Can anyone explain the crime Trump did?

originally posted by: WeMustCare
We need more fearless, intelligent fighters like MTG in top-tier GOP ranks!

MAGA GOP "firebrand" Marjorie Taylor-Greene shut down an interviewer today by pointing out that GEORGE FLOYD was a convicted felon, after the interviewer used the newly available "Trump's a convicted felon" wording.

This would make Maxine Waters throw her wig at the TV in anger.
😈

www.westernjournal.com...

Did anybody figure out what manner of crime was committed and what law was used to determine that fact? Aside from NDA and election interference, aka suppressing scandals several months after the actual election was concluded?

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.

Okay but that doesn't explain why checks and invoices apparently were dated AFTER the election was concluded.

On the other hand, it's also argued by the defense that Trump was not aware and did not endorse those payments which was defeated in court by explicit documents describing the transaction.

This all hinges on whether Trump did in fact purposely suppress the story, via NDA and 'catch and kill' tactics, prior to his election in November 2016 because of New York law prohibiting election interference (ignoring how democrats employed the same tactics to protect Biden, exposed in the Twitter files).

originally posted by: Hey19
a reply to: network dude
That is the case.
You're exactly correct.
He wrote the checks and it was listed as a legal expense which was a bookkeeping mistake.

and what should they have been listed as?

a reply to: TzarChasm

Suppose we take it all at face value as true

It can't be a FECA violation if it can be construed as private in any other scenario.

Which was the point of Peckers cross examination of this happening very often.

originally posted by: JinMI
a reply to: TzarChasm

Suppose we take it all at face value as true

It can't be a FECA violation if it can be construed as private in any other scenario.

Which was the point of Peckers cross examination of this happening very often.

This is exactly correct.
FECA regulations are clear.
If a payment would occur outside of a campaign it CAN NOT be classified as a campaign expense.
Trump has paid people and set up NDAs before - when not running for office.
This is what the ex chairman of the FEC was going to testify to in court - and explain why the payment could not possibly be a campaign contribution - but the judge refused to let him.
There is absolutely no crime here at all.
There is not even a misdemeanor because the payment WAS a legal expense.

To give what just happened any legitimacy at all, you either have to have a clear agenda or be just plain dumb.

originally posted by: TzarChasm
Did anybody figure out what manner of crime was committed and what law was used to determine that fact? Aside from NDA and election interference, aka suppressing scandals several months after the actual election was concluded?

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.

Okay but that doesn't explain why checks and invoices apparently were dated AFTER the election was concluded.

On the other hand, it's also argued by the defense that Trump was not aware and did not endorse those payments which was defeated in court by explicit documents describing the transaction.

This all hinges on whether Trump did in fact purposely suppress the story, via NDA and 'catch and kill' tactics, prior to his election in November 2016 because of New York law prohibiting election interference (ignoring how democrats employed the same tactics to protect Biden, exposed in the Twitter files).

It does not come down to whether Trump tried to hide the payments because he was running for office.
There is no legal imperative to disclose NON-Campaign expenditure - it's perfectly legal to not do so.
The only expenditure you must declare is campaign expense.

The payment to Stormy Daniels cannot be classified as a campaign expense because it is an expense that would still be incurred if there were no election.

I would encourage people to read this thread - by Brad Smith - the former chairman of the FEC who the judge refused to let testify.

x.com...

originally posted by: network dude

originally posted by: Hey19
a reply to: network dude
That is the case.
You're exactly correct.
He wrote the checks and it was listed as a legal expense which was a bookkeeping mistake.

and what should they have been listed as?

Here, I spelled it out for everyone back on Page 9

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Trump's journal entry should have read as follows:

"ATTENTION! ATTENTION!! LOOK HERE!! FELONIOUS AND ILLEGAL CAMPAIGN FINANCE EXPENSES PAID TO SOME HOOKER WITH MY OWN MONEY, AND I SHOULD BE ENDLESSLY HARASSED, WRONGLY TRIED AND WRONGLY CONVICTED OF IN A COMPLETELY BIASED COURT OF LAW, WITH A CORRUPT JUDGE AND A MISINFORMED, BIASED, JURY.---ATTENTION!! ATTENTION!!

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: TzarChasm
Did anybody figure out what manner of crime was committed and what law was used to determine that fact? Aside from NDA and election interference, aka suppressing scandals several months after the actual election was concluded?

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.

Okay but that doesn't explain why checks and invoices apparently were dated AFTER the election was concluded.

On the other hand, it's also argued by the defense that Trump was not aware and did not endorse those payments which was defeated in court by explicit documents describing the transaction.

This all hinges on whether Trump did in fact purposely suppress the story, via NDA and 'catch and kill' tactics, prior to his election in November 2016 because of New York law prohibiting election interference (ignoring how democrats employed the same tactics to protect Biden, exposed in the Twitter files).

It does not come down to whether Trump tried to hide the payments because he was running for office.
There is no legal imperative to disclose NON-Campaign expenditure - it's perfectly legal to not do so.
The only expenditure you must declare is campaign expense.

