Can anyone explain the crime Trump did?

originally posted by: network dude

originally posted by: frogs453


This likely won't matter to anyone, but a link was posted in another thread to the full jury instructions. Along with other info, it explicitly states the charges, and the underlying crimes to be considered.

Again, doubtful anyone will read it, but
The pdf can be downloaded here

so you read it, and totally understand it, why not just tell us what the underlying crime is, and then explain what part of paying the lawyer and listing as a legal fee was illegal. Explain it like you understand it, or, option B is admit you just don't know. Notice there is no option C.

They can’t explain anything but they are all smarter than Yale law professors who doesn’t know what crime Trump committed either.

originally posted by: frogs453
a reply to: xuenchen

Yes, but that may be another issue, the FEC General Counsel report stated that in their investigation that Trump did violate the statutes. You'd have to ask Cooksey and Trainor who voted against moving further why they chose to ignore the findings and only focused on Cohen being charged as satisfactory, when the report explicitly stated Trump violated it.

The NY Court has no Federal Jurisdiction and can't use an "assumptive" crime to "cause" another crime. 😃

originally posted by: network dude
I have asked, I have seen others ask. And I have seen many DERP's say, "it's been posted/explained many times", in order to skirt the part where they haven't a clue either. It seems as if all the haters just sucked up whatever toejam the MSM told them, and that's all they need.

I can accept that Trump may have done something wrong with his books. I doubt he makes the journal entries, but explain the crime and we can all see how horrible it is. The problem is, nobody has done that. We had to rely on second hand information with the trial, since there were no cameras (outside) And there has been much talk about the 34 counts of falsifying business records. He was found guilty in a court of law. Knowing that's the case, why is it nobody can explain what was done that was illegal. Did he change numbers on entries? Change dates on entries? Call a payment to his dick fluffer a re-embursable item? There must be an explanation as to what horrible crime he did. It's a #ing felony for sh!ts sake. You don't get found guilty of a felony, but nobody can say what that felony is. That would be the dumbest thing ever. yet that appears to be what we have here.

So if you are going to link to some court document that you don't understand either, save that. And if you don't know, say that. But if you claim to know, be sure you do, because when you act as if you are "in the know", but can't back that up, you are showing your ignorance to all, and it's ugly.

Not sure why you keep asking this , i and others have answered this over and over..

Falsification of busness documents with intent

Thats the crime times 34

Trump was found guilty by a jury of hie piers

originally posted by: rigel4

originally posted by: network dude
I have asked, I have seen others ask. And I have seen many DERP's say, "it's been posted/explained many times", in order to skirt the part where they haven't a clue either. It seems as if all the haters just sucked up whatever toejam the MSM told them, and that's all they need.

I can accept that Trump may have done something wrong with his books. I doubt he makes the journal entries, but explain the crime and we can all see how horrible it is. The problem is, nobody has done that. We had to rely on second hand information with the trial, since there were no cameras (outside) And there has been much talk about the 34 counts of falsifying business records. He was found guilty in a court of law. Knowing that's the case, why is it nobody can explain what was done that was illegal. Did he change numbers on entries? Change dates on entries? Call a payment to his dick fluffer a re-embursable item? There must be an explanation as to what horrible crime he did. It's a #ing felony for sh!ts sake. You don't get found guilty of a felony, but nobody can say what that felony is. That would be the dumbest thing ever. yet that appears to be what we have here.

So if you are going to link to some court document that you don't understand either, save that. And if you don't know, say that. But if you claim to know, be sure you do, because when you act as if you are "in the know", but can't back that up, you are showing your ignorance to all, and it's ugly.

Not sure why you keep asking this , i and others have answered this over and over..

Falsification of busness documents with intent

Thats the crime times 34

Trump was found guilty by a jury of hie piers

Are you a lawyer? Or a judge?

Go back and read the OP of the Yale law professor thread.

You guys are nauseating.

originally posted by: RazorV66

originally posted by: rigel4

originally posted by: network dude
I have asked, I have seen others ask. And I have seen many DERP's say, "it's been posted/explained many times", in order to skirt the part where they haven't a clue either. It seems as if all the haters just sucked up whatever toejam the MSM told them, and that's all they need.

I can accept that Trump may have done something wrong with his books. I doubt he makes the journal entries, but explain the crime and we can all see how horrible it is. The problem is, nobody has done that. We had to rely on second hand information with the trial, since there were no cameras (outside) And there has been much talk about the 34 counts of falsifying business records. He was found guilty in a court of law. Knowing that's the case, why is it nobody can explain what was done that was illegal. Did he change numbers on entries? Change dates on entries? Call a payment to his dick fluffer a re-embursable item? There must be an explanation as to what horrible crime he did. It's a #ing felony for sh!ts sake. You don't get found guilty of a felony, but nobody can say what that felony is. That would be the dumbest thing ever. yet that appears to be what we have here.

