Can anyone explain the crime Trump did?

originally posted by: network dude

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?

Listing the payments as ‘legal fees’ wasn’t even the smoking gun evidence, even though it is actually tax fraud. It was witness testimony, documents and even voice recordings that convinced the Jury Trump deliberately labeled the payments as legal fees to conceal another crime.

There was a document with Weisselbergs own hand writing calculating the payments to Cohen, where it literally said “grossed up to cover taxes”, that’s a smoking gun right there. The defense tried to argue that the document couldn’t prove a crime was committed, because otherwise it would’ve been destroyed… lol.

a reply to: JadedGhost

even though it is actually tax fraud

Got a number on how much tax was defrauded? Do you really think the election commission missed that when going over it years ago?

where it literally said “grossed up to cover taxes”

hmm... What are you trying to say? 'Get Trump'?

a reply to: kwaka

It doesn’t matter if it resulted in paying more taxes, it’s still technically tax fraud. Also Trump had people who kept his name out of this back when Cohen was convicted for his part in it, plus he couldn’t have been charged for it well he was POTUS anyway.

a reply to: JadedGhost

It doesn’t matter if it resulted in paying more taxes, it’s still technically tax fraud.

With that kind of logic, it all makes sense now. Orange man bad.

originally posted by: kwaka
a reply to: JadedGhost

It doesn’t matter if it resulted in paying more taxes, it’s still technically tax fraud.

With that kind of logic, it all makes sense now. Orange man bad.

It’s not my logic bud, it’s just the law.

a reply to: JadedGhost

It’s not my logic bud, it’s just the law.

Smells more like politics from here, not much lawful in how this trial went.

originally posted by: JadedGhost

originally posted by: network dude

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?

Listing the payments as ‘legal fees’ wasn’t even the smoking gun evidence, even though it is actually tax fraud. It was witness testimony, documents and even voice recordings that convinced the Jury Trump deliberately labeled the payments as legal fees to conceal another crime.

There was a document with Weisselbergs own hand writing calculating the payments to Cohen, where it literally said “grossed up to cover taxes”, that’s a smoking gun right there. The defense tried to argue that the document couldn’t prove a crime was committed, because otherwise it would’ve been destroyed… lol.

“Grossed up” to cover Cohen’s taxes, which was his responsibility to file.

Keep running fake victory laps, you guys are only making yourselves dizzy for nothing.

a reply to: RazorV66

Kind of hard to claim book keeping error when there’s documented evidence the payments where grossed up to cover taxes.

btw, bet it’s going to feel kind of weird voting for a person to be in charge of the most powerful military on earth when he himself isn’t even allowed to own a firearm.

a reply to: JadedGhost

Grossed up to cover taxes would imply that there was explicit intentions to follow the law.

Kinda sinks your argument.

a reply to: JadedGhost

Was this “grossed up to cover taxes” thing from Weisselberg one of the underlying "crimes" Trump did? 👁‍🗨

originally posted by: xuenchen
a reply to: JadedGhost

Was this “grossed up to cover taxes” thing from Weisselberg one of the underlying "crimes" Trump did? 👁‍🗨

Yes, it was one of teh three options of potential crimes - that were not - given to the jury.
None of them came with any actual deliberations or examination.
Jury got to pick one of three they thought might apply.

a reply to: xuenchen

It was smoking gun evidence that the ‘legal fees’ label was intentional and not just a book keeping error.

originally posted by: JadedGhost
a reply to: xuenchen

It was smoking gun evidence that the ‘legal fees’ label was intentional and not just a book keeping error.

It was intentional and it is not an error or crime.

originally posted by: JadedGhost
a reply to: RazorV66

Kind of hard to claim book keeping error when there’s documented evidence the payments where grossed up to cover taxes.

btw, bet it’s going to feel kind of weird voting for a person to be in charge of the most powerful military on earth when he himself isn’t even allowed to own a firearm.

When did you take over the title of ATS’s Cracker Jack prize lawyer?

Not as weird as you voting for a clown that sh!ts his pants on the D-Day anniversary.

x.com...

Cry harder

originally posted by: JadedGhost

There was a document with Weisselbergs own hand writing calculating the payments to Cohen, where it literally said “grossed up to cover taxes”, that’s a smoking gun right there. The defense tried to argue that the document couldn’t prove a crime was committed, because otherwise it would’ve been destroyed… lol.

Saving taxes for who? Do you really think that Trump would spend two seconds on taxes due on 125,000 dollars? If Trump was paying the money, then it is not him that would worry about taxes. Cohen in court said he did it all and paid out of his own pocket and then said he stole 60,000 from Trump in the process. Trump's people writing 125,000 lawyer fees is perfectly fine since that is what it was unless you are suggesting everything a lawyer does is broken down into a long list of actuals.

There was no hiding of money on Trump's part, maybe on Daniel's part or Cohen's part, but right there it listed all that Trump paid for anyone to see.

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: JadedGhost
a reply to: xuenchen

It was smoking gun evidence that the ‘legal fees’ label was intentional and not just a book keeping error.

It was intentional and it is not an error or crime.

Why did Trump and his defense team claim it was a book keeping error then?

originally posted by: JadedGhost
a reply to: xuenchen

It was smoking gun evidence that the ‘legal fees’ label was intentional and not just a book keeping error.

Turns out, paying off hookers isn't in the drop down menu.

I wonder if congressional slushhush find is though....

originally posted by: JadedGhost

Kind of hard to claim book keeping error when there’s documented evidence the payments where grossed up to cover taxes.

The error would be in the form of the amount not correct. The amount was correct and paid to his lawyer.. hence lawyer fees. It's like I put down building supplies for 125,000 and you come along and say it is an error because it was actually 125,000 in 2x4s, so go to jail.

originally posted by: JadedGhost

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: JadedGhost
a reply to: xuenchen

It was smoking gun evidence that the ‘legal fees’ label was intentional and not just a book keeping error.

It was intentional and it is not an error or crime.

Why did Trump and his defense team claim it was a book keeping error then?

Because even if the allegations are true, that's what they amount to.

originally posted by: JadedGhost

Why did Trump and his defense team claim it was a book keeping error then?

What was the error? The amount was 100% correct and that is the main point. The Prosecution was saying you didn't label it correctly and so Trump's defense was "OK whatever"...then it is an error in labeling, which is at most an infraction...