The payment to Stormy Daniels cannot be classified as a campaign expense because it is an expense that would still be incurred if there were no election.

I would encourage people to read this thread - by Brad Smith - the former chairman of the FEC who the judge refused to let testify.

x.com...

But yet we have Commie Dem supporters here saying that 3 Republicans on the FEC committee killed the investigation for Trump.

More lies from the Commies.

Trump gets railroaded as usual by the hurt feelz Liberals.

About that civil war……….

a reply to: RazorV66

PM4U

So, it's taken 24 pages and still nobody could answer the question in the OP's title?

That says a lot about the whole case. And the people who are approving of it.

originally posted by: Station27
So, it's taken 24 pages and still nobody could answer the question in the OP's title?

That says a lot about the whole case. And the people who are approving of it.

It's been posted gazilliions of times, but no, they can't link to where that happened. And no, they won't be doing your homework for you. This has been totally comical and watching the DERP's try to contort this into anything other than what it is, has been enjoyable. And knowing the internet is forever, perhaps future generations can gain some wisdom from these threads in how not to be.

originally posted by: Station27
So, it's taken 24 pages and still nobody could answer the question in the OP's title?

That says a lot about the whole case. And the people who are approving of it.

originally posted by: Boomer1947

originally posted by: network dude

originally posted by: alldaylong

originally posted by: network dude
a reply to: EndTime

Yes, we have heard that part.

now, when he porked the whore, then Cohen paid the whore to sign the NDA they both agreed to, was that a crime?

if not, then when Trump paid Cohen the invoice he gave Trump and called it a legal expense, was that a crime? If so please explain why.

And for the trifecta, when John Edwards was accused of this, and found not guilty, what was different?

Any action that was carried out on the instruction from Trump., makes Trump culpable.

That's how the law works.

I can agree with that. So what part was illegal? agreeing to have an NDA? Paying the lawyer for making the NDA? You haven't answered that, which is the crux of all this.

You think you are asking a simple question that should have a simple answer, but this case actually has at least 3 moving parts.

The first part was falsifying business records in the second degree. This is NY State Penal Law 175.05(1)

"You are guilty of this subsection if, with the intent to defraud, you make, or even cause through other means, a false entry in an enterprise's business records."

When Trump signed the checks that repaid Cohen (all 34 of them), he entered them in the ledger of the Trump organization as legal fees. That wasn't entirely true and he knew it; that's where the intent to defraud comes in. $130,000 worth of those checks were repayment to Stormy for signing the NDA which, by itself, is perfectly legal. However, that $130,000 was not a legal fee; it's a campaign expense, since it was paid for the purpose of improving Trump's electability in the 2016 election and not for any legal service that Cohen provided while acting in his capacity as a lawyer. Disguising a campaign expense as a legal fee on an official document is where the fraud came in.

The second part is why Trump made the fraudulent entries. This brings us to New York Penal Law Section 17-152 - "Conspiracy to promote or prevent election."

"Any two or more persons who conspire to promote or prevent the election of any person to a public office by unlawful means and which conspiracy is acted upon by one or more of the parties thereto, shall be guilty of a misdemeanor."

It would seem that Trump, Cohen, and perhaps Pecker conspired to promote Trump's election by the unlawful means of creating fraudulent business records.

This brings us to the third part: New York Penal Law 175.10 Falsifying business records in the first degree.

"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.

Falsifying business records in the first degree is a class E felony."

In summary: Trump intentionally falsified business records in the second degree--a misdemeanor. He used this unlawful means for the purpose of promoting his election--a violation of law 17-152--another misdemeanor. Falsifying business records with the intent to commit or conceal another crime (violation of law 17-152) raises falsifying business records to the first degree--a felony.

Boomer answered the question in detail on page 7, yet it was conveniently ignored by the Trump defenders who think they’re experts on NY law.

Fact is, Trump was convicted with quite a complicated law. But just because you’re unable and/or refuse to understand it, doesn’t mean it’s not completely legitimate.

originally posted by: Station27
So, it's taken 24 pages and still nobody could answer the question in the OP's title?

That says a lot about the whole case. And the people who are approving of it.

Well NO.

The OP rejected all answers.

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: Station27
So, it's taken 24 pages and still nobody could answer the question in the OP's title?

That says a lot about the whole case. And the people who are approving of it.

Well NO.

The OP rejected all answers.

They got Dr. Phil on his side, biased or what or twatt?

originally posted by: quintessentone

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: Station27
So, it's taken 24 pages and still nobody could answer the question in the OP's title?

That says a lot about the whole case. And the people who are approving of it.

Well NO.

The OP rejected all answers.

They got Dr. Phil on his side, biased or what or twatt?

Dr. Phil’s an idiot.

One of those people I used to watch.

He has grave concerns for the American family.