So if you are going to link to some court document that you don't understand either, save that. And if you don't know, say that. But if you claim to know, be sure you do, because when you act as if you are "in the know", but can't back that up, you are showing your ignorance to all, and it's ugly.

Not sure why you keep asking this , i and others have answered this over and over..

Falsification of busness documents with intent

Thats the crime times 34

Trump was found guilty by a jury of hie piers

Are you a lawyer? Or a judge?

Go back and read the OP of the Yale law professor thread.

You guys are nauseating.

That was my gag on you MAGA nutters deny deny deny deny

a reply to: rigel4

" Falsification of busness documents with intent

Thats the crime times 34 "

Was Evidence for that ' alleged " Crime presented to the Court during Mr. Trump's Trial ? Was his Counsel given Documents supporting that Claim BEFORE the Verdict was reached by the Jury that Oh by the way , Only took 9 and a Half Hours to Find him Guilty on ALL 34 Counts ? ,,,,,,,Ah ,........NO .

originally posted by: Zanti Misfit
a reply to: rigel4

" Falsification of busness documents with intent

Thats the crime times 34 "

Was Evidence for that ' alleged " Crime presented to the Court during Mr. Trump's Trial ? Was his Counsel given Documents supporting that Claim BEFORE the Verdict was reached by the Jury that Oh by the way , Only took 9 and a Half Hours to Find him Guilty on ALL 34 Counts ? ,,,,,,,Ah ,........NO .

Yes to all

originally posted by: rigel4

originally posted by: Zanti Misfit
a reply to: rigel4

" Falsification of busness documents with intent

Thats the crime times 34 "

Was Evidence for that ' alleged " Crime presented to the Court during Mr. Trump's Trial ? Was his Counsel given Documents supporting that Claim BEFORE the Verdict was reached by the Jury that Oh by the way , Only took 9 and a Half Hours to Find him Guilty on ALL 34 Counts ? ,,,,,,,Ah ,........NO .

Yes to all

Ah , Yeah , then that Explains it ............!

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: frogs453


This likely won't matter to anyone, but a link was posted in another thread to the full jury instructions. Along with other info, it explicitly states the charges, and the underlying crimes to be considered.

Again, doubtful anyone will read it, but
The pdf can be downloaded here

They won’t care. It’s not what they want to hear.

Trump is a “victim” of bad justice. We have to wait for the “truth” to come out.

According to Trumpers.

It’s a tactic used by flat earthers all the time. Evoke some study or something. But never actual cite and quote from it. Try to give credence to there belief by acting like there is something official, but it’s just a document of technobabble. (or gThe person that posted the link has posted large posts. But couldn’t take the time to quote and cite what would actual answers the questions . (Add or hoe Fauci came up with his covid restrictions like six feet apart.) How was paying to obtain a NDA not a legal fee, what accounting codes do politicians use when they obtain a NDA, what is this other crime, what was this other crime the jury unanimously agreed on. And the obvious that it was a constitutional violation not to clearly state what this second crime was at the start of the trial.

a reply to: Annee

Kinda like when everyone know that Trump Russian Collusion was a lie except the biggest retards. But people clung to the Mueller report and “you haven’t read it.”

This Trump conviction is like if the Trump Russian Collusion was bound to a smaller and corrupt legal system.

originally posted by: rigel4

originally posted by: network dude
I have asked, I have seen others ask. And I have seen many DERP's say, "it's been posted/explained many times", in order to skirt the part where they haven't a clue either. It seems as if all the haters just sucked up whatever toejam the MSM told them, and that's all they need.

I can accept that Trump may have done something wrong with his books. I doubt he makes the journal entries, but explain the crime and we can all see how horrible it is. The problem is, nobody has done that. We had to rely on second hand information with the trial, since there were no cameras (outside) And there has been much talk about the 34 counts of falsifying business records. He was found guilty in a court of law. Knowing that's the case, why is it nobody can explain what was done that was illegal. Did he change numbers on entries? Change dates on entries? Call a payment to his dick fluffer a re-embursable item? There must be an explanation as to what horrible crime he did. It's a #ing felony for sh!ts sake. You don't get found guilty of a felony, but nobody can say what that felony is. That would be the dumbest thing ever. yet that appears to be what we have here.

So if you are going to link to some court document that you don't understand either, save that. And if you don't know, say that. But if you claim to know, be sure you do, because when you act as if you are "in the know", but can't back that up, you are showing your ignorance to all, and it's ugly.

Not sure why you keep asking this , i and others have answered this over and over..

Falsification of busness documents with intent

Thats the crime times 34

Trump was found guilty by a jury of hie piers

I am aware of the charges. The part that I don't understand is what he actually did that was illegal. I only ask, as there are other people out there, who may one day run for office, and if they don't know the rules, they could make the same mistakes.

