there be a crime that can be pointed to? Like a statue about not paying for NDA's, or that paying a lawyer and calling it leagal services is against the law? Again, not disputing the events, only the illegal part. I have read the explaination, and if I missed it, just bold the part that expains the crime and I'll have been schooled and stop with this line of inquiry.

As previously quoted:

Prosecutors said Trump knew the payments were to reimburse Cohen for the Daniels payment, not for his legal expenses.

Under New York law, falsification of business records is a crime when the records are altered with an intent to defraud. To be charged as a felony, prosecutors must also show that the offender intended to "commit another crime" or "aid or conceal" another crime when falsifying records.

In Trump's case, prosecutors said that other crime was a violation of a New York election law that makes it illegal for "any two or more persons" to "conspire to promote or prevent the election of any person to a public office by unlawful means,"

Fraud (lying about money) and conspiracy (promoting his election via fraud).

That's all I got. 🤷

In Trump's case, prosecutors said that other crime was a violation of a New York election law that makes it illegal for "any two or more persons" to "conspire to promote or prevent the election of any person to a public office by unlawful means

What unlawful means to promote Trump in his FEDERAL election in NY were proven?

a reply to: UKTruth

The intent to defraud.

a reply to: network dude

Trump threatened the power of the gang that runs this country.

a reply to: network dude

It's been announced on various media platforms for months. Have you not been listening ?

He was charged and convicted for falsifying business records which is a criminal offence.


nycourts.gov...

originally posted by: TzarChasm
a reply to: UKTruth

The intent to defraud.

For this to be true it would mean that anyone running for federal office who entered an expense as a personal legal expense is committing fraud in to order to influence the promotion of their candidacy in an election - and any state prosecutor can indict them - even if the Federal Elections Committee disagree.

Newsflash - candidates are supposed to be influencing an election. The term 'influencing an election' has become synonymous with crime due to media brainwashing. Not all expense is campaign related. The FEC already determined that paying a sexual accuser is not a campaign expense. In fact, those who use campaign funds to pay off an accuser are likely to get themselves in trouble - ironically for campaign finance fraud.

In this case the judge decided that there was no need for the jury to even agree on HOW Trump was violating election laws.

The above is precisely why the whole case was corrupt.

a reply to: network dude

it shouldn't. You can't answer the question

Except I did in the post above.

Trump committed electoral fraud and got caught

Do try and keep up.

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: TzarChasm
a reply to: UKTruth

The intent to defraud.

For this to be true it would mean that anyone running for federal office who entered an expense as a personal legal expense is committing fraud in to order to influence the promotion of their candidacy in an election - and any state prosecutor can indict them - even if the Federal Elections Committee disagree.

In this case the judge decided that there was no need for the jury to even agree on HOW Trump was violating election laws.

The above is precisely why the whole case was corrupt.

In other words, don't call Saul.

originally posted by: TzarChasm

originally posted by: network dude
a reply to: TzarChasm

But shouldn't there be a crime that can be pointed to? Like a statue about not paying for NDA's, or that paying a lawyer and calling it leagal services is against the law? Again, not disputing the events, only the illegal part. I have read the explaination, and if I missed it, just bold the part that expains the crime and I'll have been schooled and stop with this line of inquiry.

As previously quoted:

Prosecutors said Trump knew the payments were to reimburse Cohen for the Daniels payment, not for his legal expenses.

Under New York law, falsification of business records is a crime when the records are altered with an intent to defraud. To be charged as a felony, prosecutors must also show that the offender intended to "commit another crime" or "aid or conceal" another crime when falsifying records.

In Trump's case, prosecutors said that other crime was a violation of a New York election law that makes it illegal for "any two or more persons" to "conspire to promote or prevent the election of any person to a public office by unlawful means,"

Fraud (lying about bribes) and conspiracy (promoting his election via fraud aka bribes).

That's all I got. 🤷

I appreciate the effort, but it's still abstract to me. And I'm not arguing with you on this, as you are just posting the facts as you see them, but I still just don't see where the illegal part is. Was it paying the whore? was it categorizing the payment as a legal expense? He paid his lawyer who facilitated this transaction. He listed it as legal expense. If there was a drop down for "paying the whore to shut the # up", I might see the point, but since none of that was illegal, I'm just at a loss for what the crime actually is.

And what bribes did he lie about?

originally posted by: TzarChasm

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: TzarChasm
a reply to: UKTruth

The intent to defraud.

For this to be true it would mean that anyone running for federal office who entered an expense as a personal legal expense is committing fraud in to order to influence the promotion of their candidacy in an election - and any state prosecutor can indict them - even if the Federal Elections Committee disagree.

In this case the judge decided that there was no need for the jury to even agree on HOW Trump was violating election laws.

The above is precisely why the whole case was corrupt.

In other words, don't call Saul.

No, in other words - there was no campaign finance fraud committed.
i.e. no 'other crime'.
So much so, it was not only unporven in the case, the prosecutors did not even try to prove it and the judge told the jury not to concern themselves with agreeing how such fraud took place.

originally posted by: gortex
a reply to: network dude

it shouldn't. You can't answer the question

Except I did in the post above.

Trump committed electoral fraud and got caught

Do try and keep up.

and yet you haven't a clue what any of that means. I'm trying to keep up but there is a language barrier.

originally posted by: network dude

originally posted by: TzarChasm

originally posted by: network dude
a reply to: TzarChasm

But shouldn't there be a crime that can be pointed to? Like a statue about not paying for NDA's, or that paying a lawyer and calling it leagal services is against the law? Again, not disputing the events, only the illegal part. I have read the explaination, and if I missed it, just bold the part that expains the crime and I'll have been schooled and stop with this line of inquiry.

As previously quoted:

Prosecutors said Trump knew the payments were to reimburse Cohen for the Daniels payment, not for his legal expenses.

Under New York law, falsification of business records is a crime when the records are altered with an intent to defraud. To be charged as a felony, prosecutors must also show that the offender intended to "commit another crime" or "aid or conceal" another crime when falsifying records.

In Trump's case, prosecutors said that other crime was a violation of a New York election law that makes it illegal for "any two or more persons" to "conspire to promote or prevent the election of any person to a public office by unlawful means,"

Fraud (lying about bribes) and conspiracy (promoting his election via fraud aka bribes).

That's all I got. 🤷

I appreciate the effort, but it's still abstract to me. And I'm not arguing with you on this, as you are just posting the facts as you see them, but I still just don't see where the illegal part is. Was it paying the whore? was it categorizing the payment as a legal expense? He paid his lawyer who facilitated this transaction. He listed it as legal expense. If there was a drop down for "paying the whore to shut the # up", I might see the point, but since none of that was illegal, I'm just at a loss for what the crime actually is.

And what bribes did he lie about?

The biggest irony is that you are absolutely NOT allowed to pay for 'paying off a whore' with campaign funds.
That actually would be fraudulent.


As for the 'bookkeeping error' - i do wonder if anyone can come up with what exactly the category should have been.