We know what kind of people use that line.

a reply to: Annee

Yet. You can’t cite and link to what crime Trump actually committed. All he did was use a NDA to protect his brand like any other person. Like when congress had a slush fund at about the same time where elected politicians where using NDAs to buy people’s silence over actual crimes of harassment with tax payers money…..

originally posted by: Lazy88
a reply to: Annee

Yet. You can’t cite and link to what crime Trump actually committed. All he did was use a NDA to protect his brand like any other person. Like when congress had a slush fund at about the same time where elected politicians where using NDAs to buy people’s silence over actual crimes of harassment with tax payers money…..

ALL rejected by OP

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: quintessentone

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: Station27
So, it's taken 24 pages and still nobody could answer the question in the OP's title?

That says a lot about the whole case. And the people who are approving of it.

Well NO.

The OP rejected all answers.

They got Dr. Phil on his side, biased or what or twatt?

Dr. Phil’s an idiot.

One of those people I used to watch.

He has grave concerns for the American family.

We know what kind of people use that line.

Dr Phil is an idiot?
Trump is an idiot?

No explanation why just feelings.

originally posted by: JadedGhost

originally posted by: Station27
So, it's taken 24 pages and still nobody could answer the question in the OP's title?

That says a lot about the whole case. And the people who are approving of it.

originally posted by: Boomer1947

originally posted by: network dude

originally posted by: alldaylong

originally posted by: network dude
a reply to: EndTime

Yes, we have heard that part.

now, when he porked the whore, then Cohen paid the whore to sign the NDA they both agreed to, was that a crime?

if not, then when Trump paid Cohen the invoice he gave Trump and called it a legal expense, was that a crime? If so please explain why.

And for the trifecta, when John Edwards was accused of this, and found not guilty, what was different?

Any action that was carried out on the instruction from Trump., makes Trump culpable.

That's how the law works.

I can agree with that. So what part was illegal? agreeing to have an NDA? Paying the lawyer for making the NDA? You haven't answered that, which is the crux of all this.

You think you are asking a simple question that should have a simple answer, but this case actually has at least 3 moving parts.

The first part was falsifying business records in the second degree. This is NY State Penal Law 175.05(1)

"You are guilty of this subsection if, with the intent to defraud, you make, or even cause through other means, a false entry in an enterprise's business records."

When Trump signed the checks that repaid Cohen (all 34 of them), he entered them in the ledger of the Trump organization as legal fees. That wasn't entirely true and he knew it; that's where the intent to defraud comes in. $130,000 worth of those checks were repayment to Stormy for signing the NDA which, by itself, is perfectly legal. However, that $130,000 was not a legal fee; it's a campaign expense, since it was paid for the purpose of improving Trump's electability in the 2016 election and not for any legal service that Cohen provided while acting in his capacity as a lawyer. Disguising a campaign expense as a legal fee on an official document is where the fraud came in.

The second part is why Trump made the fraudulent entries. This brings us to New York Penal Law Section 17-152 - "Conspiracy to promote or prevent election."

"Any two or more persons who conspire to promote or prevent the election of any person to a public office by unlawful means and which conspiracy is acted upon by one or more of the parties thereto, shall be guilty of a misdemeanor."

It would seem that Trump, Cohen, and perhaps Pecker conspired to promote Trump's election by the unlawful means of creating fraudulent business records.

This brings us to the third part: New York Penal Law 175.10 Falsifying business records in the first degree.

"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.

Falsifying business records in the first degree is a class E felony."

In summary: Trump intentionally falsified business records in the second degree--a misdemeanor. He used this unlawful means for the purpose of promoting his election--a violation of law 17-152--another misdemeanor. Falsifying business records with the intent to commit or conceal another crime (violation of law 17-152) raises falsifying business records to the first degree--a felony.

Boomer answered the question in detail on page 7, yet it was conveniently ignored by the Trump defenders who think they’re experts on NY law.

Fact is, Trump was convicted with quite a complicated law. But just because you’re unable and/or refuse to understand it, doesn’t mean it’s not completely legitimate.

but the question is, what should the payment have been listed as to avoid this being a horrible crime?

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: Lazy88
a reply to: Annee

Yet. You can’t cite and link to what crime Trump actually committed. All he did was use a NDA to protect his brand like any other person. Like when congress had a slush fund at about the same time where elected politicians where using NDAs to buy people’s silence over actual crimes of harassment with tax payers money…..

ALL rejected by OP

The OP has yet to be told what the underlying crime was.

Paying the whore, using an NDA to silence her, NOT A CRIME. If that's wrong, cite the statute.

So based on what was said, because TRUMP HIMSELF logged into the accounting software, and entered these check into the general ledger account and called the payments to his lawyer, who invoiced him for the work he did, a "legal expense" that was the crime. Again, if that's not what was said, then explain it.

So the parts that need clarifications are, if Trump didn't enter those payments as "legal expenses", but his accounting team did, is Trump still trying to do something wrong?

And more importantly, why is it that everyone seems to fully grasp that Trump is a criminal because of this, nobody seems to have the faintest clue as to what the payment SHOULD have been listed as.

Because of that, it appears this was a poorly constructed joke, and really dumb people are the one's who think it's all good.