So these are the things Trump did, of them, which is illegal and why?

Porked a whore.
Paid the whore to STFU.
Paid the lawyer who got the NDA signed, and initially paid for the whore to STFU.
Ran for office
won
paid the money from his own account and not the campaign.

Now porking a whore with a horse face should be a crime, but I ask, as I just don't know the statute on that one, or any others.

See, lots of folks just don't understand this, and sadly, the smug democrats continue to act as if it's all been explained, yet none of them can explain it either. Much like you did here. So I ask, that someone explain it, or at the very least, say you don't get it either. But to pretend you know, and not know, well, I think we all know how that looks.

a reply to: network dude

For anyone not understanding your position here, if you'll allow, I'll spell it out.

We know that there are 3 crimes that the judge offered as the underlying crime.

Problem is that there was no evidence to those crimes but there were allegations and accusations including statements of fact to those in the prosecutions closing statements.

When trying to defend this massive set of allegations on their own, the defense was not able to muster even a feable defense because up until jury instructions, they were not readily known.

Now that the trial is over, guilty verdict in the judges hand. We still do not know what those underlying charges are. This presents one massive problem.

If the defense doesn't know the crime, how can they appeal?

I suspect that your question and related concern are too "high brow" for the ones cheering this case on as their trophy and scalp.

a reply to: frogs453

Read through the document. How is accurately recording and listing and paying a lawyer that obtained a NDA with there being a history of Trump and other people running for office obtaining NDAs with the Trump organization listing the invoice as a legal fee have any intent by Trump to defraud who?

What the below even mean?

The people’s third theory of unlawful means

static01.nyt.com...

Can you specify name the second crime.

And how is listing reimbursing a lawyer that obtained an NDA as a legal fee a crime in its self?

a reply to: JinMI

I honestly think the disconnect is with the ability to understand this. We (common sense folks) don't understand and are asking that those who do understand this explain it so we do. I (all by myself) think that this is a scam, the entire trial was a scam, and the jury's verdict was a scam based on the instructions, venue, and charges being so convoluted.

The part where this is a past president who is running for president now only adds to the lunacy.

But when these folks who act smug and sure of themselves are backed into a corner, we see the same answers.
"It's already been explained" which sounds much like "that's already been debunked", and when asked for a link to said explanation, you get crickets, yet that same poster, posts the same stuff in other threads.

I'd hold out hope that everyone sees that for exactly what it is, but where I'm really concerned, is that these people have been mildly rational in the past, some, but not all. So how does a rational person claim to know all the answers, yet cannot give them to anyone, in any format, and still think they are credible? They aren't.

I'm tired be being lied to by DERP's. A larger part of me than I care to admit, wants them to get everything they want, so when it all comes smashing down, I can at the very least point to them and laugh as they come to the epiphany that they brought this on themselves. The bad part is, that same crumbling façade will come down on me.

Why can we not have a logical reasonable debate anymore?

a reply to: network dude

Why can't we have rational discussions with people on the other side or merely agree?

Because they think they are better than you. They think because someone happens to like Trump or his policies that they've the moral authority and high ground. Of course this rarely bears out in discussion and debate thus why bother ceding ground?

a reply to: Zanti Misfit

Was Evidence for that ' alleged " Crime presented to the Court during Mr. Trump's Trial ?

Really? Were you, like Mr Trump, sleeping during the prosecution's presentations? I mean, I know we weren't in the courtroom, because cameras weren't allowed, but the media parroted everything that was said in real time, plus did recaps of all the evidence presented, over and over during the primetime shows.

Here a few hints: David Pecker, Hope Hicks and let's not forget, "Unindicted Co=conspirator Individual Number One"!

originally posted by: rigel4

Falsification of busness documents with intent

What part was falsified and what was the intent? What was the crime to make it a felony and not a misdemeanor? 550 posts and no one can answer any of that?

a reply to: Sookiechacha

They all said Trump didn't know.

Cohen was the only one to speak on his actions, even he said he acted alone.

There was zero proof of mens rea. Let alone an act.

a reply to: JinMI

They all said Trump didn't know.

What? Who all said Trump didn't know what?

There was zero proof of mens rea. Let alone an act.

Well, the jury heard the testimony, saw the evidence and did find Mens rea, and actus reus!

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
Well, the jury heard the testimony, saw the evidence and did find Mens rea, and actus reus!

The jury knew what they were going to vote (guilty) before they even stepped foot in the court room ... so they heard and saw exactly what they wanted, not what was actually there. Otherwise, they would have all said 'not guilty', and they would have been pissed at NYC for making them be on a jury to waste their time over a misdemeanor that was past the statute of limitations.